TREY GOWDY. SOUTH CAROLINA CHAIRMAN Qtungress at the ?tlm?teh ?tatea 3301153 at Representatives SELECT COMMITTEE ON BENGHAZI {202) 226?7100 SUSAN BROOKS, INDIANA .JIM JORDAN, OHIO MIKE POMPEO, KANSAS MARTHA ROBY, ALABAMA PETER ROSKAM, ILLINOIS LYNN WESTMORELAND, GEORGIA November 24, 2014 The Honorable Trey Gowdy Chairman Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi US. House of Representatives Washington, DC. 20515 Dear Mr. Chairman: ELIJAH CUMMINGS, MARYLAND RANKING MEMBER ADAM SMITH, WASHINGTON ADAM SCHIFF, CALIFORNIA LINDA SANCHEZ, CALIFORNIA TAMMY DUCKWORTH, ILLINOIS After the House established the Select Committee on Benghazi more than six months ago, you and I both committed to work together in a bipartisan manner so our investigation would have credibility with the public we serve. Although our conversations have always been courteous, have become increasingly concerned that the investigation has taken a sharp turn for the worse and is becoming what you strenuously insisted it would nob?another partisan investigation of the Benghazi attacks that blocks Democrats from meaningful participation. As I have expressed to you previously on several occasions, one of my principal concerns based on my experience on the Oversight Committee was that Democrats would be excluded from witness meetings and interviews. However, both you and Speaker Boehner assured me and the American public that this investigation would be different?that it would be run in a transparent and bipartisan manner that the American people would be proud of. Despite these pledges, Democratic Members and staff have now been excluded from at least ?ve witness interviews that I am aware of, and the signi?cance of these interviews was downplayed after a key witnesses failed to corroborate allegations we are investigating. For example, in September, an article reported that Raymond Maxwell, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Maghreb Affairs, came forward with ?a startling allegation.? Speci?cally, the reported claim was that ?Hillary Clinton con?dants were part of an Operation to ?separate? damaging documents before they were turned over to the Accountability Review Board.? Employees reportedly were instructed to remove documents that might put senior of?cials ?in a bad light.? The article also stated that Maxwell said that he ?couldn?t help but. wonder if the ARB?perhaps unknowingly?had received from his bureau a scrubbed set of 331 documents with the most damaging material missing. 1 Benglzazz' Bombshell: Clinton State Department O?icial Reveals Details of A lleged Document Review, The Daily Signal (Sept. 15, 2014) (online at http://dailysi gnal.com/2O 4/ 09/1 The Honorable Trey Gowdy Page 2 Several conservative press outlets immediately seized on this report to claim that former Secretary Clinton?s aides ordered the destruction of these documents to prevent Congress and the Accountability Review Board from ever seeing them.2 As you know, there is a signi?cant difference between destroying documents and the standard practice of identifying documents with legal and other sensitivities for further review. On October 17, you were interviewed on Fox News by Greta Van Susteren, who asked if you believe Mr. Maxwell?s allegation that ?documents were tossed out.? In response, you stated: What you would do is what I?m going to do Greta, and that is, give Mr. Maxwell an opportunity to say what he perceived to happen and he?s going to have to give us the names of the other people who were involved and then we?re going to give them an opportunity to say whether or not they have a different perSpective. It?s going to be an investigation. And if there is a dispute as to what happened then we?ll let your audience decide who has more credibility.3 In fact, several weeks before you made these public statements, your staff had already interviewed Mr. Maxwell, but they did not include, invite, or even notify Democratic Members or staff. Mr. Maxwell apparently identified for your staff a second witness that he claimed was present during this document review at the State Department. Mr. Maxwell identi?ed this person as someone who could corroborate his allegations and someone he believes is credible. Then, on October 16?one day before you appeared on Fox News?your staff interviewed this second witness, again without including Democrats. However, this second witness did not substantiate Mr. Maxwell?s claims. To the contrary, he did not recall having been in the document review session Mr. Maxwell described, and he said he was never instructed to ?ag information in documents that might be unfavorable to the Department. He further reported that he never engaged in or was aware of any destruction of documents. I did not discover any of this information from you or your staff but from the witnesses themselves. When my staff inquired with your staff about what they learned from the witness identified by Mr. Maxwell, your staff stated that he had worked at the State Department during 2 See, e. g, Former State Department O?icial: Clinton Camp Destroyed Benghazi Documents, BenSwann. com (Sept. 16, 2014) (online at Hillary Clinton Staffers Destroyed Benglzazi Documents, State Dept. Of?cial Claims, Christian Post (Sept. 16, 2014) (online at Report: State Department O?ictal Claims They Destroyed Bengltazi Documents To Protect Hillary Clinton, Conservative Tree House (Sept. 15, 2014) (online at 20 4/ 09/ 3 0n the Record with Greta Van Sitsteren, Fox News (Oct. 17, 2014) (online at The Honorable Trey Gowdy Page 3 the relevant time period. Beyond that, however, they reported: ?We learned nothing else of note in our discussion, so we don?t plan to conduct any additional follow up.?4 I am sure you understand?as a former prosecutor?that evaluating the credibility of witnesses and their allegations depends on whether the information they provide can be corroborated. Although your staff stated that they learned nothing ?of note,? in fact they learned that this claim was not substantiated by a key witness. If our goal is the truth and not a preconceived political narrative, these interviews should have been conducted jointly, with both Democrats and Republicans present. In some of our conversations in the past, you have suggested that whistleblowers might be willing to come forward to provide information only to you. That was simply not the case here. When my staff spoke with Mr. Maxwell and the additional witness he identi?ed, both were willing to talk to Democrats, but your staff excluded them nonetheless. In addition, your public statements before and after the recent election raise concern about additional witnesses you and your staff may have interviewed without Democrats. For example, at a campaign event in North Carolina on November 3, 2014, you reportedly stated that you had interviewed a witness earlier that day. As one local radio station reported, ?Gowdy said a lot is happening in that investigation. Gowdy said he actually interviewed a witness in the Benghazi case earlier Monday . . . he just didn?t do it on television."5 A week later, on November 11, 2014, you appeared on national television and stated that you had interviewed multiple witnesses. You stated: [M]y goal was to have an investigation where witnesses who had never been talked to before felt comfortable coming forward because of the seriousness of our investigation and that is precisely what is happening.6 As the Ranking Member of this Committee, I should not have to learn about the Committee?s interviews and other activities in press reports covering your political campaign events. Moreover, public descriptions of the Committee?s work should re?ect reality. If you wanted to discuss publicly the interviews you conducted, I believe you also should have disclosed the fact that a key witness failed to substantiate one of the primary allegations we are examining. 4 Email from Republican Staff to Democratic Staff, Select Committee on Benghazi (Oct. 23, 2014). 5 SC Congressman rey Gowdy and US Senator Tim Scott Excite Enthusiastic Republicans Monday Night at the WNC AG Center, WHKP Radio (N 0v. 3, 2014) (online at 6 The Kelly File, Fox News (Nov. 11, 2014) (online at (emphasis added). The Honorable Trey Gowdy Page 4 When I raised these concerns directly with you last week, you informed me that you have spoken with at least three additional witnesses without the participation of Democrats. You also informed me that two of those witnesses provided information that helps debunk other allegations we are investigating. I appreciate that, in response to my objections, you are now willing to provide contact information for these three additional witnesses. However, this one-sided process?in which you selectively inform Democrats only a?er-the-fact and when you deem appropriate?impairs the efforts of Committee Members who are seeking the truth. To conduct the credible, bipartisan, and transparent investigation you described six months ago, we should pursue evidence together and when that evidence diSproves allegations, we should follow the bipartisan example of the House Intelligence Committee and share the complete truth with the American public. For all of these reasons, I respectfully request that the Committee hold a vote in December to adopt Committee rules to ensure that all Members?both Republicans and Democrats?are able to participate fully in this investigation, including in witness meetings and interviews. I ask that you provide a response to my request by December 1, 2014, so I can inform Democratic Members about your decision. I sincerely believe we can return to a more bipartisan approach in this investigation, but it must include full participation by all Committee Members so we can have the professional, serious, and credible investigation we both want and the American people deserve. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to discussing this with you in the near future. Sincerely, In E. Cumrfrin Ranking Member