Tomorrow, Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills will testify before the House Select Committee on Benghazi. Though Mills requested that her testimony occur in public, Trey Gowdy refused and will conduct the interview behind closed doors.

This is what we call a Total Gowdy Move. Though Gowdy preaches transparency, he conducts interviews with witnesses in private and as a result the media has no independent record of what occurred.  Next, Gowdy selectively and anonymously leaks misinformation to the media – despite his refusal to make said interview public and despite his assertion that “serious investigations do not leak information.”

Gowdy’s leaks aren’t limited to witness interviews – read Gowdy’s history below of leaking all kinds of information. For more Total Gowdy Moves, follow Correct The Record.

Benghazi Committee Leaks

Yesterday, in advance of her closed-door interview before the Benghazi Committee, it was reported that Clinton aide Cheryl Mills had sought to have her testimony occur in public. This request, which Gowdy denied, was made, according to a Politico report, “because she fears Republicans will leak selected information that casts her in a negative light.” This is a play Trey Gowdy has run before, like when he prohibited the release of a transcript of Sidney Blumenthal’s closed-door interview but then leaked selected information from that hearing. In fact, despite his rhetoric about transparency and assertions that “serious investigations do not leak information,” the Benghazi Committee has leaked information at every turn.

Leak #1: Trey Gowdy committee leaked news of Hillary Clinton subpoena.  “In a letter sent to Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on Friday, the five Democrats on the panel criticized Gowdy for issuing the formal request for documents from Clinton’s term as secretary of state without consulting with Democrats and accused the committee of operating as a campaign arm of the Republican National Committee…. ‘Issuing this subpoena unilaterally with no deliberation by committee members, leaking information about the subpoena before informing Democratic Members, and providing inaccurate information at a press conference all contribute to a perception that this Committee is now targeting Secretary Clinton for political reasons rather than to clarify any remaining facts relating to the attacks in Benghazi,’ the Democrats, led by Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), wrote.” [Politico, 3/6/15]

• Rep. Cummings: “It seems obvious that someone on the Republican side of the Committee provided this information.”“Contrary to your statements warning against the disclosure of internal Committee information, the Washington Post ran a story about your subpoena before you informed a single Democratic member that it was under consideration. It seems obvious that someone on the Republican side of the Committee provided this information to an individual outside the Committee before you told any Democratic Members.”  [Cummings letter to Gowdy, 3/6/15]

Leak #2: Trey Gowdy committee leaked news of Sidney Blumenthal subpoena. “Now, as Hillary Rodham Clinton embarks on her second presidential bid, Mr. Blumenthal’s service to the Clintons is again under the spotlight. Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, a Republican who is leading the congressional committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, plans to subpoena Mr. Blumenthal, 66, for a private transcribed interview. Mr. Gowdy’s chief interest, according to people briefed on the inquiry, is a series of memos that Mr. Blumenthal — who was not an employee of the State Department — wrote to Mrs. Clinton about events unfolding in Libya before and after the death of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.” [New York Times, 5/18/15]

• Rep. Cummings: Republicans on the Benghazi Committee leaked “news of the subpoena before it was served.” “These latest moves by the Benghazi Committee—issuing  a subpoena without first contacting the witness, leaking news of the subpoena before it was served, and not holding any Committee debate or vote—are straight out the partisan playbook of discredited Republican investigations.” [“Cummings Statement on Leaked Plan to Issue Unilateral Subpoena,” 5/18/15]

Leak #3: Trey Gowdy committee leaked Sidney Blumenthal email correspondence with Clinton. “Mr. Gowdy’s chief interest, according to people briefed on the inquiry, is a series of memos that Mr. Blumenthal — who was not an employee of the State Department — wrote to Mrs. Clinton about events unfolding in Libya before and after the death of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. According to emails obtained by The New York Times, Mrs. Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time, took Mr. Blumenthal’s advice seriously, forwarding his memos to senior diplomatic officials in Libya and Washington and at times asking them to respond. Mrs. Clinton continued to pass around his memos even after other senior diplomats concluded that Mr. Blumenthal’s assessments were often unreliable.” [New York Times, 5/18/15]

• Rep. Cummings: Trey Gowdy “selectively leaked pages of Secretary Clinton’s emails” to the press. “Today, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, issued the following statement in response to a press report that Chairman Gowdy intends to subpoena Sidney Blumenthal, which included selectively leaked pages of Secretary Clinton’s emails.” [Cummings Statement on Leaked Plan to Issue Unilateral Subpoena, 5/18/15]

Leak #4: Trey Gowdy committee leaked one third of Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi emails. “The emails set for release, drawn from some 55,000 pages and focused on Libya, have already been turned over to the special House committee investigating the 2012 attacks on the United States outposts in Benghazi. The New York Times has obtained about a third of the 850 pages of emails. They capture the correspondence and concerns expressed among Mrs. Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time, and her advisers following the attacks, which claimed the lives of the American ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, and three other Americans.” [New York Times, 5/21/15]

• Washington Examiner: “Benghazi committee … appeared to have leaked several hundred pages of records to the New York Times just hours before the State Department published its first batch of redacted emails.” “In November of last year, Clinton gave the State Department 55,000 printed pages of emails she deemed relevant to her work as secretary of state and reportedly deleted the rest. Many of those emails have been subjected to review by the Benghazi Committee, which appeared to have leaked several hundred pages of records to the New York Times just hours before the State Department published its first batch of redacted emails.” [Washington Examiner, 6/2/15]

Leak #5: Trey Gowdy committee leaked doctored emails to Politico. “While still secretary of state, Clinton emailed back and forth with Blumenthal about efforts by one of the groups, Media Matters, to neutralize criticism of her handling of the deadly assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, sources tell POLITICO. ‘Got all this done. … Complete refutation on Libya smear,’ Blumenthal wrote to Clinton in an Oct. 10, 2012, email into which he had pasted links to four Media Matters posts criticizing Fox News and Republicans for politicizing the Benghazi attacks and challenging claims of lax security around the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, according to a source who has reviewed the email exchange. Blumenthal signed off the email to Clinton by suggesting that one of her top aides, Philippe Reines, ‘can circulate these links,’ according to the source. Clinton responded: ‘Thanks, I’m pushing to WH,’ according to the source.” [Politico, 6/17/15 (via Cummings Letter to Trey Gowdy, 7/6/15)]

• Rep. Cummings: “Someone who was given access to the Select Committee’s documents leaked doctored information to the press in order to make unsubstantiated allegations against Secretary Clinton.” “Documents released recently by the Benghazi Select Committee demonstrate that a Member of the Committee, a staffer on the Committee, or someone who has been given access to the Committee’s documents inaccurately described to the press email exchanges obtained by the Committee in a way that appeared to further a political attack against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.” [Rep. Cummings letter to Chairman Gowdy, 7/6/15]

• MSNBC: Politico report was based in part on information leaked to the news outlet that turned out to be untrue.“Three weeks ago, Politico published a fairly long, front-page piece with a provocative headline: ‘Benghazi panel probes Sidney Blumenthal’s work for David Brock.’ At issue, of course, is the House Select Committee on Benghazi, already responsible for one of the longest congressional investigations in congressional history, and its meandering focus…. There was, however, a problem: the Politico report wasn’t entirely accurate – or more to the point, the Politico report was based in part on information leaked to the news outlet that turned out to be untrue. This morning, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the ranking member on the committee, sent a letter to the panel’s chairman, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), making the case that it ‘it now appears that someone who was given access to the Select Committee’s documents leaked doctored information to the press in order to make unsubstantiated allegations against Secretary Clinton.’ By all appearances, Cummings has a very good point.” [MSNBC, 7/6/15]

Leak #6: Trey Gowdy committee leaked details about closed-door interview of Sidney Blumenthal. “The Clinton confidant under scrutiny on Capitol Hill over detailed Libya memos he sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told lawmakers earlier this week he has been pulling in $200,000 a year from Clinton ally David Brock’s media operation, congressional sources tellFoxNews.com. The figure is far higher than initially reported. While the payments to Sidney Blumenthal may not reflect any apparent conflict of interest, his work with Brock’s liberal advocacy and media groups was a focus of his high-profile deposition on Tuesday before the House Benghazi committee. Republicans’ rationale for the questioning was that his financial and political interests are important context, at a time when he was sending high-level guidance to Clinton. Politico.com first reported that Republicans grilled Blumenthal on his work for Brock’s groups. But while the report said Blumenthal was making more than $10,000 a month, congressional sources say he acknowledged during the deposition he actually had a $200,000-a-year contract.”  [Fox News, 6/19/15]

• Rep. Cummings: There have been “selective—and sometimes inaccurate—descriptions of his [Blumenthal’s] testimony and his emails that have appeared in the press.” “We believe the public record has been distorted by the selective release of Mr. Blumenthal’s emails without the full context of his deposition transcript, which provides Mr. Blumenthal’s answers to hundreds of questions posed to him about those emails. We also believe the full release of Mr. Blumenthal’s transcript will resolve public disagreements that have arisen from the selective—and sometimes inaccurate—descriptions of his testimony and his emails that have appeared in the press.” [Ranking Member Cummings Letter to Trey Gowdy, 6/24/15]

Leak #7: Trey Gowdy committee may have leaked false information that a criminal referral was made to the Justice Department for an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email. “An article and a headline in some editions on Friday about a request to the Justice Department for an investigation regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account while she was secretary of state misstated the nature of the request, using information from senior government officials. It addressed the potential compromise of classified information in connection with that email account. It did not specifically request an investigation into Mrs. Clinton…An article in some editions on Friday about a request to the Justice Department for an investigation regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account while she was secretary of state referred incorrectly, using information from senior government officials, to the request. It was a ‘security referral,’ pertaining to possible mishandling of classified information, officials said, not a ‘criminal referral.’” [New York Times correction, 7/23/15]

• Rep. Cummings: “This is the latest example in a series of inaccurate leaks to generate false front-page headlines—only to be corrected later” “I spoke personally to the State Department Inspector General on Thursday, and he said he never asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation of Secretary Clinton’s email usage.  Instead, he told me the Intelligence Community IG notified the Justice Department and Congress that they identified classified information in a few emails that were part of the FOIA review, and that none of those emails had been previously marked as classified.  The Benghazi Select Committee has obtained zero evidence that any emails to or from Secretary Clinton were marked as classified at the time they were transmitted, although some have been retroactively classified since then.  This is the latest example in a series of inaccurate leaks to generate false front-page headlines—only to be corrected later—and they have absolutely nothing to do with the attacks in Benghazi or protecting our diplomatic corps overseas.” [“Cummings Responds to Inaccurate Leaks to New York Times on Clinton Emails,”7/24/15]

• Vox’s Jonathan Allen: “My reporting suggests that House Benghazi Committee Chair Trey Gowdy was fully aware of the request to the Justice Department at least a day before the Times broke the story.” “My reporting suggests that House Benghazi Committee Chair Trey Gowdy was fully aware of the request to the Justice Department at least a day before the Times broke the story. If he or his staff were sources, it should have been incumbent upon the Times to check every detail with multiple unconnected sources. Gowdy’s team has been accused of leaking something untrue to a reporter before. Clearly, Sullivan thinks her colleagues didn’t do a good enough job of vetting their sources.” [Jonathan Allen column, Vox, 7/28/15]

• Benghazi Committee Dem: “The leak of the Inspector General’s referral, and the mischaracterization that accompanied its leak, demonstrate once again how the Select Committee on Benghazi has lost sight of its mission.” “The leak of the Inspector General’s referral, and the mischaracterization that accompanied its leak, demonstrate once again how the Select Committee on Benghazi has lost sight of its mission and become little more than the taxpayer funded effort to attack Secretary Clinton.” [Rep. Schiff statement, 7/24/15]

• The Atlantic’s Norm Ornstein: “It would not be the first time that committee has been a likely source for a front-page Times story on Clinton.” “Here is what top editor [NYT] Matt Purdy said about the story’s sources: They were ‘multiple, reliable, highly placed’ and included some ‘in law enforcement.’ What does that mean? First, it means that some of the sources were not in law enforcement. If they were from Congress, and, perhaps from Trey Gowdy’s special committee on Benghazi, it would not be the first time that committee has been a likely source for a front-page Times story on Clinton.” [Norm Ornstein column, The Atlantic, 7/28/15]

• Salon’s Simon Maloy: “If it did originate from the Benghazi committee, that wouldn’t be a surprise, given that chairman Trey Gowdy has effectively given his colleagues and staff a green light to leak.” “(If it did originate from the Benghazi committee, that wouldn’t be a surprise, given that chairman Trey Gowdy has effectively given his colleagues and staff a green light to leak.) Of course, the only way to know for sure would be if the Times were to burn its sources – something it’s unlikely to do, even though it would seem to be justified.” [Simon Maloy column, Salon, 7/27/15]

• New York Times admitted to relying on tips from Capitol Hill to develop now-discredited story.“The story developed quickly on Thursday afternoon and evening, after tips from various sources, including on Capitol Hill. The reporters had what Mr. Purdy described as ‘multiple, reliable, highly placed sources,’ including some ‘in law enforcement.’ I think we can safely read that as the Justice Department. The sources said not only was there indeed a referral but also that it was directed at Mrs. Clinton herself, and that it was a criminal referral. And that’s how The Times wrote it initially. ‘We got it wrong because our very good sources had it wrong,’ Mr. Purdy told me. ‘That’s an explanation, not an excuse. We have an obligation to get facts right and we work very hard to do that.’” [NY Times Public Editor’s Journal, 7/27/15]