Politically Motivated Benghazi Committee flings some more poo against the wall

[GarfieldtheCat]

On the email server, she has now admitted to a "mistake," after countless lies and who knows what sensitive information has been compromised.

This is someone you would like to be President of the United States of America?

-John

Faux outrage!

In other news for the rest of the sane people here, yet another GOP congressman comes out and admits the Benghazi hearings are only about damaging Clinton.

So that is like three GOP members that have admitted this is nothing but a partisan attack? LOL at the GOP.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/14/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi-committee/index.html

"This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton," said Hanna, who is not a member of the committee. "After what Kevin McCarthy said, it's difficult to accept at least a part of it was not. I think that's the way Washington works. But you'd like to expect more from a committee that's spent millions of dollars and tons of time."

Guess we have another RINO that will be primaried by the tea party idiots for daring to speak the truth.

 

[HomerJS]

The known record is that the embassy called for extra security before the attack. These were escalated to Hillary, and she failed to act.

After the attack, she covered up that it was a terrorist attack, and blamed the attack on a youtube video.

This is someone you would like to be President of the United States of America?

John

You have it backwards...

Stevens, killed in the terrorist attack with 3 other Americans, is said to have turned down direct offers from Army Gen. Carter Ham, the then-chief of the U.S. Africa Command.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ador-turned-security-report-article-1.1345119

 

[CitizenKain]

The known record is that the embassy called for extra security before the attack. These were escalated to Hillary, and she failed to act.

After the attack, she covered up that it was a terrorist attack, and blamed the attack on a youtube video.

This is someone you would like to be President of the United States of America?

John

Seriously, why do you keep lying? Are you not smart enough to understand the difference between truth and lies? Are you just fucking retarded?

 

[Jaskalas]

Please. Martha Stewart knowingly lied to FBI agents about her broker, kinda like Libby knowingly lied about the Plame affair.

Nobody other than the usual ravers have said that about Hillary.

RR invoked the gold standard long ago- "I don't recall." Not a thing. Honest.

In the game of gotcha "knowingly" is derived from any document of yours that exists to contradict your statements. The Committee is investigating all the numerous times Hillary's statement to Congress has proven false.

Is the standard a miscarriage of justice? Absolutely. But if you ever dare stand for it then you must throw the kitchen sink at Hillary as well as everyone else you'd use this game against.

People, innocent of the original crime investigated, are convicted on false statements all the time. Stand for it or against it, but do not stand for partisan treatment of the law.

 

[bshole]

Seriously, why do you keep lying? Are you not smart enough to understand the difference between truth and lies? Are you just fucking retarded?

Even if his claim was 100% factual, so what? Even if she was slow to ramp security and shifted blame, why in the world would that justify a 3 year multimillion dollar investigation that apparently has no endpoint? It is simple partisan politics and in a just world every hack involved in the "investigation" would be fired and prevented from ever working in politics again. Partisan corruption this transparent and blatant should be punished. This will go on until either Hillary is not elected or leaves office.

 

[shira]

In the game of gotcha "knowingly" is derived from any document of yours that exists to contradict your statements. The Committee is investigating all the numerous times Hillary's statement to Congress has proven false.

Is the standard a miscarriage of justice? Absolutely. But if you ever dare stand for it then you must throw the kitchen sink at Hillary as well as everyone else you'd use this game against.

People, innocent of the original crime investigated, are convicted on false statements all the time. Stand for it or against it, but do not stand for partisan treatment of the law.

Excuse me if I'm a little slow here, but is it being claimed that Hillary lied under oath about her emails or about Benghazi? I tried searching on the web about her testimony on Benghazi, and the best I could come up with was:

Here are the top take-away quotes from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her top critics from multiple hours of testimony before Senate and House Foreign Relations Committees Wednesday:

"Nobody wants to sit where I am and think now about what 'coulda, shoulda, woulda' happened in order to avoid this." – Clinton said during some of her initial remarks.

"I would say that I personally was not focused on talking points, I was focused on keeping our people safe," Clinton to Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, the top Republican on the Senate panel.

"With all due respect, the fact is, we had four dead Americans! Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again." – Clinton shouting over Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson.

"I reiterate my taking responsibility. With specific security requests, they didn't come to me; I had no knowledge of them." – Clinton to Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio.

"It's wonderful to see you in good health and as combative as ever." – Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, to Clinton.

"There are many questions that are unanswered and the answers you've given this morning, frankly, are unsatisfactory to me." – McCain to Clinton.

"One of the things that disappointed me most about the original 9/11 was that no one was fired." – Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, to Clinton.

"Had I been president at the time, and I had found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi, you did not read the cable from [Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens], I would have relieved you from your post." – Paul to Clinton.

"I have to confess here in public going on the Sunday shows is not my favorite thing to do. There are other things I prefer to do on Sunday mornings and I haven't been on a Sunday show in way over a year. So it just isn't something I normally jump to do. I did feel strongly that we had to manage, that I had to respond to, and I thought that should be my priority." – Clinton responding to South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Walsh.

"1.43 million cables a year come to the State Department. They are all addressed to me." – Clinton to Texas Republican Rep. Michael McCaul.

"Madame Secretary, you let the consulate become a death-trap and that’s national security malpractice.” –South Carolina Rep. Jeff Duncan to Clinton.

The only statement I see here that seems pretty clearly to be a knowing gross exaggeration - if not a complete falsehood - is Duncan's "death trap" statement. So when are we launching an investigation of his statement?

 

[werepossum]

You have it backwards...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ador-turned-security-report-article-1.1345119

Personally there is no way in hell I am believing that Stevens asked for extra security on record and was turned down on record, then offered the same thing off the record and turned it down off the record. That is just taking advantage of the fact that dead men cannot refute any story one wishes to put out, and believing it takes way more credulity than I am capable of providing.

That is not to say I believe anything nefarious happened before the attack. I see no possible reason Obama and/or Clinton would want Stevens dead. I do see a lot of politically motivated FUD and ass covering after the fact.

 

[Bowfinger]

Personally there is no way in hell I am believing that Stevens asked for extra security on record and was turned down on record, then offered the same thing off the record and turned it down off the record. ...

I can see how it may have happened. Ambassador Stevens wanted to extend the specially-trained security detail already assigned to the Tripoli embassy. General Ham offered something else, e.g., generic combat troops. That wasn't what Stevens needed, so he declined Ham's offer. But again, this is only speculation.

 

[sandorski]

Gohmert even flung his Banghazi poo at the PP hearings. The shit is getting ridiculous.

 

[trenchfoot]

Personally there is no way in hell I am believing that Stevens asked for extra security on record and was turned down on record, then offered the same thing off the record and turned it down off the record. That is just taking advantage of the fact that dead men cannot refute any story one wishes to put out, and believing it takes way more credulity than I am capable of providing.

That is not to say I believe anything nefarious happened before the attack. I see no possible reason Obama and/or Clinton would want Stevens dead. I do see a lot of politically motivated FUD and ass covering after the fact.

That's a fine art in and of itself. If there's one thing I can give our politicians a lot of credit for, it's their ability to squirt and squirm out of some really tight spots like a 20 lb. octopus can squeeze itself through a hole the size of a quarter, and come out looking spiffier than ever.

 

[Ausm]

Geezus Christ. Not a single real living person cares about Benghazi or emails. For fucks sake GOP stop talking about it.

As long as it keeps drawing attention from the real issues and raising cash for the GOP they will keep spanking this pony.

 

[werepossum]

I can see how it may have happened. Ambassador Stevens wanted to extend the specially-trained security detail already assigned to the Tripoli embassy. General Ham offered something else, e.g., generic combat troops. That wasn't what Stevens needed, so he declined Ham's offer. But again, this is only speculation.

Not buying it. If your life and your people's lives are in imminent danger, you don't simply turn down protection because it's not the kind you prefer.

That's a fine art in and of itself. If there's one thing I can give our politicians a lot of credit for, it's their ability to squirt and squirm out of some really tight spots like a 20 lb. octopus can squeeze itself through a hole the size of a quarter, and come out looking spiffier than ever.

Yup, which is why I never got all upset about it. It's unseemly and I wish it weren't so, but fundamentally the Democrat dance of denial is no different from Romney attempting to frame Obama as personally detailing grossly insufficient security. If Obama (or even Clinton) had anything to do with setting security, it's either because there is some deep end game (like weapon running) that made the risk seem worthwhile, or it's an honest screwup by assuming that the nearby CIA station could handle whatever came about. The coverup was simply politics, and the investigation is simply politics.

There was some grossly incompetent planning here before the fact, like having no QRF nor any way to transport one from out of theater. But that isn't the stuff Presidents or Secretaries concern themselves with unless they are micromanaging idiots. A President or SecState setting up contingency plans like this guarantees failure in their larger mission.

EDIT: As far as coming out looking spiffier than ever . . . Well, a good portion of that is learning to choose your holes, a skill better mastered by octopi than by Congressional Republicans. If the hole takes too long to navigate, the invertebrate can't avoid looking like a dick. Literally.

 

[Ausm]

I think it's time to investigate the committee given Kevin McCarthy's comments and the concerns they raise about the misappropriation of federal money. Let's start with the committee chair and examine all his emails.

Here here!!

 

[Bowfinger]

Not buying it. If your life and your people's lives are in imminent danger,

Umm, do you have evidence that Stevens felt their lives were in imminent danger? Certainly the whole region was higher risk, but so far as we know there were no specific threats for Tripoli. According to the Wikipedia list of attacks on diplomatic facilities, the last attack in Tripoli was in 1986 ... when we accidentally bombed the French embassy. Further, it seems unlikely Stevens would have traveled to Benghazi if he felt his life was in imminent danger.

you don't simply turn down protection because it's not the kind you prefer. ...

Sure you do, if you're smart and responsible, or if you're a diplomat trying to craft the proper image. The wrong people with the wrong training can increase your risk rather than reduce it.

But again, I am speculating. I won't pretend to know what actually happened between Stevens and Ham.

 

[Jhhnn]

The coverup was simply politics, and the investigation is simply politics.

Except there was no coverup, just Righties jumping to attack tentative conclusions based on sketchy information. How do you cover up what you don't know?

I'll agree that the Admin played it wrong but that doesn't mean they did anything else wrong. Far from it.

 

[senseamp]

Same Republicans blowing taxpayer money left and right are going to tell us there is no money for Medicaid expansion.

 

[Ausm]

Interesting article

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/10/benghazi-charade-finally-melting-away

 

[trenchfoot]

Not buying it. If your life and your people's lives are in imminent danger, you don't simply turn down protection because it's not the kind you prefer.


Yup, which is why I never got all upset about it. It's unseemly and I wish it weren't so, but fundamentally the Democrat dance of denial is no different from Romney attempting to frame Obama as personally detailing grossly insufficient security. If Obama (or even Clinton) had anything to do with setting security, it's either because there is some deep end game (like weapon running) that made the risk seem worthwhile, or it's an honest screwup by assuming that the nearby CIA station could handle whatever came about. The coverup was simply politics, and the investigation is simply politics.

There was some grossly incompetent planning here before the fact, like having no QRF nor any way to transport one from out of theater. But that isn't the stuff Presidents or Secretaries concern themselves with unless they are micromanaging idiots. A President or SecState setting up contingency plans like this guarantees failure in their larger mission.

EDIT: As far as coming out looking spiffier than ever . . . Well, a good portion of that is learning to choose your holes, a skill better mastered by octopi than by Congressional Republicans. If the hole takes too long to navigate, the invertebrate can't avoid looking like a dick. Literally.

That was poetry right there. You got some skills. :thumbsup:

 

[Jhhnn]

In the game of gotcha "knowingly" is derived from any document of yours that exists to contradict your statements. The Committee is investigating all the numerous times Hillary's statement to Congress has proven false.

Is the standard a miscarriage of justice? Absolutely. But if you ever dare stand for it then you must throw the kitchen sink at Hillary as well as everyone else you'd use this game against.

People, innocent of the original crime investigated, are convicted on false statements all the time. Stand for it or against it, but do not stand for partisan treatment of the law.

Highly amusing. Both Stewart & Libby lied to the FBI to cover illegal acts, actual crimes.

What crime has been committed wrt this email witch hunt? Be specific.

When did Hillary lie to the FBI? Again, be specific.

I'm entirely willing to apply the same standards to her as to the others if the specifics are the same. You fail to demonstrate that they are, at all.

 

[ivwshane]

Poor, poor werepossum...duped again:

http://democrats.benghazi.house.gov...n-that-clinton-email-contained-classified-cia

WASHINGTON—Today, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, the Ranking Member of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, sent a letter to Chairman Trey Gowdy to correct the public record after the CIA debunked Chairman Gowdy’s accusation that Secretary Clinton sent an email containing "some of the most protected information in our intelligence community, the release of which could jeopardize not only national security but human lives.”

The full letter is online here and as follows:



Dear Mr. Chairman:

On October 7, 2015, you sent me a 13-page letter making a grave new accusation against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Specifically, you accused her of compromising national security and endangering lives.

The problem with your accusation—as with so many others during this investigation—is that you failed to check your facts before you made it, and the CIA has now informed the Select Committee that you were wrong. I believe your accusations were irresponsible, and I believe you owe the Secretary an immediate apology.

It appears that your letter was rushed out to the press to counter the public firestorm caused by Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s stark admission that Republicans are using millions of taxpayer dollars to damage Secretary Clinton’s bid for president. However, your letter only provided further evidence of this fact.

In your letter on October 7, 2015, you stated that Secretary Clinton received an email from Sidney Blumenthal on March 18, 2011, that included the name of someone who purportedly provided information to the CIA. You asserted that this information was classified, arguing that Secretary Clinton “received classified information from Blumenthal—information she should have known was classified at the time she received it.” You then alleged:

Armed with that information, Secretary Clinton forwarded that email to a colleague—debunking her claim that she never sent any classified information from her private email address.

In your letter, you went to great lengths to highlight the gravity of your accusation, stating:

This information, the name of a human source, is some of the most protected information in our intelligence community, the release of which could jeopardize not only national security but human lives.

To further inflate your claim, you placed your own redactions over the name of the individual with the words, “redacted due to sources and methods.” To be clear, these redactions were not made, and these words were not added, by any agency of the federal government responsible for enforcing classification guidelines.

Predictably, commentators began repeating your accusations in even more extreme terms, suggesting in headlines for example that “Clinton Burns CIA Libya Contact.”

Contrary to your claims, the CIA yesterday informed both the Republican and Democratic staffs of the Select Committee that they do not consider the information you highlighted in your letter to be classified. Specifically, the CIA confirmed that “the State Department consulted with the CIA on this production, the CIA reviewed these documents, and the CIA made no redactions to protect classified information.”

Unfortunately, you sent your letter on October 7 without checking first with the CIA. Now that we have done so, we have learned that your accusations were incorrect.

As a result of your actions, the State Department yesterday asked the Select Committee not to reveal the individual’s name publicly, not for classification reasons, but to protect the individual’s privacy and avoid bringing additional undue attention to this person.

Unfortunately, the standard operating procedure of this Select Committee has become to put out information publicly that is inaccurate and out of context in order to attack Secretary Clinton for political reasons. These repeated actions bring discredit on this investigation and undermine the integrity of the Select Committee and the House of Representatives.



Sincerely,



Elijah E. Cummings
Ranking Member

lol Spin away.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/u...ation-was-in-hillary-clintons-email.html?_r=0


http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/21/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821


Again, we both know there is absolutely nothing Hillary could do that you won't defend, but your attempts to spin are always amusing. I particularly like the dual track of "Hillary didn't do it!" and "Everybody does it!". Coupled with your attempts at claiming credibility, you've achieved the trifecta of stupidity intersecting with dishonesty.

Strap magnets to your ass and we'd have clean, free energy for the whole nation, the way you spin.

 

[shira]

Poor, poor werepossum...duped again:

http://democrats.benghazi.house.gov...n-that-clinton-email-contained-classified-cia

If, as Trey Gowdy has continually claimed, the House Select Committee on Benghazi is completely above politics, then we should fully expect that the committee will issue a public statement officially retracting the accusations it made on October 7.

But, somehow, I have a feeling we're not going to see that official retraction.

 

[shira]

By the way, a further interesting result of the committee's false accusation is that its claim that Clinton "should have known" which communications she received were or were not classified is obviously false.

Why? Because the committee itself mistakenly concluded that a communication was classified when indeed it wasn't. And if the committee - with all of its resources and its laser-like focus on finding classified information in the emails - cannot accurately determine that something is classified, then how on earth could Clinton be expected to infallibly made the same determinations over thousands upon thousands of received emails over several years?

Oh, I know how such an expectation could arise: Because the select committee on Benghazi is absolutely, positively above politics.

 

[MongGrel]

I'd personally just like to have a small amount of the tax dollars spent in my pocket over this complete idiocy these guys are getting paid to investigate.

These government gigs that amount to nothing at all seem to pay well over time.

I could sit there and eat a sandwich and be as productive, probably what most of them are doing most of the time.

 

[ivwshane]

I'd personally just like to have a small amount of the tax dollars spent in my pocket over this complete idiocy these guys are getting paid to investigate.

These government gigs that amount to nothing at all seem to pay well over time.

I could sit there and eat a sandwich and be as productive, probably what most of them are doing most of the time.

Oh please! They are doing a lot more than just eating sandwiches. They started a gun club and they are all talking about getting their guns engraved. So let's cool it with the exaggerations!

/s

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ore-benghazi-attack-email-shows/?intcmp=hpbt1

Two months before the fatal 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, then-Ambassador Chris Stevens requested 13 security personnel to help him safely travel around Libya, according to a cable reviewed by Fox News -- but he was turned down.

In the July 9, 2012 cable, Stevens reported that, "Overall security conditions continue to be unpredictable, with large numbers of armed groups and individuals not under control of the central government, and frequent clashes in Tripoli and other major population centers." The cable said 13 security personnel would be the "minimum" needed for "transportation security and incident response capability."

But a congressional source said Patrick Kennedy, a deputy to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, turned down the request.

The cable sent under Stevens' electronic signature shows that he was advocating for additional security and warning that the set-up did not meet State Department standards, as conditions deteriorated in the run-up to the attack that killed Stevens and three other Americans.