Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
I'm Scott they're big present a big changes to president Obama's foreign policy team.
The president will announce today that national security advisor Tom O'Donnell and will step down.
He's going to be replaced by UN ambassador Susan Rice the appointment does not require senate confirmation.
Ambassador rice of course at the center of the -- Ghazi scandal after she went on the Sunday talk shows days after the terror attack that killed four Americans.
And blamed it on a video the information she gave leader turned out to be incorrect.
The best information in the best assessment we have today.
Is that in fact this was not a pre planned premeditated.
That what happened initially was it it was a spontaneous.
Reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo.
As a consequence of the video.
Did people gathered outside the embassy and then it's it grew very violent.
Charlie hurt is a columnist for The Washington Times he's been a long time observer of how things go in Washington explain.
This move Charlie.
Well you know -- -- -- whether she lied when she gave -- those talking points or she was misunderstood the situation.
Either way she got it spectacularly wrong so what -- we just maker national security advisor who briefs the president every day on national security.
It's kind of it's kind of a strange strange pick if you ask me.
But this is that this is what I call the second term stink.
It's when you know you you can't fire people because they know too much you can't hire new people these can't bring you you have to bring people have been sort of let amid all the secrets of -- and and and mistakes that they have already going on in administration she just kind of stir people around and that's what we're doing here.
And and so Susan Rice who got as is viewers know.
Was passed over or or at least remove herself from content.
A consideration for secretary of state.
Two to succeed Hillary Clinton and so they kind of needed -- -- nice place fertile land and this is where she -- Well and it's it's a job that does not require senate confirmation the president can pick whom he chooses to be national security advisor.
Obviously if if he had put her in some kind of a role that would require confirmation.
There would be all kinds of questions asked in the US senate.
Oh yeah and you know John I think this is sort of the most important part here of this decision.
Is the fact that that OK so and so the Republicans can't stop her.
And and who knows if they really would have succeeded -- at stopping her anyway with Democrats control of the senate.
But what this allows the Republicans to do instead.
Is to spend the next four years talking about Susan Rice and -- doesn't because she's still and she's a very live part of the administration.
It keeps it it keeps the issue of Ben Ghazi.
Which there's -- -- -- is still remain a lot of unanswered questions very much alive and and it's not unreasonable.
For Republicans to -- continue.
This drumbeat which of course they what what would like to do for a lot of reasons not the least of which is the threat that Hillary Clinton may run for.
For president between sixteen.
And so it -- it's you know Smart politics to just keep you know keep.
Drilling down to get to the bottom what really.
What really happened and they got -- what's -- for -- and speaking of Hillary Clinton an interesting choice to replace Susan Rice as UN ambassador.
Samantha Power people might remember her name from something that happened -- about five years ago.
When she got sacked for calling none other than Hillary Rodham Clinton.
-- monster on the on the Obama campaign and says she got sacked from that was it was.
You know months later or six months later was was rehired by Obama.
Two work for Hillary Clinton.
And but apparently I guess they patch things up but it just it it underscores this whole notion that sort of it in this town nothing means anything.
You get fired you get -- you get it there you you give a spectacularly bad.
Intelligence assessment of the terrorist attack.
And you get made national security advisor it's it's pretty good stuff.
And giving the president his national daily briefing on security matters it's going to be interest and also -- -- talked about this story today Charlie as well the deadline is today.
For attorney general Eric Holder to answer questions about his testimony on the Justice Department seizure of journalists records.
Now the House Judiciary Committee is looking into whether the attorney general lied under -- back on May fifteenth.
When he claimed he never heard of the potential prosecution of a member of the press.
Days later we then learn to Justice Department in addition to seizing telephone and email records of Associated Press reporters.
Hadn't seen -- the daily email and phone records of Fox News correspondent James Rosen.
With a warrant signed by the attorney general that characterizes Rosen as a co conspirator.
Republican lawmakers are threatening to subpoena the nation's top cop if he does not respond to today's deadline.
Here's chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Bob good -- -- last night on Greta.
We want to have the attorney general respond to the questions.
That we posed to him based upon the clear contradiction between his sworn testimony in the committee.
And his approval of the affidavit for search warrant in the rose in case before the committee when asked by a democratic congressman.
Hank Johnson of Georgia.
About the prosecution of reporters said the potential prosecution or reporters was something he never heard of thought it would be an unwise thing to do.
But Democrats are defending -- arguing that the attorney general statements were not out of line.
It made an application for purposes of obtaining search -- but it was not.
And he charge it was not a formal charge.
Just you know watch -- never been charged with this -- mentioned any attorney general says that he had never.
Been a part of such a prosecution.
Of a journalist for -- million.
Revealing classified information.
And -- so what he -- -- fair and accurate and -- -- source of concern.
What do you think Charlie is the attorney general going to go ahead and submit to what congress wants -- are they gonna have to subpoena him.
Well I think that you from what I understand from DOJ that they're going to very much tried to meet the deadline and supplies.
Answers to the questions that have been have been ask.
But I don't think that even if they do -- do that I don't think that that necessarily eliminates the very real possibility that that that.
holder will be.
Brought back before.
Congress to answer a lot of these questions there there's a very serious questions they go to the heart of whether whether he actually.
Lied in in sworn testimony before congress.
And and did you know -- that's bad.
That -- that you have in the administration or outside the administration.
But we're here talking about the the the the highest law enforcement officer in the land.
The attorney general of the United States and the possibility that that he may have actually lied under oath.
It is -- it is a shockingly serious issue.
And one that that goes to the very fabric of you know of all prosecutions that he is directed -- he may not be jobs he's not involved in every single.
Prosecution -- -- hands on.
But he is the backbone of it and he is that you know he is the standard -- and it and if he has that little regard for four you know giving truthful testimony then.
It's gonna be he's if it doesn't matter whether they comply with today's deadline or not -- he'll find himself hauled before congress again.
The general holder held a meeting with some of the lawyers.
Top lawyers in the intelligence community yesterday and there was maybe you might call the leak from that meeting someone who was in the room.
Said that the attorney general says don't worry about all of this you know brouhaha over press investigations.
I wanna be aggressive and I want you to be aggressive.
With punishing media leaguers.
Does that surprise me.
As you hit it yes very much so because -- you know it just reveals I think how absolutely.
These folks are.
In India and whether it's -- -- you know that the journalism leaks whether it's telling us to bring -- Was just you know it a spur.
Of the moment sort of protest over a video that that there there absolutely they play for keeps.
You know that they have no reservations about going full war and that's what what I think holder's doing now even as as.
Serious questions are being raised about you know about his truthfulness.
Charlie heard from The Washington Times thank you.
Filter by section