GOWDY: HILLARY SERVER STONEWALL MAY BE IMPREGNABLE

Garth Grant
WND.com

WASHINGTON – Whether the public ever learns the truth about what happened in Benghazi may come down to a chess match between a pair of high-powered attorneys.

David Kendall, the lawyer representing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, wrote a letter on Wednesday to the Select Committee on Benghazi stating that she would not testify privately before the committee.

However, he did say Clinton would be willing to testify publicly.

That would appear to be a win for committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.

But it was not.

Clinton had already signaled a willingness to testify publicly back in November.

But that was before news broke on March 2 that Clinton had kept all of her emails on a private server during her tenure as secretary of state.

Since then, Gowdy has requested two interviews with Clinton: one in private, focusing on her email use, and a public hearing focusing specifically on Benghazi.

Why private?

In his letter to Kendall on March 31, Gowdy wrote:

“The Committee believes a transcribed interview would best protect Secretary Clinton’s privacy, the security of the information queried, and the public’s interest in ensuring this Committee has all information needed to accomplish the task set before it.

“Once there is a reasonable assurance all documents in the Secretary’s care, custody and control related to what happened before, during, and after the attacks in Benghazi have been shared with the Committee, we will be in a position to schedule her appearance in a public hearing to constructively discuss these topics.”

What Gowdy wanted was to get Clinton’s private testimony on what was in her emails concerning Benghazi, research that information and then see if it could be confirmed or contradicted, then quiz her publicly on the deadly terrorist attack.

But if Clinton were to merely testify about the emails in a public hearing, there would be no way to challenge whatever she might claim to be the truth.

In a letter released Wednesday evening, Gowdy replied, “I appreciate Mr. Kendall’s timely response to our letter but respectfully disagree with his assertion former Secretary Clinton has answered all questions surrounding the unusual email arrangement she had with herself.”

Gowdy’s main problem is that he does not know what he does not know.

The State Department has released 30,490 pages of emails for review from the more than 60,000 emails in Clinton’s account. But, as the New York Times reported, it was a group of Clinton’s advisers who decided which of her emails should be released.

Additionally, Clinton has admitted she deleted 31,830 emails she claimed were private.

So, unless Gowdy can get the email server itself, he has no idea what information Clinton may, or may not, be hiding about Benghazi, and what the full extent of her involvement may have been.

And there’s the rub.

For those reading between the lines, it has become clear Gowdy has been signaling lately that his hands may be tied when it comes to obtaining Hillary Clinton’s email server.

Furthermore, the chairman is hinting his committee may not be able to bring the former secretary of state to account for whatever dark role she may have played in the Benghazi scandal.

The insurmountable problem appears to be the inevitable stonewall that would be erected by Obama’s Justice Department.

But that does not mean all is lost.

Gowdy does hold out hope that the court of public opinion can override an inability to bring the case to a court of law.

That will be a formidable task.

The congressman, a former federal prosecutor, presented the facts of the case in an interview with Fox News’ Judge Jeanine Pirro on Monday.

She asked what everyone wants to know: Why can’t his committee get Clinton’s private email server?

Gowdy explained that he has the power to subpoena people and documents but not things, under the rules guiding his committee.

The House may eventually subpoena the server, but, he explained, “the power to subpoena is only as good as the power to compel.”

Meaning, Clinton may just choose to ignore the subpoena.

You could then hold her in contempt, suggested Pirro.

“Well, what’s happened in the past when we’ve held people in contempt? It’s referred to the U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia. He won’t even prosecute Lois Lerner, which is a pretty clear case to me. So, it’s the limitations of the legislative branch.”

That analysis comports with what former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote in National Review in March.

McCarthy observed that Gowdy heads a legislative committee and, “is powerless to obtain search warrants and coerce the physical surrender of evidence.”

That is because “the committee is not a prosecutor.”

McCarthy added, “Congress has no power to seize the evidence the subpoena seeks or to indict the perjurious official. It is up to the executive branch to take such action.”

And Gowdy noted the executive branch under Obama has persistently been reluctant, to say the least, to take such actions.

He remarked how, “[W]ith Fast and Furious and the IRS and all these other investigations, we wind up in court and its three years before the judge decides to give us an answer and people have lost interest and their attention has moved onto something else.”

So he tried a different tack.

Gowdy had given Clinton until May 1 to respond to his request she appear before the Benghazi committee in private.

“What I want is access to the information and the documents,” he said. “I don’t want the legal drama. So, if I can be uncharacteristically courteous and give her an extra two weeks and get what I want, I would rather do that than the drama of a floor fight.”

Now that she has refused, it doesn’t mean all is lost.

The congressman believes he has a persuasive case, and if Clinton doesn’t provide the server, she may end up losing in the court of public opinion, because people are watching closely.

“I think the American people are fully engaged because they have really high expectations of their public officials. And if we can carry the burden of persuasion, which is a pretty easy burden to carry, [then] the public and the media and Congress should have access to the entire public record of anyone who has been secretary of state, whether it’s Secretary Clinton, Secretary Powell or Secretary Rice.”

And finally, Gowdy believes he has the most important fact of all on his side when it comes to the fate of Clinton’s emails.

“Those documents belong to us, and she alone does not get to be the sole arbiter to determine what’s public and what’s personal. And that’s a pretty easy burden of persuasion to carry.

“I think the public will wind up being on our side, and they expect her to come and answer some pretty legitimate questions.”