Issa Serves Kerry With Subpoena For Benghazi Docs

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) issued a subpoena Tuesday in order to obtain documents related to talking points the administration used in the aftermath of the Benghazi, Libya attacks, which he writes the State Department has refused to provide upon his previous requests.

In his letter to Secretary of State John Kerry, Issa states that the "State Department has not lived up to the Administration’s broad and unambiguous promises of cooperation with Congress. Therefore, I am left with no alternative but to compel the State Department to produce relevant documents through a subpoena."

The subpoena requests that by June 7 "all documents and communications referring or relating to the Benghazi talking points, to or from the following current and former state department personnel:"

1. William Burns, Deputy Secretary of State;
2. Elizabeth Dibble, Principle Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs;
3. Beth Jones, Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs;
4. Patrick Kennedy, Under Secretary for Management;
5. Cheryl Mills, Counselor and Chief of Staff to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton;
6. Thomas Nides, Deputy Secretary for Management;
7. Victoria Nuland, Spokesperson;
8. Philippe Reines, Deputy Assistant Secretary;
9. Jake Sullivan, Director of Policy Planning; and,
10. David Adams, Assistant Secretary for State for Legislative Affairs.

###

Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/issa-serves-kerry-with-subpoena-for-benghazi-docs?ref=fpb

[a kennedy]

1. Enough already......

[SkyDaddy7]

50. EXACTLY!!!

If the media would do their job & stop crying & pouting about the DOJ investigations & the fact Obama does not do everything they want when they want it then maybe they could expose how much money & time this witch hunt has cost the American tax payer!!

[lsewpershad]

56. Not until this clown

Issa goes to jail or kicked out of the congress

[bushisanidiot]

2. Does Issa realize that the entire country is laughing at him at this point?

.

[Aristus]

4. Doesn't matter at this point.

If he finds so much as a comma out of place, he's going to recommend impeachement.

[freshwest]

13. Everyone but Rush, O'Really, Beck and the GOP. That's his constituency, not Americans.

[BlueCaliDem]

15. He doesn't care. It beats having to pass a real jobs bill

or implement ObamaCare or address why the IRS had taken upon themselves to write law regarding the 501(c)4's, doesn't it?

I really don't understand his constituents. Are they all idiotic TeaBaggers or something? Why would they vote for this criminal to have a seat in our U.S. Congress??

[underpants]

37. He and all Republicans are only worried about surviving the primaries against TeaBagger candidates

[Botany]

3. enough already!

[Cha]

33. You win the thread, Botany.

[Gregorian]

5. While Americans are dying for affordable health care. Shame on YOU!

[AtheistCrusader]

6. The Night Of The Thing That Wouldn't Shut Up

[EC]

7. Isn't Issa tired of proving how much of a fool he is? n/t

[mikeysnot]

8. Kerry should pull a rove

and ignore them. Nothing happened to that ass hat.

[Arkana]

9. "In response, Secretary Kerry's office wrote 'DOG BALLS' in chocolate on it

and sent the subpoena back to Mr. Issa's office."

[hrmjustin]

10. This guy has nothing to do with his time?

[OneAngryDemocrat]

11. Government Speech

Contrary to popular belief, government speech is PROTECTED SPEECH, and not subject to government oversight. Government is entitled to opine on matters of state, even if they get it wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_speech

[aggiesal]

12. List of subpoenas that the Bush Administration ignored.

http://issaexposed.couragecampaign.org/index.php/page/197

Given how upset Issa has gotten about federal agencies not meeting his arbitrary deadlines to produce documents, he would presumably be galled by how many Oversight Committee subpoenas the Bush Administration failed on -- while Issa was sitting on the committee. It includes some rather high-profile issues, and some that Issa's revived since taking over -- but only for the new administration.

[Font Color=Red]> In 2007, then-Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice ignored a subpoena from the Oversight Committee, saying that she was "not inclined" to comply.

> During the same period, then-chair of the Republican National Committee rejected a pair of subpoenas when it turned out that Bush Administration officials were conducting business with email addresses provided by the RNC. Issa has since criticized the Obama Administration's documenting of personal email accounts without re-examining this case. In fact, Issa defended the RNC and criticized attempts to investigate.

> During the summer of 2007, it took seven months for Lt. Gen. Philip Kensinger to appear after being subpoenaed in the case of Pat Tillman's death and cover up, delayed because federal marshals were unable to locate him.

> In the fall of 2007, the Bush/Rice State Department refused to produce both materials and testimony subpoenaed by the Oversight Committee. It was so egregious that Issa voted for a House resolution condemning the State Department for withholding information from Congress and retroactively classifying documents. But he has not yet gone back to ask for the documents.

> In 2008, the Oversight issued a subpoena to obtain unredacted reports to do with the Bush EPA's rejection of California's landmark emissions standards. The Bush Administration refused to provide the documents, citing executive priviledge. Issa was a vocal opponent of California's new standards and continues attacking a wide range of EPA protections.

> The Oversight Committee also issued two subpoenas for testimony from then-EPA administrator Stephen Johnson, who failed to appear.

> Then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused to comply with a subpoena for documents related to an investigation of the outing of covert CIA agent Valeria Plame. A year earlier, Issa had accused Valeria Plame and her husband Joe Wilson of perjury during their testimony before congress.

> A representative of the Bush Administration's Defense Department also refused to comply with an Oversight subpoena in August of 2008. The hearing into sexual assault in the military went on without Dr. Kaye Whitley, the director of the Defense Department’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office. [/font]

[SunSeeker]

19. IOKIYAR

[It's OK if you're a Republican]

[aggiesal]

24. What does this mean? n/t

[SunSeeker]

25. It's OK if you're a Republican. nt

[LongTomH]

34. Try Googling on an acronym like IOKYAR

Google is your friend. You'll get links to sites like: InternetSlang.com and WiseGeek.com

[underpants]

36. They con't find a Lt. General?

my thinks they didn't want to find him.

Great list. Thanks.

[Psephos]

44. Informative post. Thank you. n/t

[freshwest]

48. And if the Obama administration pulled any of those stunts, the left would call him Bush. Can't win.

[quadrature]

14. the talking points caused huge diplomatic problems

the talking points had the effect
of calling the President of Libya a liar.
--> resulting in, a 3 week delay in Libya
allowing the FBI to investigate.

[SunSeeker]

20. Are you lost?

The only "huge problems" the so called "talking points" caused are in Republican minds.

[Enrique]

41. i.e. it had minor consequences

they've been struggling to come up with concrete consequences of this supposed scandal. Apparently the insult to the president of Libya is what they've come up with.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

16. I am so tired of this socipathic fist fucker..... nt

[1983law]

17. We are watching

the fallout/getting even for Abu Ghraib. Could also be a perpetuation by the family of some of those killed in the attack. And not sure about the point about the post that everyone is laughing at this. I'm not. I want to move forward.

[Tom Ripley]

18. Why doesn't Issa put his experience to use, and just steal them from Kerry?

Is he losing his touch?

[SunSeeker]

21. He wasn't a good car thief. That's why he got busted. He's only good at being an a-hole. nt

[Tom Ripley]

26. You have a very good point there

[Beacool]

31. Like Tom said, good point.

[trusty elf]

49. .........

[IMG][/IMG]

[warrior1]

22. he such a fucking dick

[ucrdem]

23. Thats really a stretch considering Kerry was still a senator

and wouldn't become SoS for nearly five months.

[karynnj]

43. Kerry is the head of the State Department - Issa's supoena is for State Department

communications between the listed people that mention the Benghazi talking points. Kerry is not the target here - Obama and Hillary are. Issa is fishing for anything more explicit than what the WH already released. Their documents spoke of Nuland arguing for removing some stuff to protect the State Department. To Issa, this suggests that in all the memos between people in the State Department MIGHT capture something that makes it look like Obama or Hillary did things for political reasons.

[ucrdem]

45. Issa wouldn't drag Kerry into it unless he had to, would he?

Just kidding. Thanks Karyn, always a pleasure to read your posts!

[karynnj]

53. Thank you,

I would assume that Issa would like to pull Kerry in only if he thought it could get him headlines. if Obama declares that some of the documents demanded should not be handed over because of executive privilege, he might go there out of frustration. (I think only the President has that power.) If Obama doesn't, Kerry, probably through David Wade will likely turn over what was requested. If he does this, I can't imagine why Issa would call him before the committee. He has no first hand information and (more importantly) handles himself well when answering questions. The only issue may be what Kerry does with the suspended employees due to the review - but I would bet that if he opts to keep any, he will put out a defense to clear the person or at least explain why he/she deserves to stay.

Everything requested, however, relates to the talking points. This is an important point. It means he is not going after - the security prior to the attack, the way the Consulate/Embassy were run or the completeness of the investigation to identify weaknesses and highlight recommended improvements.

So, what are they investigating? - that the State Department wanted the statements to the press to not expose any weaknesses here or elsewhere. This is easily cast as prudent until the full truth was known and until anyone still in danger was moved (the latter is speculation).

However, even without that Is there a law that requires FULL, complete answers on issues of national security on TV shows? Even if you concede that the fact that terrorism was minimized (because the President said it was an "act of terror" rather than "terrorism" - who knew they meant something different?), is acting political when speaking of national security issues against the law?

This might not be a good point to bring up to John Kerry of all people. The Democrats had a better case in 2004 of stating that National Security talking points were used for political gain - even at the expense of terrorizing Americans. After the election even Tom Ridge conceded that the terror codes often rose when Kerry was getting any traction. The most notable time was the morning after the Democratic convention when they rose and a terror plot that supposedly targeted a few NYC buildings was announced - the threat was SO real that Jenna and Laura Bush did not cancel a fund raiser the next week at one of them. It was later found to have been a few years old and already debunked.

I know - because I tried to speak about this to some swing voters after 2004 - that no one thought that a big deal. Even accepting the RW stretch that this was minimized for political reasons before the election, how is this worse than what the Republicans did in 2004?

[ucrdem]

57. Exactly. Operation swiftboat carries on.

That's what I find disturbing, too. Kerry clearly has better things to do than waste time hunting up docs for a pointless subpoena, and no doubt that's one of its aims, i.e. to tie him up in DC and drag him in front of the public in one of the GOP's endless intrigues. Sure he'll do well when he's called to testify, and he will be, I think we can count on that. But the cameras will be rolling, so he'll have to prepare carefully, and he'll have to remain in DC for as long as Issa decides it's necessary. The submission deadline in the letter is June 7 which doesn't give Kerry much time for delegating and reviewing, either.

p.s. this could easily turn into a Watergate-style televised hearing and go on all summer though I hope it doesn't. So much for great expectations.

[karynnj]

58. It won't be Kerry who hunts up the documents - it will be someone on his staff

Months ago - in response to a question asked by a Congressman - he assigned his chief of staff, to coordinate getting Congress what they need. David Wade, who was his Senate chief of staff and before that his spokesperson, is really good.

The only way this becomes an issue is if any of the emails to or from these people mentioning Benghazi are declared to have executive privilege. As to any testimony - the committee staff needs to coordinate with the Secretary and he himself might not be the person who testifies. (As a Senator, it was easier when the Majority leader was Republican to play with keeping him in DC rather than campaigning.) I think he pretty clearly delegated this already to a person that he has trusted for years.

I suspect that what Issa wants is one of two things to happen:
1) Obama to declare executive privilege so he can scream of coverup
2) To find something that can be distorted to show Obama (or Hillary) in a bad light.

I suspect that Issa would rather drag Clinton before his committee. (Three reasons - she is more of the target, she has first hand information, and she has shown more anger at questions that attack her than Kerry does - and in this case, the worst questions are not personally attacking Kerry - whicle they are attacking Obama and Hillary.)

[ucrdem]

59. There will inevitably be an issue

of the nature you described, i.e., a doc held back that Issa decides was necessary, or a redaction, or some other decision that can now be laid at Kerry's feet, whether he made the selection or just signed off on it, and presto, the slime is now on Kerry too. The GOP is very good at this type of blame-shifting and have managed with the aid of their media stenographers to turn just about every Bush-Cheney abomination into an Obama problem. In this case I have no doubt that Issa would like to take out Clinton and Kerry.

[karynnj]

60. The right has hated Kerry since 1971 - longer and more completely than most of their targets

probably for the same reason that they hated him in 1971 - he is a good person, very intelligent and he has repeatedly stood against them even when it was against his personal interest (Iran/Contra and BCCI and Vietnam). The latter is incredibly rare in politics.

The good thing is that Kerry is unlikely to run for anything again and only Obama can remove him. I seriously doubt that anything he could do here would lead Obama to do that - though the far right may demand it. Note that Obama has kept Holder who they have made several RW themed cases that he should be removed.

[Beacool]

61. Issa won't go after Kerry over Benghazi.

Kerry wasn't the SOS at the time. This whole thing about Benghazi is to tarnish Hillary in case she does choose to run in 2016. If it also damages Obama, then that's just the icing on the cake.

Unfortunately for Issa, like Obama said, there's no "there" there.

[karynnj]

62. That was where I was, but I concede that there is a possibility that Issa

will go after Kerry if he is involved in redacting anything that is in one of the documents requested. The fact is that if there is any mention of people in Libya (or elsewhere) whose identities need to be protected - rest assured Kerry will redact them. If Issa gets nothing, it is possible that Kerry could be included as one of the people who covered up.

The issue here is really whether there was a cover up last year. Look at the requests - he is not going after what HRC did operationally. That includes not looking into what the policies were before Benghazi, what was going on in Libya at that point, whether anyone above Stevens had any knowledge of the whatever he was doing in Benghazi, what State/Defense/the White House etc did as it occurred, whether the investigation's charter was complete and broad ranging (it was) and whether they were implementing the recommendations (they are).

The ONLY thing he is focused on is the talking points. The WH already put out hundreds of emails - and Nuland, who the RW love, was the State Department representative and her emails were included. Clearly here, they are looking for emails that might tie HRC to the requests to take out the comments on warnings and the names of the organization which was suspected.

However, assume that exists. Is it troubling? I think in one strong statement, Obama or Hillary could defend both of these. Any comment on warnings (if they occurred) would likely give away that someone is cooperating - do they want to out people helping us? Saying, before the investigation is complete that it was XXXXXX is pretty bad policy. It could dry up leads or cause people to go further underground.

This is why I do not think either Obama or Kerry would hide anything for political reasons. Kerry, in particular, has always argued for getting the facts out. However, if Obama declares executive privilege on anything, Kerry will definately not leak it.

[graham4anything]

27. we are watching the fallout of those not voting straight democratic now seeing the collateral damage

Darrell Isaa is ONLY the head of this committee due to republicans controlling the house

It doesn't have to be like this if all democratic supporters voted and do vote straight democratic

then the house is democratic and the head of the committee is a DEMOCRATIC house member.

Folly is not doing so and thinking in protest, Darrell Isaa will get anyone one thing of their agenda.

but it will fall on deaf ears.

It very easily can become a democratic house-
18 is it?
Just 18 turn around and Isaa can scream and rant, but he won't control the gavel.


and meanwhile, Hillary just picked up another 1 million votes for 2016. But we can win the house in 2014 and render Isaa Obsolete
politically.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

35. President-in-Exile Nader Forgives You

Go forth, and sin no more.

[madamesilverspurs]

28. Gah! Darrell Issa --

the GOP's answer to ethics.

Pafuckingthetic.

[PuffedMica]

29. Issa is on a fishing expedition

The Republicans are out of ammunition. Issa hopes there might be some information in the documents he can use to gin up more accusations about our President.

Issa is getting both nervous and desperate.

[Beacool]

30. This sums it up:

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the top Democrat on the committee, said House Republicans "appear to be obsessed with Hillary Clinton and are distracting Congress from conducting responsible oversight to protect our diplomatic personnel serving overseas. This investigation has been politicized from the beginning as House Republicans accuse first and then scramble to find evidence to back up their unsubstantiated claims."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/28/darrell-issa-subpoena-benghazi_n_3347688.html

[mtasselin]

32. vote

Who in the hell votes for these assholes, I sure the people mean well but enough is enough vote these nut jobs out

[Skittles]

38. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Amonester]

39. And next, President Obama's job approval polls will get a few points higher!

Keep it up, Repugnant a-hole

[Gore1FL]

40. He was less damaging to society

when he was merely stealing cars.

[upi402]

42. jeesus

issa is a punkass

[oldandhappy]

46. Mr. Senator,

how are things re the unemployment rate in your district, and how secure are all the retired folk in the senior parks in your district, and how do they feel about medicare, and are your military families feeling supported (and do they have money for the rent and for food), and how does it feel to have eyes only looking backward while others are looking forward.

[Beacool]

52. Don't elevate his station in life.

The car thief is a Representative, not a Senator.

[oldandhappy]

55. Thank you!

yep

[JDPriestly]

47. I would like to know upon which provision in the Constitution is Issa relying

in second-guessing the President on the activities in a foreign diplomatic station.

I just read Articles I and II of the Constitution, and Congress has the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations and to declare war and to make rules for our armed forces. It also has the authority to confirm the President's nominations for various offices including ambassadors.

But the president appoints ambassadors and is responsible for the day-to-day conduct of foreign policy. If budgetary matters were involved (as they were in the lost money in Iraq and management of the War in Iraq), then that would be a matter under the purview of Congress. But I don't see what authority Issa has to investigate this.

I just don't see it. I may be missing something. Could someone else try to figure this out?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section3

The Congress has the duty to oversee that the laws are being properly carried out and to change the laws if need be. But I don't see that Congress can change a law concerning the president's management of our diplomatic missions overseas other than maybe give the president more money. I don't think that Issa is looking to change the laws on the organization of the embassies' staffs. Congress might have some authority there.

But what do these e-mails and talking points have to do with any authority of the Congress? I am sincerely asking. I may be missing something here.

[karynnj]

54. Not to mention, there are several standing committees charged to oversee foreign policy and the

State Department. Those ARE the committees that appropriate people - often up to Clinton - testified before. These include the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign affairs committee. In addition, there are the intelligence committees that oversea the CIA, which was also involved. You could argue that the Armed Services committee have some jurisdiction - if only on whether military support should have been more accessible.

I think the Constitutional justification for all these committees is that Congress does have the right to advise the President on foreign policy and has the responsibility to confirm many key people reporting to Obama on these issues. The Senate must also approve all treaties by a super majority - I think 67 is needed. (I hope you get a better answer than mine - I will look back to see.)

What I don't get is what the charter is for Issa's committee. Anything he wants to do?

[BeyondGeography]

51. Car alarm assclown