This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/24/us/politics/benghazi-committee-bradley-podliska-trey-gowdy.html

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Fired Investigator Sues House Benghazi Committee and Its Leader Fired Investigator Sues House Benghazi Committee and Its Leader
(about 2 hours later)
WASHINGTON — A former investigator for Republicans on the House Select Committee on Benghazi filed a lawsuit against the panel and its chairman on Monday, contending that they had illegally fired and defamed him. WASHINGTON — A former investigator for Republicans on the House Select Committee on Benghazi filed a lawsuit against the panel and its chairman on Monday, contending that they had illegally fired and defamed him.
The former investigator, Bradley F. Podliska, said in the suit that he had been dismissed because he left the committee for several weeks to fulfill his duties as an Air Force reservist. It also said that after it was revealed in October that Mr. Podliska planned to file a complaint against the committee, the chairman, Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, made false statements about Mr. Podliska to the news media that damaged his reputation.The former investigator, Bradley F. Podliska, said in the suit that he had been dismissed because he left the committee for several weeks to fulfill his duties as an Air Force reservist. It also said that after it was revealed in October that Mr. Podliska planned to file a complaint against the committee, the chairman, Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, made false statements about Mr. Podliska to the news media that damaged his reputation.
Committee staff members “singled out” Mr. Podliska because he was unwilling to go along with the committee’s focus on the State Department and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, said the suit, which was filed in federal court in Washington. The lawsuit, filed in federal court here, says committee staff members “singled out” Mr. Podliska because he was unwilling to go along with the committee’s focus on the State Department and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
In his lawsuit, Mr. Podliska is requesting reinstatement as a committee investigator, and compensation for lost wages and other damages. He is also seeking “a permanent injunction barring Chairman Gowdy from repeating false, defamatory and injurious statements” about him. Mr. Podliska’s suit seeks his reinstatement as a committee investigator, compensation for lost wages and other damages. He is also seeking “a permanent injunction barring Chairman Gowdy from repeating false, defamatory and injurious statements” about him.
“Without such an injunction, Chairman Gowdy will likely continue to repeat the same false and defamatory statements,” the suit said. The committee and Mr. Gowdy have said Mr. Podliska was fired in June for mishandling classified information. In October, the committee said Mr. Podliska had tried to “direct committee resources to a PowerPoint ‘hit piece’ on members of the Obama administration, including Secretary Clinton, that bore no relationship whatsoever to the committee’s current investigative tone, focus or investigative plan.”
The committee and Mr. Gowdy have said Mr. Podliska was fired in June for mishandling classified information. In a statement in October, the committee said Mr. Podliska had repeatedly tried “to develop and direct committee resources to a PowerPoint ‘hit piece’ on members of the Obama administration, including Secretary Clinton, that bore no relationship whatsoever to the committee’s current investigative tone, focus or investigative plan.” In a statement Monday in response to the lawsuit, the committee called Mr. Podliska’s claims “meritless” and said they “improperly strike at the heart of the committee’s legislative functions.”
“Thus, directly contrary to his brand-new assertion, the employee actually was terminated, in part, because he himself manifested improper partiality and animus in his investigative work,” the statement said. “The committee vigorously denies all of his allegations. Moreover, once legally permitted to do, the committee stands ready to prove his termination was legal, justified and warranted — on multiple levels.” “We reiterate that the committee did not and does not discriminate or retaliate based on military service, military status or any other unlawful factor,” it said.