April 29, 2013

State Department blocking lawyers from representing Benghazi whistleblowers [Darleen Click]

Benghazi discussion starts about 3:30 mark

According to former US Attorney Joe DiGenova, the State Department is standing in the way of lawyers trying to represent whistleblowers in the ongoing investigation into the events at the US Consolate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. [...]

“The Department of State is refusing to grant clearances to Victoria (Toensing) and other people who want to represent the whistleblowers in an attempt to prevent the testimony,” DiGenova said, referring to the upcoming hearing before Rep. Darrel Issa’s House Oversight Committee.

Eh, what difference, at this point, does it make?

Posted by Darleen @ 7:35am
11 comments | Trackback

Tags: , ,

Comments (11)

  1. Where is the Heracles to cleanse these Augean stables?

  2. Eh, what difference, at this point, does it make?

    To answer Mrs. Clinton’s question directly, the difference it makes is the difference between a nation governed as a representative federal republic under a written Constitution, on the one hand, or a nation governed as an unaccountable progressive social-democrat bureaucracy, on the other. A nation dedicated to liberty as well as equality, or a nation dedicated to neither. The question is, which will you have, if only by default?

  3. Heracles ain’t doing squat until Greece gets its collective shit together and restores benefits to demigods.

  4. Forgive my ignorance, but if the House Oversight Committee, in connivance with the whistleblowers, issued subpoenas, what is the issue? Can these individuals not be made to at least appear to be compelled to give testimony?

  5. “The Department of State is refusing to grant clearances to Victoria (Toensing) and other people who want to represent the whistleblowers in an attempt to prevent the testimony,”

    Carry a grudge much, State Department? DiGenova and Toensing were big players in Bill’s impeachment.

  6. BTW: Those 80% finished aluminum forgings, that you could machine to make your own AR receiver?

    ATF just “interpreted” the law to make that illegal. So there’s that.

  7. Disagree with their interpretation and mill on, mojo.

  8. Can these individuals not be made to at least appear to be compelled to give testimony?

    By ‘these individuals’, you intend the lawyers eager to represent the eyewitnesses to be called, SW? If so, they aren’t going to testify, but merely to represent the legal interests of the eyewitnesses attending the hearing, for which purpose they must have proper access to the classified documents pertaining to the eyewitnesses’ accounts of events. Evidently, the Dept. of State (or other executive branch dept.) controls that access by law, such that “taking” access to the classified documents would put those lawyers in jeopardy of arrest, loss of license, etc. So that they are effectively barred from action.

  9. Yes, I see your point sdferr.

  10. Mojo —

    where did you see that?

  11. Cannot say. Be patient.

Leave a Reply