Politically Motivated Benghazi Committee flings some more poo against the wall

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,685
126
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/benghazi-committee-under-fire-releases-more-230352443.html

On March 18, 2011, Sidney Blumenthal — Clinton’s longtime friend and political adviser — sent the then secretary of state an email to her private account that contained apparently highly sensitive information he had received from Tyler Drumheller, a former top CIA official with whom Blumenthal at the time had a business relationship.

“Tyler spoke to a colleague currently at CIA, who told him the agency had been dependent for intelligence from [redacted due to sources and methods],” the email states, according to Gowdy’s letter.

The redacted information was “the name of a human source,” Gowdy wrote to his Democratic counterpart, Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, and was therefore “some of the most protected information in our intelligence community.”

“Armed with that information, Secretary Clinton forwarded the email to a colleague — debunking her claim that she never sent any classified information from her private email address,” wrote Gowdy in a letter to Cummings.

But

A Clinton campaign official, who asked not to be identified by name, said that as described in Gowdy’s own letter, “the information at issue was not only unmarked, but also was transmitted by no fewer than two individuals who were outside the government before it ever reached Hillary Clinton’s inbox.”

Sorry Trey, Rep. McCarthy provided his only useful service to the American people when he confirmed that you're a lying shitbag. You have no credibility. STFU.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/benghazi-committee-under-fire-releases-more-230352443.html



But



Sorry Trey, Rep. McCarthy provided his only useful service to the American people when he confirmed that you're a lying shitbag. You have no credibility. STFU.

He's not lying about what happened, just about what it means, which is nothing outside of conspiracy theory true believer circles.

Hillary's email & Wasserman-Shultz' gaffe is all they've got & they'll drive it like they stole it.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,516
6,947
136
The hearing is going radioactive. Any Repub now on the panel is contaminated. The only options available to them now is to double down on the fakery bakery they set up and act like the hearing is still legit which makes them look even more foolish, or abandon ship and try their best to wash off as much of the stink as they can.
 
Last edited:

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
The more they focus on Hillary's emails, while abandoning all of their promised avenues of investigation, the more they'll be expected to deliver. And this latest "revelation" is the best they have to offer?

The only question is can they keep it going to election day 2016?
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
Beyond Hillary, secretary OF STATE, WATCHING PEOPLE DIE, IN BEGHAZI., SOME MIGHT FOCUS ON HER EMAILS.

-John
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,751
3,068
121
I'd like to have a slight bit of the 40 million dollars spent playing around with the BS there.

There was some real lack fiscal of responsibility in the name of attempted political goals.

What else is new.
 
Last edited:

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Beyond Hillary, secretary OF STATE, WATCHING PEOPLE DIE, IN BEGHAZI., SOME MIGHT FOCUS ON HER EMAILS.

-John
So this witch hunt, wasting millions of dollars of taxpayer money, is an exception to your "small government" mantra? Or does "small government" apply only when the dollars are being spent by liberals?
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/benghazi-committee-under-fire-releases-more-230352443.html



But



Sorry Trey, Rep. McCarthy provided his only useful service to the American people when he confirmed that you're a lying sh*tbag. You have no credibility. STFU.

So basically, what you're saying is Gowdy is telling the truth and you're throwing a temper tantrum because you don't like the truth? Just because that information might also have been available elsewhere doesn't change the bottom line: she sent and received classified information using her private server. That means she's been lying the whole time. Shocking I tell you, who would have possibly associated hildabeast with lying? .... oh wait......
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,951
47,839
136
So basically, what you're saying is Gowdy is telling the truth and you're throwing a temper tantrum because you don't like the truth? Just because that information might also have been available elsewhere doesn't change the bottom line: she sent and received classified information using her private server. That means she's been lying the whole time. Shocking I tell you, who would have possibly associated hildabeast with lying? .... oh wait......

It actually means a ton. If you publish an article discussing things that Snowden leaked you're technically transmitting classified information, but presumably you know that's much different than publishing an article about information that isn't already out there.

Gowdy either doesn't know the difference and so he's a moron, (unlikely) or he's a scumbag trying to present this in a way to damage Hillary because he views his committee as a way to secure partisan advantage. (Likely)

I for one want him to keep going. He's just making republicans look worse every day he keeps at this. As always, Republicans have no self control and they let actual advantages become liabilities.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
It actually means a ton. If you publish an article discussing things that Snowden leaked you're technically transmitting classified information, but presumably you know that's much different than publishing an article about information that isn't already out there.

Oh, so whether the information is classified or not doesn't matter then ;)

What you're arguing that while it was technically classified information, it wasn't "really" classified information, and that's a load of crap. If what Gowdy says is factually accurate -- that she received and transmitted classified information, then the fact is she lied and continues to lie about what she did. That's the bottom line. Partisan hackery, blaming republicans for what hildabeast did is just classic diversion and deflection.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,951
47,839
136
Oh, so whether the information is classified or not doesn't matter then ;)

What you're arguing that while it was technically classified information, it wasn't "really" classified information, and that's a load of crap. If what Gowdy says is factually accurate -- that she received and transmitted classified information, then the fact is she lied and continues to lie about what she did. That's the bottom line. Partisan hackery, blaming republicans for what hildabeast did is just classic diversion and deflection.

Do you realize that you have very likely transmitted classified information in your lifetime? Should everyone just answer yes to that question then? Of course not, that's stupid.

If it's unmarked and available from multiple public sources there is no reason to believe something was classified. By your argument if she forwarded a NY Times article about Snowden's leaks she likely transmitted classified information over her server and was lying if she said she didn't. Is that really the standard you want?

This guy is an embarrassment and I think you know that.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,606
4,055
136
Geezus Christ. Not a single real living person cares about Benghazi or emails. For fucks sake GOP stop talking about it.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Do you realize that you have very likely transmitted classified information in your lifetime?

I don't have access to classified information, so no, by definition I could not possibly have knowingly transmitted classified information.

By your argument if she forwarded a NY Times article about Snowden's leaks she likely transmitted classified information over her server and was lying if she said she didn't. Is that really the standard you want?

Yes, of course it is. If you don't like how information is classified, then take issue with the process, but you don't just ignore it -- and even worse, ignore it and use a private server which very possibly could have been compromised.

This guy is an embarrassment and I think you know that.

Maybe he is, I have no idea, but that doesn't make anything he says untrue. If what he says is true, then she sent classified information on her private server -- a direct contradiction to her many statements that she didn't. So, who was lying?
 
Feb 4, 2009
34,553
15,766
136
Beyond Hillary, secretary OF STATE, WATCHING PEOPLE DIE, IN BEGHAZI., SOME MIGHT FOCUS ON HER EMAILS.

-John

Zork be realistic your rhetoric implies Hillary had hidden cameras around the embassy and sat at her desk watching with some popcorn.
I agree as a society we need to know what went wrong at Benghazi but it needs to be an honest look and we all need to understand that no person may be responsible its possible that it was a breakdown of processes like:
Why did the diplomat insist he didn't need more guards or keep the embassy open in a dangerous spot
What impact did Congresses filibuster for a bill to fortify many embassies years earlier
What does Hillary's server have about Benghazi
What intelligence was available on Benghazi and who had it
What process allowed nobody to question if keeping that embassy open was a good idea
How long should the investigation go/how do we know its done

We both know its impossible to get a non partisan investigation in today's Government
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,295
28,492
136
Oh, so whether the information is classified or not doesn't matter then ;)

What you're arguing that while it was technically classified information, it wasn't "really" classified information, and that's a load of crap. If what Gowdy says is factually accurate -- that she received and transmitted classified information, then the fact is she lied and continues to lie about what she did. That's the bottom line. Partisan hackery, blaming republicans for what hildabeast did is just classic diversion and deflection.

If you have a problem with partisan hackery, you might want to avoid the term hildabeast. Just sayin'.
 
Feb 4, 2009
34,553
15,766
136
Ok. My bad. One nutter does.

From my avatar you can see I'm a Bill Clinton fan.
I care. I understand why Hillary wants to control her image but how does having a private server impact the freedom of information act and when she was asked about communications why didn't she say I've got a server at home I used as Secretary of State.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Geezus Christ. Not a single real living person cares about Benghazi or emails. For fucks sake GOP stop talking about it.

I care but not to the level of repeated hearings. It's obvious she violated policy, IT best practices, and perhaps (without malice) broke some laws related to security classifications. Have the Congress pass a pro forma censure bill on her citing the lapses, and let that hand slap be the end of it. That way something good might come out of it and the next person can't claim ignorance when they do the same thing.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,072
1,475
126
I care but not to the level of repeated hearings. It's obvious she violated policy, IT best practices, and perhaps (without malice) broke some laws related to security classifications. Have the Congress pass a pro forma censure bill on her citing the lapses, and let that hand slap be the end of it.

That's a surprisingly reasonable idea. Which of course means the House would never consider it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,951
47,839
136
I don't have access to classified information, so no, by definition I could not possibly have knowingly transmitted classified information.

Ahh, so now you haven't KNOWINGLY transmitted classified information. Then again in this case it wasn't marked and was available publicly from other sources. That means there's no evidence that classified information was knowingly transmitted either.

You just proved my point for me. Thanks!

Yes, of course it is. If you don't like how information is classified, then take issue with the process, but you don't just ignore it -- and even worse, ignore it and use a private server which very possibly could have been compromised.

Except that's not what happened here, at least not by the evidence presented.

Maybe he is, I have no idea, but that doesn't make anything he says untrue. If what he says is true, then she sent classified information on her private server -- a direct contradiction to her many statements that she didn't. So, who was lying?

As you mentioned earlier in your post, it's KNOWINGLY transmitting classified information. Gowdy is quite aware of the difference if he is a competent legislator, which sure sounds like he's the one being deceptive here yet again, wouldn't you say?
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,217
14,900
136
I don't have access to classified information, so no, by definition I could not possibly have knowingly transmitted classified information.



Yes, of course it is. If you don't like how information is classified, then take issue with the process, but you don't just ignore it -- and even worse, ignore it and use a private server which very possibly could have been compromised.



Maybe he is, I have no idea, but that doesn't make anything he says untrue. If what he says is true, then she sent classified information on her private server -- a direct contradiction to her many statements that she didn't. So, who was lying?

Wait, so for yourself you've qualified your statement that you couldn't "knowingly" have transmitted classified info and yet you don't afford that same excuse to Hilary?
Do you know what a hypocrite is?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
So basically, what you're saying is Gowdy is telling the truth and you're throwing a temper tantrum because you don't like the truth? Just because that information might also have been available elsewhere doesn't change the bottom line: she sent and received classified information using her private server. That means she's been lying the whole time. Shocking I tell you, who would have possibly associated hildabeast with lying? .... oh wait......

It doesn't mean that at all. There's a difference between lying and being mistaken.

The whole line of bullshit revolves around the catch 22 deception in secondary classification. If some bit of leaked classified information is the front page headline in the NYT it's still classified information according to shameless partisans & security pinheads. Therefore, anybody who discusses it privately (let alone on a public internet forum) is guilty of sending & receiving classified information.

There are reasons that "Military Intelligence" is used mockingly & this is one of them.

There's also a point where that kind of partisanship reaches past the limits of credibility.

Congratulations. You've arrived.