Thursday, with the release of many emails to and from Hillary Clinton regarding the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attacks, MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports largely came to the defense of the former Secretary of State. Guest anchor Luke Russert argued that the emails Clinton received from Sidney Blumenthal could give her an “out if in fact she took this information and pushed it forward. If anything, she can kind of say, ‘I was saying these things. What the administration did with it, that’s their prerogative.’”
For her part, the Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus did little to dispute this assertion. She noted the “fogginess” of the situation in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. Marcus added that the revelations about Blumenthal will not “fundamentally add to our understanding of that question” of how four Americans died on that day.
Fellow Post scribe Chris Cillizza argued that just because the political implications were discussed in the emails does not mean anything was covered up with respect to Benghazi:
[T]here were many Republicans who said look, this seems to have been obfuscated because it happened in September of election year, of President Obama's re-election year. So, the fact that this is speculated about in this email traffic doesn’t make it true, right. It does speak, I always think, to the reality that there are no dry policy debates. There are no events that do not happen and are not quickly seen or at least sort of suggested to be seen as, what does this mean politically speaking?
Toward the end of the discussion, Marcus reasserted her point that the emails and Clinton’s relationship to Blumenthal don’t go toward the fundamental question of what actually happened in Benghazi. Marcus dismissed the Blumenthal emails by saying it was possible “she didn’t totally endorse what he's saying in the emails” and that Clinton may simply have been passing the emails along.
The liberal media’s lack of curiosity – despite the thousands of still undisclosed emails in the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks – is hardly unsurprising given their usual positive treatment of Mrs. Clinton.
The relevant portion of the transcript is below.
MSNBC
Andrea Mitchell Reports
May 21, 2015
12:07 p.m. EasternLUKE RUSSERT, guest host: For more now on Hillary Clinton's e-mails, I'm joined by NBC Capitol Hill correspondent Kelly O'Donnell, Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus, and Chris Cillizza, MSNBC contributor and founder of the Washington Post Fix blog. And Kelly, I'll sort of start off with you in terms of logistics here. We all thought that May 18 was going to be judgment day, the possibility of Hillary Clinton coming to the Hill. But this committee says they’re waiting because they want to see a more information provided to them and they want to get to the bottom of it with Mr. Blumenthal. What's the time line look like right now from where you’re sitting?
KELLY O’DONNELL, NBC correspondent: One of the frustrations on behalf of the committee Luke as they tell us is that they want more documents because reviewing documents – which they say are coming out too slowly from the State department – is a basis upon which they can formulate their questions and organize the appearance of a key figure like Sidney Blumenthal or Secretary Clinton herself. Without sort of the paper trail in possession in advance, they find it difficult to organize how they will, in their words, make the most of their appearance from their point of view. So when we had first heard May 18th might be the earliest date, that was not locked in. And then when there was no follow up on a time frame, still not locked in. So now what we're hearing is that Blumenthal is expected to be questioned over the next several weeks and lingering frustration that is kind of bubbling up especially as the New York Times is getting possession of some of the e-mails. The State department is saying there's an imminent release of these first rolling e-mails. They want a chance to review that, to plan their strategy, to make the most out of whatever appearance in the one day that Hillary Clinton has suggested through her attorney she would be willing to give the committee. Luke.
RUSSERT: Ruth, I'm very interested here in this sort of pattern of e-mails you have from Blumenthal. Because you have, right after the attacks, Blumenthal says his intelligence sources on the ground say this was directly related to a demonstration. Then within the same sort of day, it comes back – I just read the line of the congressman – no, they used the demonstration as a front. Seemingly this does give Hillary Clinton an out if in fact she took this information and pushed it forward. If anything, she can kind of say, ‘I was saying these things. What the administration did with it, that’s their prerogative.’”
RUTH MARCUS, Washington Post: It does convey, a little bit, some of the fogginess of the information that was available to everybody in and outside the government about exactly what was happening in the aftermath of this. I have to say, I understand the committee’s frustration at not having these emails. I understand their suspicion about not having these emails. I’m a little bit confused about what the goal is here because the congressman appropriately phrased the question as how did it happen that we have four dead Americans? How could this have been? Whatever we get or don't get from Sidney Blumenthal, and certainly the committee should be able to interview him, I'm not quite sure how that's going to fundamentally add to our understanding of that question, which is really the important question.
RUSSERT: It seems that they just want to get him involved because of his – shall we say – interesting relationship with the Clintons that dates back for years with the confluence of business relationships and political relationships and whatnot. Chris Cillizza, we love talking politics with you. Some of the e-mails that went from Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton specifically did deal with the politics of Benghazi. One of them talking about the Jimmy Carter strategy. A Salon article called “GOP’s October Surprise” saying that in fact that the GOP could bring this up to make Obama look weak on terrorism. And Hillary Clinton says, “make sure Ben knows about this.” Presumably Ben Rhodes, one of the president’s top advisors. What are we to make of that and how much do you think that could be problematic in the confines of this Benghazi committee investigation?
CHRIS CILLIZZA, Washington Post reporter and MSNBC contributor: Well, remember that at the time, sort of right afterward – and once we found out more details about what happened that day, there were many Republicans who said look, this seems to have been obfuscated because it happened in September of election year, of President Obama's re-election year. So, the fact that this is speculated about in this email traffic doesn’t make it true, right. It does speak, I always think, to the reality that there are no dry policy debates. There are no events that do not happen and are not quickly seen or at least sort of suggested to be seen as, what does this mean politically speaking? That's true of Democrats, it’s true of Republicans.
[...]
RUSSERT: Ruth, last to you to sort of tie all this all together. Blumenthal, you have the Clinton Global Initiative he’s working work for, Media Matters, American Bridge, and then involved in Libya here. How does this play out at the end?
MARCUS: Well, many different people wear many different hats. And one things I think is so delicious getting a glimpse of these emails is you can see both from Secretary Clinton at one point, she says of one of his memos, this strains credulity. And you can certainly see from the advisors that it's being passed on to that this seems like a little bit of a thin conspiracy theory one of them says at one point. And, so look, you need to be really careful when you’re getting this input that you understand what the sources of the input are and the conflict of interests that they might have. She doesn’t totally endorse what he’s saying, she passes it on. It’s a – I want to say two contradictory things. I think it's a fair avenue for inquiry. It doesn’t go to the fundamental Benghazi question as I said earlier of how did we lose these four fine public servants?
