Anyone watching? Interested? Obviously this is a two person debate tonight with 3 others joining. Curious to see HC take on the TPP questions. I am sure her emails/Benghazi will be brought up ad nausum, but the TPP has me interested.
Mo Brooks: Congressman, R-Ala, Says Hillary Clinton Is 'Subject to Impeachment' if Elected President
Brooks told radio host Matt Murphy that the day Clinton is "sworn in is the day that shes subject to impeachment because she has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
RE: Cruz is by no means interested in ideological purity.
He is interested in attention. Pretending to be a purist gets him attention.
Cruz fancies himself Barry Goldwater, and if that means the GOP loses in '16 but he comes back at the helm of a more conservative party he is fine with that.
Came off like a total Dino (is that even a thing? I've only heard Rino used before, but the same principle holds) He is the Kasich of the other side, the guy the opposite party likes more than the party whose nomination he seeks. The john huntsman.
Get Lincoln chaffe off that stage too. I wish they had mixed debates because I'm convinced donald trump could make lincoln chaffe cry right there on stage, and it will be great tv
Speaking more generally about the campaign, I'm no Hillary fan (though I will vote for her) but I really think she has hit her stride here in this campaign after that McCarthy mess and her debate performance on top of it. The bottom line is in addition to her personal challenges (baggage, not a great political athlete) her candidacy faced obstacles not often seen for people trying to get a campaign off the ground due to this air of inevitability. It has allowed the other side to incessantly beat the shit out of her for years on a daily basis. Once Obama got re elected, FOX news shifted their focus to crushing Hillary over the head daily with an eye on 2016. The right has been campaigning against Hillary 3 years ago with an eye on this cycle. In some ways you could probably say the campaign against Hillary for 2016 started in 2008, but they were more worried about stopping an Obama 2nd term to just go all out on her. The opposition research on her also has to be as exhaustive as anything ever.
From a political theater perspective I am thrilled that trump continues to hold this lead as time advances and we enter the holiday season where things usually stay stagnant for a couple months barring a major event. He figures to hold his lead into 2016
RE: Jim Webb didn't belong on that stage to begin with
Came off like a total Dino (is that even a thing? I've only heard Rino used before, but the same principle holds) He is the Kasich of the other side, the guy the opposite party likes more than the party whose nomination he seeks. The john huntsman.
Get Lincoln chaffe off that stage too. I wish they had mixed debates because I'm convinced donald trump could make lincoln chaffe cry right there on stage, and it will be great tv
Speaking more generally about the campaign, I'm no Hillary fan (though I will vote for her) but I really think she has hit her stride here in this campaign after that McCarthy mess and her debate performance on top of it. The bottom line is in addition to her personal challenges (baggage, not a great political athlete) her candidacy faced obstacles not often seen for people trying to get a campaign off the ground due to this air of inevitability. It has allowed the other side to incessantly beat the shit out of her for years on a daily basis. Once Obama got re elected, FOX news shifted their focus to crushing Hillary over the head daily with an eye on 2016. The right has been campaigning against Hillary 3 years ago with an eye on this cycle. In some ways you could probably say the campaign against Hillary for 2016 started in 2008, but they were more worried about stopping an Obama 2nd term to just go all out on her. The opposition research on her also has to be as exhaustive as anything ever.
From a political theater perspective I am thrilled that trump continues to hold this lead as time advances and we enter the holiday season where things usually stay stagnant for a couple months barring a major event. He figures to hold his lead into 2016
Jim Webb had a place on that stage a couple decades ago, fighting for the nomination of a party that insists that only the GOP has moved markedly toward its pole.
After seeing this election for a new Speaker play out,
Cruz fancies himself Barry Goldwater, and if that means the GOP loses in '16 but he comes back at the helm of a more conservative party he is fine with that.
Ted Cruz is hated by fellow Republicans in the Senate - He is doomed to be a one term Senator.
He is running merely to burnish his credentials for his post political career of being a professional conservative activist i e a GRIFTER.
because putting his politics aside, he's not a good politician. In a world where a true moderate could win the presidency, Jim Webb would still never be elected president. So he was wasting everyone's time.
And gf2000: Ted Cruz is the most popular Republican in Texas. The seat is his if he still wants it. I believe his play is to pull the Senate GOP to the right, get something like a Freedom Caucus going in the Senate, and be a conservative icon, policy maker, and even king maker ala a late stage Teddy Kennedy (and I dont want to start a fucking debate about Teddy Kennedy's personal life). However I think it is backfiring, as even his one true ally in the Senate, Mike Lee, is moving away from Cruz's game.
is trying to release documents over State's objections, last minute. Also, Cummings is going to town on him. From Cummings' letter today:
Quote:
You made yet another inaccurate statement on Sunday during your appearance on CBSs Face the Nation. Arguing that the Select Committee is not focused on Secretary Clintons emails in order to damage her campaign for president, you stated:
There are other folks who may have equities in her e-mails and there may be other entities who are evaluating her e-mails. But my interest in them is solely making sure that I get everything Im entitled to, so I can do my job. The rest of it, classification, Clinton Foundation, you name it, I have zero interest in, which is why you havent seen me send a subpoena related to it or interview a single person, other than Bryan Pagliano, because I need to know that the record is complete.
Your statement is inaccurate. You issued a subpoena on May 19, 2015, to require Sidney Blumenthal to appear before the Select Committee for a deposition on June 16, 2015. You issued this subpoena unilaterallywithout any debate or vote by Select Committee Membersand you sent two armed Marshals to serve this subpoena on his wife without ever sending him a request to participate in a voluntary interview, which he would have accepted.
You personally attended Mr. Blumenthals deposition, you personally asked Mr. Blumenthal about the Clinton Foundation, and you personally directed your staffon the recordto ask more than 50 questions specifically about the Clinton Foundation. Republicans also asked more than 45 questions about David Brock, Media Matters, and affiliated entities, and they asked more than 160 questions about Mr. Blumenthals relationship and communications with the Clintons.
Is every time I see the guy he has a different haircut. His entire life is just this one long odyssey desperately trying to find a look that works for him. A couple hair styles back he was just straight up looking ridiculous
But two developments have been killers for the optics of the big Hillary Goes To Washington Day at the Committee, which has been circled on their calendar forever. First, the McCarthy (and subsequent) comments flipped the script a bit, putting the alleged partisanship of the committee front and center. Second, Trump is fucking killing the Benghazi narrative right now by getting the GOP and Fox to say lay off GWB for 9/11 just as Hillary is supposed to be skewered for Benghazi. And then you dont have to agree with it, but Gowdy is tripping over his own feet right now, and Cummings is just killing him (Cummings has a huge advantage because partisan bickering doesnt hurt his cause).
we came to the same conclusion that the Republicans are full of shit. They are trying to stiff 10 lbs of prime crap in a 5lb bag. Shits going to flying and spraying those Republicans on Thursday
really reflects that poorly on Marco Rubio or even Jeb Bush? It's like comparing your tax plan to Bernie Sanders. You might win on the merits, but you lose because the comparison is being made.
we came to the same conclusion that the Republicans are full of shit. They are trying to stiff 10 lbs of prime crap in a 5lb bag. Shits going to flying and spraying those Republicans on Thursday
essentially ended George Allen's political career and it allowed the Democrats to take control of the Senate. Considering that and his service to his country, he had every right to be on the stage. However, when you consider his almost non-existent poll numbers, funding, and infrastructure, he also should've been more cognizant that he was lucky to be on that stage in the first place.
Tell me why this committee will be different than the previous 7 that investigated Benghazi. Totally partisan effort to destroy Democrats.
Well for one, they just got 1600 pages of Steven's emails. Printed out, literally just a few hours ago. Don't you think that would have been important for previous committees?
I'm sure those emails will cripple HRC and prove Obama and HRC screwed up, just like Reagan in Lebanon. #benghazi #saintronnie
You can't question why there is another investigation and then ignore that there was evidence that was not presented at the previous investigations. The Administration, the State Department and Clinton have stonewalled all of this from the beginning. And if Hillary is going to talk about her tenure as SoS and say what a fabulous thing they did in Libya, I think we need to know exactly what happened there.
I'm not expecting anything too exciting. Hillary's toadies will find sound bytes to titter about and the morons who idolize Trey Gowdy will find sound bytes to gloat about. I don't see her coming off particularly well for the exchange or for the attention, especially if she looks evasive. The committee brought the email issue to light and so has been important, but it is unlikely to accomplish more than that.
when you run it like a prosecution. It's an old trick, lawyer pull it all the time. We need more witnesses! They're withholding documents! The truth is out there!
Or maybe the story just isnt that difficult to understand, and the 7 previous GOP led committees were not incompetent boobs. Maybe they just didnt treat this like a prosecution, which is why after 7 tries the GOP needed a special do-over that the #2 leader in the house admits is a political attempt to hurt Clinton. Dont give me Gowdy's bullshit numbers (he's been caught lying about the 50 new witnesses issue). Tell me content, because if his extra efforts are just to harass people who had nothing to do with the events at Benghazi, he's wasting time.
And these arent the first Stevens emails given prior comments by Gowdy about Stevens' emails, so dont give me raw #s. What are these emails about? When were they requested (they could very well be follow up requests)? And why is a non-partisan committee re-tweet blasting shit like this on twitter:
Quote:
The Kansas City Star @KCStar Oct 18
U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas: Benghazi worse than Watergate: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article39860598.html#storylink=twt_staff
Why is Gowdy lying on TV about issuing subpoenas? Why is he lying about not caring about non-Benghazi stuff, given the questioning of Blumenthal?
Just tell me why Gowdy is lying when he says "none of the seven previous committees bothered to access the emails of our Ambassador" and that "How on earth could any of the other committees have completed their work properly without access to the senior person on the grounds emails?" and that "Wouldnt you want to know the emails of the guy that was there that was murdered and what he had asked for as far as help from the people he worked for? Weve just now gotten those emails. We have just now gotten them. Nobody else had requested them. I havent had a chance to read them. We didnt get them until the day before yesterday."
Because the representation that none of the other committees looked at Stevens' emails is a bald-face lie.
Productions to the Benghazi committee included docs produced to the other committees, including:
- an August 19, 2011, email exchange between Special Envoy Stevens and the Deputy Director of the Office of Maghreb Affairs about the logistics of providing security for a temporary duty officer to be assigned to eastern Libya (C05392462);
- a September 6, 2011, email from Special Envoy Stevens explaining why he felt it was important to maintain a U.S. presence in Benghazi (C05389447);
- a June 12, 2012, email exchange between Ambassador Stevens and the Director of the Office of Maghreb Affairs about the security situation in Benghazi (C05409960);
- a June 13, 2012, email exchange between Ambassador Stevens and State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland about the Departments public statements in light of recent violence in Libya (C05391866);
- an August 30, 2012, email exchange between Ambassador Stevens and the Principal Officer in Benghazi discussing a press report about the security situation in Benghazi (C05397290); and
- a September 8, 2012, email exchange between Ambassador Stevens and the Political Officer in Tripoli discussing a schedule for Ambassador Stevens upcoming travel to Benghazi (C05395356).
but Gowdy's only comeback to McCarthy telling Hannity -- that the committee is a political accomplishment of this congress because it hurt Hillary -- was that no one off-committee know anything about the committee's work and should STFU.
Why is there a Benghazi committee given the 7 prior Republican led committees? What was the deficiency with them, beyond the fact that they didnt destroy Hillary? How were 7 committees, some run by serious people, so incompetent, in the GOP-universe, that they missed a Watergate level scandal? What is it about Benghazi other than Hillary that is causing it to be investigated like it was 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.
And why was this super duper important committee put in the hands of a 3rd year Congressman, who is an ex-state prosecutor? Did Gowdy have any previous security/intel type experience, or was he just valued for being a prosecutor? Why did the GOP staff this committee with 3 second-termers and 1 first-termer (out of seven overall)?
but Gowdy's only comeback to McCarthy telling Hannity -- that the committee is a political accomplishment of this congress because it hurt Hillary -- was that no one off-committee know anything about the committee's work and should STFU.
Why is there a Benghazi committee given the 7 prior Republican led committees? What was the deficiency with them, beyond the fact that they didnt destroy Hillary? How were 7 committees, some run by serious people, so incompetent, in the GOP-universe, that they missed a Watergate level scandal? What is it about Benghazi other than Hillary that is causing it to be investigated like it was 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.
And why was this super duper important committee put in the hands of a 3rd year Congressman, who is an ex-state prosecutor? Did Gowdy have any previous security/intel type experience, or was he just valued for being a prosecutor? Why did the GOP staff this committee with 3 second-termers and 1 first-termer (out of seven overall)?
Why did the administration say that an obscure anti-muslim film caused the "riot?" Why and what were they hiding? You don't think lying to the world was nothing but CYA 2 months before the election? Purposely sending Susan Rice out, for what 4 weeks, pushing this lie when they knew this was a planned attack isn't a problem?
Why did Hillary apparently ask for an open committee when offered a behind the door hearing? (could be a smart move by her if the committee looks to be bullying her).
I think you are correct about him being a prosecutor as the reason he's on that committee as chair. Have no idea why the newbies.
Also somebody here told me said Stevens asked for only 5 extra security and it was 12. VP Biden said the House only approved $2.37 bill as opposed to $2.6 bill requested for State's budget and that was why they didn't get the extra people.
Deej, I'm not denying it is a political move to weaken Hillary, as well as finding just exactly who knew what, where and when. But she's running on how well she did as Sec State. When you lie about Benghazi and hide the use of a personal server, you don't think that is a character flaw for potentially most powerful person on earth? CNN fact check - ( New Window )
because there were 20+ separate points of intel suggesting that (and to this day, the best explanation is that it was both). That is what the Intel Committee found. Do you disagree? Is it so hard to believe that things were confusing during a mobbed attack?
Why did Hillary ask for an open hearing? Because the Benghazi committee leaks like a sieve, and only Gowdy has the power to release depo transcripts. He's sitting on the Blumenthal transcript even though the Dems are asking for its release.
The security allotment and requests were the subject of the other committee investigations. I dont agree that she lied about Benghazi or hid the existence of her personal server (how does that work? Did they ask and she said "no, my emails are at @state.gov?").
Look, I have no problem with investigating Benghazi. But it was the subject of 7 investigations. There is no justification for the 8th. And when it is being run in such a comically partisan manner that even the GOPers are admitting to its goals, it is time to shut it down. Trying to blame Hillary for the death of these 4 people when the first 7 committees refute such misconduct is tilting at windmills and abusing the machinery of government. It's yet another distraction from a ridiculous party that has a carnival barker leading its presidential polls and is so ungovernable that they're begging a guy to be Speaker. The #2 most powerful position in government, and they have to beg a man to do it.
Look, 4 people died. I have no problem with an investigation. My problem is that after 7 investigations were complete but didnt bury the Dem presidential nominee, it was decided that we needed an 8th. Show me how this is consistent with the investigations under Bush and Reagan. In a SERIES of attacks over months in Beirut, 300 people were killed. Did the Dems turn it into years of successive committees politically designed to hurt Reagan or Bush? No, they investigated for 2 months and issued a report. Reagan's Assistant SecDef wrote: "The Democratically controlled House, rather than getting involved in playing gotcha or the blame game, urged the President to withdraw from Lebanon, which he did by February 1984, and began to work with the Republican controlled-Senate on a bill to make sure such a tragedy would not occur ever again." If the GOP was not behaving like fucking animals, with idiots proclaiming that it is worse than Watergate and that it will be Hillary's Waterloo, I wouldnt have such a problem with them. But they wont take their job seriously, so I wont take them seriously.
There is also a ridiculous echo chamber on the right. Quite simply the rank and file is being suckered by a false narrative by the GOP and the right wing media. So many persistently false allegations. I can list dozens of false charges. Hillary called off an military rescue. US arms shipments from Libya to Turkey. Issa saying HRC personally signed cables about security when as a matter of form every one of the 1000s of cables from State-DC is signed by her. No ownership of Congress giving State $270 less million for security than State asked for, as if that is irrelevant. Just a fucking GOP clown show.
told DC within in very short period (hours) that it was a terrorist attack and not a spontaneous uprising. So again, the commanding general reported to the the Pentagon(who reported to the President) that it was an attack. Of course it was confusing at the start, but the military figured it out before it was over.
Why 8 hearings? Maybe because something hidden comes to light every time after each hearing. Sorry I admit that I thought it was less than 7 previous. Seems a bit unorganized for something like this, but doesn't mean it is not warranted if previous testimony was distorted.
She was instructed not to have a private server. Hell, they took the President's Blackberry away from him and did something so he only had 5 contacts in it. I think it was a directive from the President that no private servers or electronic comms were to be used. So if she ignored the directive, she was in effect lying about it.
Sorry about the late response, the wifey came home from work.
I don't take your despair/disgust about this lightly as you truly believe it as frivolous witch hunt, but I also think the attitude of the administration was disdainful of the public with the sole purpose of hiding a perceived ineptness of the administration 2 months before the election.
but what they thought is a total fucking distraction. What is the relevance of it? If you listen to the right wing it was because there was some massive electoral fraud being perpetrated. The crazy shit that is mainstream on the right re Benghazi is the shit that is dismissed as trutherism with respect to 9/11.
This is what the Intel Committee found: "Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assess,ents and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support the CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on Sepember 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012."
There you go. No conspiracy. Just contradictory intelligence. The collective explosion on the right is not justified. It is a disgusting political temper tantrum by a broken, unserious Congressional caucus.
Also, it's not 7 hearings. It's 7 investigations. There have already been 7 different committees that have issued a report on Benghazi. As former Rep. Dingell explained today:
Quote:
Chairman Gowdy claims there are unanswered questions about what happened in Benghazi. But there have already been seven previous congressional investigations into the attacks. More congressional reports have been written about Benghazi than the combined total of all the congressional reports on the 9-11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans, the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 224, the Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168, the U.S.S. Cole bombing that killed 17 sailors, and the Boston Marathon bombing that killed three and injured 260.
So I ask again. Why 8 Benghazi investigation? Other than the fact that the GOP is a joke of a party that is not serious about governing?
People with "questions" about Benghazi should read them. I dont know why the Republicans pretend like they dont exist, and then continue to say "but there are unanswered questions". Well, I do know. They dont like the answers. Instead they say that they prior reports are crap or a sham, and insist that a new committee does a new report that will come up with a different answer. It's absurd and disgusting.
But par for the course from a right wing that literally rejects reality because it doesnt jive with their dogma, be it scientific consensus over climate change, the lack of in-person voter fraud, the fact that tax cuts do not increase revenue, or that fact that Benghazi is neither a huge scandal nor a conspiracy. The right needs to take 10 steps back from Hannity, Rush, and Beck, and tell its Congressmen to grow the fuck up.
Brooks told radio host Matt Murphy that the day Clinton is "sworn in is the day that shes subject to impeachment because she has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
Tough to get attention when at the moment you're basically a pilot fish.
Cruz fancies himself Barry Goldwater, and if that means the GOP loses in '16 but he comes back at the helm of a more conservative party he is fine with that.
Get Lincoln chaffe off that stage too. I wish they had mixed debates because I'm convinced donald trump could make lincoln chaffe cry right there on stage, and it will be great tv
Speaking more generally about the campaign, I'm no Hillary fan (though I will vote for her) but I really think she has hit her stride here in this campaign after that McCarthy mess and her debate performance on top of it. The bottom line is in addition to her personal challenges (baggage, not a great political athlete) her candidacy faced obstacles not often seen for people trying to get a campaign off the ground due to this air of inevitability. It has allowed the other side to incessantly beat the shit out of her for years on a daily basis. Once Obama got re elected, FOX news shifted their focus to crushing Hillary over the head daily with an eye on 2016. The right has been campaigning against Hillary 3 years ago with an eye on this cycle. In some ways you could probably say the campaign against Hillary for 2016 started in 2008, but they were more worried about stopping an Obama 2nd term to just go all out on her. The opposition research on her also has to be as exhaustive as anything ever.
From a political theater perspective I am thrilled that trump continues to hold this lead as time advances and we enter the holiday season where things usually stay stagnant for a couple months barring a major event. He figures to hold his lead into 2016
Get Lincoln chaffe off that stage too. I wish they had mixed debates because I'm convinced donald trump could make lincoln chaffe cry right there on stage, and it will be great tv
Speaking more generally about the campaign, I'm no Hillary fan (though I will vote for her) but I really think she has hit her stride here in this campaign after that McCarthy mess and her debate performance on top of it. The bottom line is in addition to her personal challenges (baggage, not a great political athlete) her candidacy faced obstacles not often seen for people trying to get a campaign off the ground due to this air of inevitability. It has allowed the other side to incessantly beat the shit out of her for years on a daily basis. Once Obama got re elected, FOX news shifted their focus to crushing Hillary over the head daily with an eye on 2016. The right has been campaigning against Hillary 3 years ago with an eye on this cycle. In some ways you could probably say the campaign against Hillary for 2016 started in 2008, but they were more worried about stopping an Obama 2nd term to just go all out on her. The opposition research on her also has to be as exhaustive as anything ever.
From a political theater perspective I am thrilled that trump continues to hold this lead as time advances and we enter the holiday season where things usually stay stagnant for a couple months barring a major event. He figures to hold his lead into 2016
Jim Webb had a place on that stage a couple decades ago, fighting for the nomination of a party that insists that only the GOP has moved markedly toward its pole.
Boehner wasn't especially effective but nothing he could have done would have been enough for his right flank. Certainly nothing he should have done.
Ted Cruz is hated by fellow Republicans in the Senate - He is doomed to be a one term Senator.
He is running merely to burnish his credentials for his post political career of being a professional conservative activist i e a GRIFTER.
And gf2000: Ted Cruz is the most popular Republican in Texas. The seat is his if he still wants it. I believe his play is to pull the Senate GOP to the right, get something like a Freedom Caucus going in the Senate, and be a conservative icon, policy maker, and even king maker ala a late stage Teddy Kennedy (and I dont want to start a fucking debate about Teddy Kennedy's personal life). However I think it is backfiring, as even his one true ally in the Senate, Mike Lee, is moving away from Cruz's game.
There are other folks who may have equities in her e-mails and there may be other entities who are evaluating her e-mails. But my interest in them is solely making sure that I get everything Im entitled to, so I can do my job. The rest of it, classification, Clinton Foundation, you name it, I have zero interest in, which is why you havent seen me send a subpoena related to it or interview a single person, other than Bryan Pagliano, because I need to know that the record is complete.
Your statement is inaccurate. You issued a subpoena on May 19, 2015, to require Sidney Blumenthal to appear before the Select Committee for a deposition on June 16, 2015. You issued this subpoena unilaterallywithout any debate or vote by Select Committee Membersand you sent two armed Marshals to serve this subpoena on his wife without ever sending him a request to participate in a voluntary interview, which he would have accepted.
You personally attended Mr. Blumenthals deposition, you personally asked Mr. Blumenthal about the Clinton Foundation, and you personally directed your staffon the recordto ask more than 50 questions specifically about the Clinton Foundation. Republicans also asked more than 45 questions about David Brock, Media Matters, and affiliated entities, and they asked more than 160 questions about Mr. Blumenthals relationship and communications with the Clintons.
Thursday's hearing is going to be a farce.
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
Ok, true...
But two developments have been killers for the optics of the big Hillary Goes To Washington Day at the Committee, which has been circled on their calendar forever. First, the McCarthy (and subsequent) comments flipped the script a bit, putting the alleged partisanship of the committee front and center. Second, Trump is fucking killing the Benghazi narrative right now by getting the GOP and Fox to say lay off GWB for 9/11 just as Hillary is supposed to be skewered for Benghazi. And then you dont have to agree with it, but Gowdy is tripping over his own feet right now, and Cummings is just killing him (Cummings has a huge advantage because partisan bickering doesnt hurt his cause).
[Citation needed]
Well for one, they just got 1600 pages of Steven's emails. Printed out, literally just a few hours ago. Don't you think that would have been important for previous committees?
Should of?
You can't question why there is another investigation and then ignore that there was evidence that was not presented at the previous investigations. The Administration, the State Department and Clinton have stonewalled all of this from the beginning. And if Hillary is going to talk about her tenure as SoS and say what a fabulous thing they did in Libya, I think we need to know exactly what happened there.
Why, didn't they cover that story in Daily Kos?
Hundreds dead, sentries with unloaded weapons, etc. And then withdrawal. And then arming Iran. What a spectacle it'd be nowadays.
Quote:
Regarding the emails.
Why, didn't they cover that story in Daily Kos?
Waiting for a link.
Or maybe the story just isnt that difficult to understand, and the 7 previous GOP led committees were not incompetent boobs. Maybe they just didnt treat this like a prosecution, which is why after 7 tries the GOP needed a special do-over that the #2 leader in the house admits is a political attempt to hurt Clinton. Dont give me Gowdy's bullshit numbers (he's been caught lying about the 50 new witnesses issue). Tell me content, because if his extra efforts are just to harass people who had nothing to do with the events at Benghazi, he's wasting time.
And these arent the first Stevens emails given prior comments by Gowdy about Stevens' emails, so dont give me raw #s. What are these emails about? When were they requested (they could very well be follow up requests)? And why is a non-partisan committee re-tweet blasting shit like this on twitter:
The Kansas City Star @KCStar Oct 18
U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas: Benghazi worse than Watergate: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article39860598.html#storylink=twt_staff
Why is Gowdy lying on TV about issuing subpoenas? Why is he lying about not caring about non-Benghazi stuff, given the questioning of Blumenthal?
I guess Speaker Boehner made that up?
Quote:
Regarding the emails.
I guess Speaker Boehner made that up?
Boehner is commenting on this. Didnt Gowdy tell everyone in the House to shut up unless you're on the committee? Boehner is on committees now?
Because the representation that none of the other committees looked at Stevens' emails is a bald-face lie.
Productions to the Benghazi committee included docs produced to the other committees, including:
- an August 19, 2011, email exchange between Special Envoy Stevens and the Deputy Director of the Office of Maghreb Affairs about the logistics of providing security for a temporary duty officer to be assigned to eastern Libya (C05392462);
- a September 6, 2011, email from Special Envoy Stevens explaining why he felt it was important to maintain a U.S. presence in Benghazi (C05389447);
- a June 12, 2012, email exchange between Ambassador Stevens and the Director of the Office of Maghreb Affairs about the security situation in Benghazi (C05409960);
- a June 13, 2012, email exchange between Ambassador Stevens and State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland about the Departments public statements in light of recent violence in Libya (C05391866);
- an August 30, 2012, email exchange between Ambassador Stevens and the Principal Officer in Benghazi discussing a press report about the security situation in Benghazi (C05397290); and
- a September 8, 2012, email exchange between Ambassador Stevens and the Political Officer in Tripoli discussing a schedule for Ambassador Stevens upcoming travel to Benghazi (C05395356).
Why is Gowdy such a fucking liar?
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12565350 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
Regarding the emails.
I guess Speaker Boehner made that up?
Boehner is commenting on this. Didnt Gowdy tell everyone in the House to shut up unless you're on the committee? Boehner is on committees now?
Oh, so a Committee Chair tells the Speaker what to do?
Why is there a Benghazi committee given the 7 prior Republican led committees? What was the deficiency with them, beyond the fact that they didnt destroy Hillary? How were 7 committees, some run by serious people, so incompetent, in the GOP-universe, that they missed a Watergate level scandal? What is it about Benghazi other than Hillary that is causing it to be investigated like it was 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.
And why was this super duper important committee put in the hands of a 3rd year Congressman, who is an ex-state prosecutor? Did Gowdy have any previous security/intel type experience, or was he just valued for being a prosecutor? Why did the GOP staff this committee with 3 second-termers and 1 first-termer (out of seven overall)?
Why is there a Benghazi committee given the 7 prior Republican led committees? What was the deficiency with them, beyond the fact that they didnt destroy Hillary? How were 7 committees, some run by serious people, so incompetent, in the GOP-universe, that they missed a Watergate level scandal? What is it about Benghazi other than Hillary that is causing it to be investigated like it was 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.
And why was this super duper important committee put in the hands of a 3rd year Congressman, who is an ex-state prosecutor? Did Gowdy have any previous security/intel type experience, or was he just valued for being a prosecutor? Why did the GOP staff this committee with 3 second-termers and 1 first-termer (out of seven overall)?
Why did the administration say that an obscure anti-muslim film caused the "riot?" Why and what were they hiding? You don't think lying to the world was nothing but CYA 2 months before the election? Purposely sending Susan Rice out, for what 4 weeks, pushing this lie when they knew this was a planned attack isn't a problem?
Why did Hillary apparently ask for an open committee when offered a behind the door hearing? (could be a smart move by her if the committee looks to be bullying her).
I think you are correct about him being a prosecutor as the reason he's on that committee as chair. Have no idea why the newbies.
Also somebody here told me said Stevens asked for only 5 extra security and it was 12. VP Biden said the House only approved $2.37 bill as opposed to $2.6 bill requested for State's budget and that was why they didn't get the extra people.
Deej, I'm not denying it is a political move to weaken Hillary, as well as finding just exactly who knew what, where and when. But she's running on how well she did as Sec State. When you lie about Benghazi and hide the use of a personal server, you don't think that is a character flaw for potentially most powerful person on earth?
CNN fact check - ( New Window )
Why did Hillary ask for an open hearing? Because the Benghazi committee leaks like a sieve, and only Gowdy has the power to release depo transcripts. He's sitting on the Blumenthal transcript even though the Dems are asking for its release.
The security allotment and requests were the subject of the other committee investigations. I dont agree that she lied about Benghazi or hid the existence of her personal server (how does that work? Did they ask and she said "no, my emails are at @state.gov?").
Look, I have no problem with investigating Benghazi. But it was the subject of 7 investigations. There is no justification for the 8th. And when it is being run in such a comically partisan manner that even the GOPers are admitting to its goals, it is time to shut it down. Trying to blame Hillary for the death of these 4 people when the first 7 committees refute such misconduct is tilting at windmills and abusing the machinery of government. It's yet another distraction from a ridiculous party that has a carnival barker leading its presidential polls and is so ungovernable that they're begging a guy to be Speaker. The #2 most powerful position in government, and they have to beg a man to do it.
There is also a ridiculous echo chamber on the right. Quite simply the rank and file is being suckered by a false narrative by the GOP and the right wing media. So many persistently false allegations. I can list dozens of false charges. Hillary called off an military rescue. US arms shipments from Libya to Turkey. Issa saying HRC personally signed cables about security when as a matter of form every one of the 1000s of cables from State-DC is signed by her. No ownership of Congress giving State $270 less million for security than State asked for, as if that is irrelevant. Just a fucking GOP clown show.
On Benghazi, Congress Could Take a Lesson From Beirut - ( New Window )
Why 8 hearings? Maybe because something hidden comes to light every time after each hearing. Sorry I admit that I thought it was less than 7 previous. Seems a bit unorganized for something like this, but doesn't mean it is not warranted if previous testimony was distorted.
She was instructed not to have a private server. Hell, they took the President's Blackberry away from him and did something so he only had 5 contacts in it. I think it was a directive from the President that no private servers or electronic comms were to be used. So if she ignored the directive, she was in effect lying about it.
Sorry about the late response, the wifey came home from work.
I don't take your despair/disgust about this lightly as you truly believe it as frivolous witch hunt, but I also think the attitude of the administration was disdainful of the public with the sole purpose of hiding a perceived ineptness of the administration 2 months before the election.
General Ham - ( New Window )
This is what the Intel Committee found: "Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assess,ents and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support the CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on Sepember 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012."
There you go. No conspiracy. Just contradictory intelligence. The collective explosion on the right is not justified. It is a disgusting political temper tantrum by a broken, unserious Congressional caucus.
Also, it's not 7 hearings. It's 7 investigations. There have already been 7 different committees that have issued a report on Benghazi. As former Rep. Dingell explained today:
So I ask again. Why 8 Benghazi investigation? Other than the fact that the GOP is a joke of a party that is not serious about governing?
http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi%20Report.pdf - ( New Window )
Democrats legislate...and Republicans investigate
its the only use they have at all for government
But par for the course from a right wing that literally rejects reality because it doesnt jive with their dogma, be it scientific consensus over climate change, the lack of in-person voter fraud, the fact that tax cuts do not increase revenue, or that fact that Benghazi is neither a huge scandal nor a conspiracy. The right needs to take 10 steps back from Hannity, Rush, and Beck, and tell its Congressmen to grow the fuck up.