Kerry to testify on alternative date on attack in Benghazi
WASHINGTON — The State Department and a House panel are working on an alternative date for Secretary of State John Kerry to testify about information related to the deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, ending the immediate threat of a subpoena for a member of President Obama's Cabinet.
Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, had subpoenaed Kerry to testify on May 21 about the administration's response in providing emails and other documents to the panel investigating the Sept. 11, 2012, attack. Kerry is scheduled to travel to Mexico next week.
“The State Department has told the Committee that they are committed to finding an alternative date in the near future for Secretary Kerry to testify before the Oversight Committee,” Frederick Hill, a spokesman for the panel, said on Monday. “As such, Chairman Issa agreed to lift the subpoena obligation for May 21.”
The Oversight Committee is pressing ahead with its investigation even as the House established a new select committee to conduct an inquiry into the assault that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
In the Senate on Monday, Democrats blocked a Republican push for a joint House-Senate investigation.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, sought support for the Senate to participate in the inquiry. Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey objected, saying the probe is politically motivated and without merit.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Detectives crack LA art heist; 9 paintings recovered
- Sale of ‘Breathe Easy’ shirts blasted amid Indiana protests
- Warren’s hangups over trade agenda threaten party ties
- Airships are Army’s new eyes in the sky to detect, destroy missiles
- Castle doctrine doesn’t hold up in Montana murder case
- California downpours arrive with lightning
- End ‘mindless’ military spending caps, Aerospace Industries Association says
- Use of U.S. steel to fix Alaska terminal causes rift with Canada
- Republican lawmakers vow to block confirmation of any potential ambassador to Cuba
- Conn. dentist’s license suspended over death
- Fracking essentially banned in N.Y.