Trey Gowdy schools the media about its abysmal lack of curiosity regarding Benghazi

Bloody fingerprints in BenghaziIf you had been at my house when I first saw this video, you would have seen me stand up and cheer.  And then cheer some more.

Usually, I find it very boring when members of Congress give speeches and press conferences. They’re not orators and they’re often very bad at communicating facts, making ideological arguments, or scoring political points.

Trey Gowdy is different. Not only is he an orator, he was doing something much more important than just scoring political facts or making a noise: He was reminding a recalcitrant media that facts are stubborn things. Because reporters ignored its special protections and privileges under the Constitution, and refused to hunt down the facts, Congress is going to have to do their job for them.

Using a series of — for the media — shamefully unanswerable rhetorical questions, Gowdy undercuts them from the get-go, leaving the path clear to an honest investigation into the facts about Benghazi. It’s brilliant. It’s a tour de force.  It’s worth every second of your time:

Hat tip: CainTV

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. says

    With a couple of exceptions, we have some good representation from the great state of South Carolina…the exceptions being James Clyburn(D) and Lindsey Graham(Rino).
    The special protections Mr. Gowdy spoke of are the same protections every American citizen is supposed to have. It’s called the first amendment.

  2. Mike Devx says

    It’s useful to review Hillary Clinton’s infamous testimony in the “What difference does it make?” hearing.

    Her key statement begins at the 1:00 mark:
    “The fact is, we have four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans.  What difference at this point does it make?  It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again.”
    I’m still utterly incredulous that she chose as her two explanations:
    1. Was it a protest
    2. Was it because of guys “out for a walk one night”…
    Guys who were “out for a walk one night”?  Who said to each other, “Hey, dudes, I just got the best idea, since we’re all, you know, just out walking, hey, let’s go kill us some Americans.  Jamal, you got some rocket propelled grenades in your bedroom closet that you’re not using, right?”
    A third (true) option for her to list would have been a planned, coordinated military-style assault, planned for weeks, in which they had accumulated intelligence not only on the compound but on potential American safe houses where they could continue the assault.  A couple of guys “out for a walk one night”, Hillary?  Oh, really?
    As to bringing them to justice, well, we’ve seen this Administration move Heaven and Earth to bring them to justice, haven’t we?  I for one KNOW I’ve seen Barack Obama move his golf clubs.   And it seems to me that a rapid reaction force could have arrived there well within the nine hours of the assault, and brought quite a few of the terrorists to justice rather immediately.

  3. Libby says

    “Was it a protest or  was it because of guys “out for a walk one night?”
    Sounds like it was an attack perpetrated by Strawmanistan.

  4. says

    From Trey G’s perspective, I can see how his position would make him say that the media has special protections and privs. After all, Congress has an incestuous relationship with the media, or perhaps it is better to say the Leftist alliance has an incestuous relationship with Congress and the media combine din a menage a trois. So from a Congressional stand point, the media does have special protections.
    But as a citizen, Book, in your shoes I wouldn’t be so quick to acknowledge the authority of the press or Congress on this matter. The idea that they are special, and everybody else are just monitored under them like sheep and dogs, isn’t going to get you anything favorable in the future.

    • Mike Devx says

      I looked around for special privileges of the press, and all I could find is “Shield Laws”, under which reporters cannot be forced to divulge the identity of confidential sources.  But at the national level (at which Gowdy lives), the shield laws are very week.  A reporter refuses a subpoena at their peril.  Remember Judith Miller of the NYT, jailed for about three months because she refused to reveal a soource?
      At the State level, the Sheild laws in many states are supposedly much stronger.

  5. says

    I don’t think the Framers intended to create an institution, “The Press,” with special privileges and immunities.  Remember, in their day there were no giant media companies or even mass-circulation newspapers like the “Yellow Press” of the late 1800s and early 1900s.  On the contrary, anyone who could afford a basic printing press (no Linotype machine or wire service required) or pay for the use of such press could create and distribute printed documents.
    I think “freedom of the press” meant “freedom of the *printing* press,” much as we would today refer to “freedom of the Internet.”  It was intended as a preventive to the kind of licensure of publishing that existed in most European countries.

    • says

      I’m sure Californians aren’t educated enough to understand that point. Book is aware, perhaps, on some level. But everyone around her, with some exceptions, reinforce that viewpoint that the MSewerM is “special”. That Democrats are “special” cookies we need to Obey… or else.

  6. Charles Martel says

    Gowdy may have been doing a little psychological jiu-jitsu with the press. I doubt that he believes it has any special rights under the Constitution other than the fundamental right to free speech that we all enjoy. His announcement reminds me of when a teacher who has to deal with a bunch of preening, undisciplined brats at a prep school appeals to their better natures because they are, after all, “special.”
    His tack will not work in the sense that the whores who infest U.S. journalism will suddenly become chaste. But it does serve large notice that he’s on to their tricks, and because he is won’t allow the press putas to steal the narrative. 

  7. Caped Crusader says

    Did anyone report that any member of the press crawled away like a “sheep killin’ hound”? Doubt it! They will take it as a challenge to destroy him!

  8. says

    Virtually all of these media organizations are, or are subsidiaries of, public corporations.  How far can a for-profit corporation go in acting as a promoter of its employees’ and executives’ personal political views, in some cases arguably at the expense of revenue/profit, before there is a legally-determinable violation of fiduciary responsibility?
    Probably hard to prove in court, but may be worth a test in some particularly egregious cases.

  9. 11B40 says

    Almost right after his appointment to chair the Benghazi investigation, Representative Gowdy appearred on the “Charlie Rose” interview program on the Progressive (née Public Broadcasting System.  Mr. Rose was not amused. His skill set proved remarkably ineffectual in undermining or redirecting Mr. Gowdy’s purpose or resolve.
    Unfortunately, the evil minds of the Obama administration are probably already prepared as to their efforts to delay and obafuscate the investigation.

  10. jj says

    Regrettably you have Ronald Reagan, in great part, to thank for the state of the media.  He screwed it up for all time, and we will pay for it for all time.

  11. says

    America is too large an area for one person to screw up or save. That kind of cult of personality is what brings on Hussein O, but it takes an alliance to destroy a civilization.

  12. jj says

    Nobody said anything about America.  And the fact remains that the current state of the media (media: not America) is largely owing to Ronald Reagan.

Leave a Reply