Moron.

Moron.

So with respect to responsibility, with the placing of the mission, with the request for more security [...] I have a perspective which is rooted in the previous ARB that the Secretary of State, himself or herself, should do that personal review.

Does Trey Gowdy have any other setting beyond "stupid?"He is saying that a secretary of state should personally review the security arrangements of every diplomatic mission in the department's purview. Here's a list of the State Department's 307 embassies, consulates, and diplomatic missions around the globe.

So Gowdy thinks that the secretary of state needs to determine whether six foot walls are adequate for each of those 307 facilities, or whether they should be eight feet tall? Where security cameras should be placed? What kind of glass to use? The size of the compound's security detail? The placement of physical anti-vehicle barriers? The adequacy of local law enforcement coverage? Contingency plans in case of attack or natural disaster?

And let's say she gives each diplomatic facility one day of attention, which is clearly inadequate for such an important task. That would take about a year and a half, accounting for weekends and holidays. So ... what about the other stuff the secretary of state is actually tasked with doing—like conducting foreign policy, negotiating treaties, mediating conflicts, etc.?

I mean, if Gowdy really believes the secretary of state should be individually reviewing the security details of every diplomatic mission, he is dumber than he already looks. But of course, he doesn't. This is more flailing from someone desperately trying to inflict political damage on Hillary Clinton.