This is an example of why I prefer primary sources when I post here
about Secretary Clinton. Senator Corker was on MSNBC this morning and
suggested that if Mme. Secretary can testify on Benghazi on January 22,
perhaps as early as that afternoon the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, under the direction of the future chair, Robert Menendez
(congratulations, Bob) will confirm current chair, John Kerry as
Secretary of State. Here is how
Politico picked it up and reported it.
Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton will likely testify Jan. 22 before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee on the deadly U.S. Consulate attack in
Benghazi, the panel’s top Republican said Tuesday.
Sen. Bob Corker
(R-Tenn.) said on MSNBC that he has spoken with Clinton’s chief of
staff and said she seems “anxious” to testify on the Hill, following
weeks of hospital visits after a concussion.
“I think they feel
she’s going to be healthy enough to come in that day,” he said. “If that
were to occur, and again this is Sen. [Robert] Menendez’s decision, we
could move very quickly, maybe even that afternoon, to Sen. [John]
Kerry’s [nomination] hearings.
By
this afternoon it was viral that this date was "set." Whoa, Nellie!
It was not until after 4:30 this
afternoon that that daily press briefing notification went out, but it
was another hour or so before the transcript was actually posted. What
Victoria Nuland said is at odds with what Senator Corker said and what
Politico reported.
QUESTION:
And any updates (inaudible) on the issue about when the Secretary could
testify on Benghazi and when the confirmation hearing for Senator Kerry
could be held?
MS. NULAND: We’re still working with the
Hill on all of those things, but I think we talked in some detail
yesterday about the expected timing. They’re not coming back to work –
the committees are not – until after the inaugural.
QUESTION:
What is the Department’s preferred sequence in those hearings? That the
confirmation hearing should precede the Benghazi hearing, or vice
versa?
MS. NULAND: I don’t think we’re going to negotiate
that here with you all. We’re working on it with the Hill to make sure
that it’s appropriate for their needs and for ours. But as I said, the
goal on our side is that we would have the Secretary able to testify, as
she’s promised to do while she’s still sitting Secretary, but also have
the confirmation hearing as quickly as appropriate after they come back
in.
QUESTION: And just for the record, why is it important
to the Secretary that her testimony on this matter should unfold while
she is sitting Secretary?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think that’s
appropriate. That’s what the Hill seems to want, and that allows her to
complete her obligations as Secretary while she’s Secretary. Makes
sense.
QUESTION: Then this would have to be done rather
quickly. In theory, you wouldn’t want to have a confirmed Secretary,
next Secretary waiting around until this happens, right?
MS. NULAND: I think we are hopeful that we can work this all through very smoothly with the committees.
So in fact, as late as this afternoon,
nothing has been set - demonstrating why this blog, when it loses the
primary source at the State Department will not be resorting to
secondary sources unless confirmation can be made. It is going to be a
hard slog, folks.
I am not saying that the January 22 date
will not end up being the date of the testimony. I am only saying that
it is irresponsible reporting to say that date is "set."
All
we really know is that Secretary Clinton has ordered all of the ARB
recommendations to be implemented, that she is committed to cooperating
with the committees, and that she intends to testify as sitting SOS.
