Why Won’t Republicans Release the Benghazi Committee’s Interview with Sidney Blumenthal?

Republicans have brought up his name repeatedly but blocked a request to unseal a transcript of his testimony.

<a href=http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Congress-Benghazi/898a8467add642089c9a23412115b149/1/1>Evan Vucci</a>/AP

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

The first session of Hillary Clinton’s testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi was mostly a snoozer Thursday morning, featuring much rehashing of old, minor points about whether Clinton, as secretary of state, received requests for further security at the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, before it was attacked on September 11, 2012. But just before the panel broke for lunch, a tussle erupted between the committee’s ranking member, Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), and chairman, Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.). The subject: Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime Clinton associate who regularly emailed Clinton to pass along advice and intel he had picked up on the situation in Libya. Blumenthal, who served as a senior adviser to Bill Clinton during his presidency, has become an obsession of Republicans eager to drag Clinton through the mud. His name came up more than 40 times during the first half of the hearing.

Gowdy (R-S.C.), who had been peppering Clinton with questions about her correspondence with Blumenthal, was poised to adjourn the hearing for lunch when Cummings objected. He made a seemingly simple request: If Gowdy considered Blumenthal’s messages to Clinton so crucial to the investigation at hand, why not release the transcript of the panel’s behind-closed-doors interview with Blumenthal in June? Blumenthal’s own lawyer has requested that the full transcript be released for public consumption.

Cummings, his voice growing in anger, demanded that the committee vote on unsealing the transcript. But Gowdy disputed whether Cummings had the power to call for such a vote, before abruptly recessing the session. When the committee reconvened 45 minutes later, Gowdy had apparently learned he’d been mistaken. He quietly called for a vote on whether Blumenthal’s transcript should become public. The seven Republicans on the committee quickly voted against the measure. (Kansas Rep. Tom Pompeo, momentarily confused, voted yes before switching his to a no vote), overruling the five Democrats who voted in favor. With that matter resolved, Gowdy returned to his questioning of Clinton and turned once again to the subject of…Blumenthal.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend