Senate Select Intelligence Committee views "Real-Time Film" of 9/11 Attacks on Benghazi

Washington (GoinsReport.com) -- After a long, near-five hour wait, the Senate Select Intelligence Committee emerged from their first closed hearing with intelligence officials on Thursday evening (November 15, 2012) tight-lipped. But of what they could say, the committee acknowledged that they did view a rendition of events put together by the National Counter-Terrorism center.

"We saw a real-time film put together by NCTC of exactly what happened," Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Thursday evening.

For almost four hours, members of the committee held a closed hearing with intelligence officials. Scheduled witnesses included Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, acting CIA director Michael Morrell, FBI Deputy Director Sean Joyce, Undersecretary of State for Management Pat Kennedy, and National CounterTerrorism Center Director Matthew Olsen.

All but one member of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee was in attendance at the closed hearing Thursday evening, Feinstein said, but did not name who.

"I’m not going to tell you what questions were asked or what answers given. This is just the first step in the inquiry," Feinstein said.

But Feinstein announced that the committee will hold another two full hearings, when members of Congress come back to work, presumably after the Thanksgiving holiday, and said she anticipates a public hearing to "make our findings that can be unclassified released."

"I think it was a good hearing," Feinstein said. "I think it gave us an idea as to the depth and breadth of this future areas to question. We have just to continue to do so and plow through this until we believe we have enough information."

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) said that he learned that "mistakes were made" and that "we got to learn from that."

"Our membership asked some very hard and very tough questions of our witnesses today and were going to continue to do that at our subsequent hearings Mrs. Chairman outlined," Chambliss said.

Chambliss praised the "professionalism" of all who were involved in the hearing, namely, the "men and women who are in the intelligence committee and who are in the armed services who were involved here obviously as well as the State Department."

"There were some very heroic acts that took place," Chambliss said. "That does not in any way minimize obviously the fact that we lost four Americans."

General David Petraeus is scheduled to testify Friday morning. To her understanding, General Petraeus went to Tripoli and interviewed many of the people involved. Additionally, she said the purpose of the closed hearing was Benghazi and she was not willing to comment on the FBI investigation.

When asked if she could say when the Intelligence Comittee obtained the film "to help us with the timeline of what they knew and when they knew it." Feinstein didn't comment on when the film was put together, but noted that the film was a "composite" created from "a number of sources."

"It is real time," Feinstein said, adding that it does begin from before the incident started and goes through the "incident and the exodus."

When asked whether Ambassador Stevens was in the film, Feinstein again didn't comment.

While she did not comment on whether the version of events she learned Thursday held up to the version presented by the Obama administration shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks or if what she learned called into question some of the talking points being raised at the time, she avoided answering those questions not based on the confidentiality of the matter but because there are three more hearings ahead and she doesn't "have all the information" she needs.

However, she said that "a lot of light" was shown on what happened on September 11, 2012 at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

"One of the things that we want to do is give any real opinions or analysis because we dont have all the facts," Feinstein said.

"We are in effect fact finding," she continued.

When asked if the CIA asked for back up from Special Ops units in the region and in Europe, she was informed on what "assets were there and what assets were not there" in Benghazi.

[Editor's Note: This is previously unpublished news]

Obama No George W. Bush on Drones

President Obama is reported to have said last Tuesday during a private meeting with the Senate Democratic Conference that he is no Dick Cheney on drones -- and according to data compiled by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism he isn't quite George W. Bush either.

The London-based TBIJ reports that under President Obama CIA drones strikes in tribal parts of Pakistan have occurred at a rate six times faster than his predecessor George W. Bush in parts of Pakistan, as of December 2012. That rate was about once every five days during his first term.

From 2004 to 2013, there were 365 drone strikes. Out of those, 313 were under the Obama administration.

Under President Obama, 2,152 people were reported killed, of whom 290 were civilians. By contrast, 438 people were killed under President Bush, of whom 182 were civilians.

Under Bush, more children were killed by drone strikes (112) than under Obama (64) in his first term.

The 300th drone strike occurred under President Obama in early December 2012. The first drone strike to occur under his watch was just three days into his presidency, which is reported to have killed 12 civilians. Ironically, President Obama was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize not long afterward. Submissions for the Nobel Peace Prize were due by Feb. 1, 2009 -- just days into the Obama first term.

The Dick Cheney reference was reportedly a reference to the the lack of oversight under his predecessor's administration.

"This is not Dick Cheney we're talking about here," according to two Senators who POLITICO reports did not want to be named. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) is reportedly to have brought the issue to the President, and the President assured Democratic Senators that he's more open to transparency than Bush.

Numerous Democratic lawmakers on both the House and the Senate side of Congress have recently demanded more information from the White House on the administration's drone policy.

Last week, eight House Democrats led by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) sent a letter to President Obama asking for more details on the administration's drone policy.

On the Senate side, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) voted against the confirmation of Obama's now-CIA Director John Brennan, for not releasing legal memos pertaining to drones. Rockefeller himself raised the issue in a hearing last week as well, as POLITICO reports.

And of course, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) raised the issue of drones strikes on American citizens in a historic filibuster earlier in March.

Harry Reid Must Talk With Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke Before Considering Fed Audit

Washington (CNSNews.com) – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he would have to have a “real serious conversation” with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke before he considers bringing the Federal Reserve Transparency Act to the Senate Floor.
......

As CNSNews.com previously reported , Reid was once a strong supporter of auditing the Federal Reserve System - in 1995. Then being discussed was then-Senator Bryon Dorgan’s (D-N.D.) amendment that would have required the Federal Reserve to a prepare a report to Congress and disclose the financial impact of changing interest rates on the public and private sector.

In 1995 Reid went into great detail about how the Federal Reserve wasn’t talked about enough, how it not only affects the federal government because of the money it borrows but also the private sector because “higher interest rates effect everybody,” and how he’s called for an audit of the Federal Reserve System and offered “that amendment every year.”

“Every year the legislation gets nowhere,” Reid said in 1995. “I think it would be interesting to know about the Federal Reserve. I think we should audit the Federal Reserve.”

Reid: I’d Have a 'Serious Conversation' with Bernanke Before Considering Fed Audit | CNS News

Jobless Wrap-Up for August

Today the Bureau of Labor Statistics came out with its August job numbers.

Clinton: "This election to me is about which candidate is more likely to return us to full employment."

Here's a wrap-up of the best headlines (Kudos to the Drudge Report for some of these.):

The unemployment rate for August is 8.1 percent, Yahoo Finance reports.

A record 88.9 million Americans are not in the workforce, CNSNews.com reports.

The real unemployment rate for June is 15 percent says Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), yours truly reports for Politic365.com.

Black unemployment remains at 14.1 percent, Politic365.com reports.

Low-wage jobs add the most jobs in the past year, Zerohedge reports. Jokes: Tomorrow's Pravda Today headline: "UNEMPLOYMENT RATE PLUNGES"

Confirmation: A study says that the majority of new jobs pay low wages, the New York Times reports.

Two charts show that President Obama is the worst among job creators, The Goins Report compiles the sources.

Related: Taxing Millionaires Won't Fix the Economy, CBS News reports. The rich aren't getting richer, CNBC.com reports--they're getting poorer. Marketwatch reports that college graduates are taking jobs that require no degree.

Sen. Paul: DISCLOSE Act 'Lopsided towards' Republican-leaning Donors; Away from Unions

Washington (GoinsReport.com) -- Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told The Goins Report on Monday that the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act of 2012, otherwise known as the DISCLOSE Act, in his office's analysis of the legislation is lopsided against people who tended to be Republican donors and shied away from union donors.

"In our analysis of the bill we felt like it was lopsided towards certain people that tended to be more republican donors and away from certain donors like union donors on the other side," Paul said.

"What I’ve proposed we ought to do, and I’ve talked to some of the Democrats about this, is the way to reform campaign finance would be, if you want to do it constitutionally, would be to link restrictions to federal contracts. So if you do business with the government and I give you a $100 million contract, I think we can legally restrict your activities by the contract. Because then you voluntarily sign the federal contract and we limit what you do. Anything other than that, unless its related to a contract, is a restriction of first amendment [rights] and I think its wrong," he continued.

While Paul voted against the DISCLOSE act on Monday, he did say that he is in favor of "some kind of campaign finance reform."

"I am for disclosing information," Paul told The Goins Report.

When asked whether he agreed with Senator Paul's view on the lopsidedness if the DISCLOSE act, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) expressed a similar view.

"It’s hard to get the ACLU and the NRA on the same sheet of music but they’re able to do it. It’s a bill that gives unions a preference when it comes to the DISCLOSE act and it was obviously not the solutions to the problems we face as a nation," Graham said.

The Goins Report further asked Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) whether he agreed with Senator Paul's view of the DISCLOSE act. His answer departed from his Republican Senate colleagues.

“I don’t think so at all. Matter a fact, I don’t know the numbers but I think before you can say that you got to go say, what’s the registration of all the top 200,000 tax filers in this country. And that’s the only way you’ll know that," Coburn said.

The DISCLOSE act was voted on early Monday evening in the Senate and was not passed with 54-44 vote. The bill needed at least 60 votes to pass.

The Senate is expected to vote again on the bill Tuesday afternoon (July 17).

My Question to Governor Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate

Am I the only one who thinks that Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Governor Gary Johnson (N.M.), would not only have been a more effective Senator but would have been a shoe-in for the 2012 U.S. Senate race in New Mexico? I mean if the governor of his own state can't win a Senate race in his own state, that same governor should not be trying to convince us that he can win the presidency.

It's almost like after being governor the U.S. Senate is beneath him. And his run shows that despite the sentiments of this country, which show that people are upset with both parties, he misreads the politics of this country, and also extracts the wrong lesson from it, and that in itself shows how unwise the run has been. I think it's time for the Libertarian Party and all those third party folks (I still have my Constitution Party membership card, although I'm a registered Republican now) who think we can just give the American people a "third option," and any old third option at that, and think they'll go for it. No, please go away. Rethink your strategy. Put down the hubris hoagies and take a bite out of some humble pie.

Shouldn't we in the liberty movement be shooting for winnable, doable campaign victories and quit it with all this pie-in-the-sky-overly-optimistic crap. Gary Johnson isn't even a household name, and if he thinks he can just woo any old Ron Paul supporter he has another thing coming for him. Johnson should look forward to replacing the next Democrat to leave the U.S. Senate in his state so we can at least have someone in the U.S. Senate. He would also be another vote to repeal Obamacare. Think. Think. Think. Libertarian Party.

On that same note, the Constitution Party Presidential Candidate Virgil Goode needs to get of his pride horse as well. He's not going to win. He's better off going back to the Republican Party and mounting a U.S. Senate campaign.

U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat, announced his retirement in February 2011, more than enough time for you to mount a successful U.S. Senate campaign.

My question to Governor Johnson is this:

Governor Johnson, why didn't you run for the U.S. Senate? Why didn't you help the GOP takeover the Senate? Isn't a presidential run a waste of not of only your time and resources but our time and resources as supporters?

Wouldn’t it have been better if you had the impact of a Rand Paul--who is introducing legislation and actually holding up the Senate and is creating alliances within the GOP members in the Senate?

Instead, you have an unlikely presidency, and if you lose, you now have to wait to be effective again in the Senate or the Presidency? All you will have after all of this is an e-mail list and no legislative impact.