are public, which are private. that s why it s relevant. what s the up shot for you? again, i think, sadly, americans accept that politicians make decisions that sometimes involve political spin. what do you want to see happen if in fact your scenario is accurate? our charge has always been to get to the truth, alisyn. that s what we re trying to do. that s why we want a neutral third party like a retired federal judge to examine it. just this week, we got 5,000 e-mails from ambassador stevens. none of the other committees had access to that information and we re just now getting it. that s how long this takes this state department, this administration to get us the record and information. that s what s so frustrating. you can t get to the truth if you can t get the record and all the information. she s putting up road block and the state department is putting up road blocks. even the chairman of your committee, trey gowdy admitted after the 11-hour marathon session that he wasn
benghazi. no one recommended closing but you had two ambassadors that made several, several requests and here s basically what happened to their requests. they were torn up. well, that s just not true. they were dismissed. the tearing up the papers obviously theatrical. the basic question is why were the requests for security not granted? i understand hillary clinton said they never got to her. so it wasn t her decision. but why weren t they granted by the people whose decision it was? you know, i think what was misleading about the hearing yesterday was that there s, i think, a lot of members of congress perhaps don t recognize how the state department and federal agencies actually work. we have more than 266 embassies and consulates. the secretary of state, i ve worked for many secretaries of state, of both parties, cannot make individual, specific decisions on embassy a or consulate b. you have to leave to that your assistant secretary for diplomatic security and the o
what those responsibilities are. is it really up to her and her company to think through what those responsibilities are? or if she doesn t think them through to the end, someone is going to think them through for her. i thought she was hedging very carefully in her answers about saying, well, we accept responsibility, but what does she mean by that? she doesn t mean she s going to give money to people who had accidents before 2009. remember, the bankruptcy order says any accidents prior to 2009, they re not liable. and i will say one thing. i feel bad for her. here they bring in a woman ceo of gm and, by the way, guess who was in charge when all this went down in 2009. richard wagoner, who lost billions of dollars for the company. maybe he should be the one testifying. a lot of people said that was the reason that those few cents per car weren t spent, because the company was heading into bankruptcy. it was broke. and actually couldn t afford or at least with a proper business m
for that reason she s a moolgts model to many americans. she seemed to deal with things that came her way with elegance and grace. she knew this was coming. we re told she was taken off the cancer drugs and the next day she passed away. did she plan her own funeral? so the guidance i m getting from the people close to her is she was involved to some extent but didn t map out the specific details, for example, who would speak and when. one thing she wanted was she was adamant it be open to the public so anybody who wanted to could come and participate. it is open to the public. one of the big things we ve taken note of, she ll have a friend two friends and her daughter speak. of course her husband john edwards is not speaking. i m told that wasn t her decision but a decision of the family, because, essentially, we