Politics Benghazi select hearing live

[MarAzul]

I don't see where Republicans gained a whole lot today

Well we did learn today that the lady did not believe the video caused the attack, so it was a lye telling us it was the video. She told the family of the Seals killed it was the video and she has never corrected the lye. Weird, if she knew as she told her daughter, and the Egyptian, why the hell did she let Susan Rice go on TV with the bullshit? Rice worked for her!

Hiding behind "Security Professionals" shows a complete lack of responsibility. Security Professional are fine when the host country is responsible and takes responsibility for your consulate people,
but hell, in this place she was the only one with the power to commit to acts of war to save those people. They were there because she needed them there and she punted when the shit happened. That is not Commander in Chief level performance.

 

[Further]

Be interesting to see what those polls say next week. I know I'm biased, but I don't see where Republicans gained a whole lot today.

barfo

Yep, I'm biased too. I'm not even much of a Hillary supporter, but I have to admit all this BS makes me actually want to support her more. Watching an issue like this be used to politically attack a candidate instead of actually doing something positive (the last 7 committees were sufficient for actually getting to the truth) makes me really dislike all the republicans on that committee and its supporters.

I really don't understand how anyone can view todays proceedings and come away feeling like it was a win for the Republicans. But as we see here on this board, there are plenty.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yep, I'm biased too. I'm not even much of a Hillary supporter, but I have to admit all this BS makes me actually want to support her more. Watching an issue like this be used to politically attack a candidate instead of actually doing something positive (the last 7 committees were sufficient for actually getting to the truth) makes me really dislike all the republicans on that committee and its supporters.

I really don't understand how anyone can view todays proceedings and come away feeling like it was a win for the Republicans. But as we see here on this board, there are plenty.

You'd think if they wanted to damage her politically, they'd have waited until much closer to the election to have her testify.

Unless she perjured herself and they can prove it.

 

[Further]

You'd think if they wanted to damage her politically, they'd have waited until much closer to the election to have her testify.

Unless she perjured herself and they can prove it.

Or if they wanted to damage her enough to keep her from becoming the nominee because they thought Bernie, Lincoln or any other candidate would be much easier to beat in the general, then the timing seems spot on. Only, they suck at it, and in the end its going to hurt them more than her. I have no doubt this is a witch hunt. 8 Committees. This is excessive. This is abuse of power and corrupting a very important process for political gain.

 

[Denny Crane]

Or if they wanted to damage her enough to keep her from becoming the nominee because they thought Bernie, Lincoln or any other candidate would be much easier to beat in the general, then the timing seems spot on. Only, they suck at it, and in the end its going to hurt them more than her. I have no doubt this is a witch hunt. 8 Committees. This is excessive. This is abuse of power and corrupting a very important process for political gain.

I think they'd rather damage her as the nominee, if that were their true intent.

With W and republican congress or O and a democratic congress, we weren't getting any congressional oversight. Partisan investigations are the ideal way to do that, IMO.

 

[Further]

I think they'd rather damage her as the nominee, if that were their true intent.

First off, better to never face someone who may be dangerous. Second, there are logistical problems to putting off this subject long enough to have it really be dangerous in the general. There would end up being a year of sitting on their asses and that would scream political motivation even more than it does now, every Dem would boycott and it would be the entire issue would become to radioactive to touch. So for political advantage, expediency and appearances, any attempt to defame her by committee had to be done according to a moderate timeline.

With W and republican congress or O and a democratic congress, we weren't getting any congressional oversight. Partisan investigations are the ideal way to do that, IMO.

Just because there is gridlock and the parties don't play nice on the issues is not reason to turn serious topic like this into a partisan brawl. It's disgusting. It would be gross if the Dems were doing it (they have politicalized tragedies in the past) but in this case its just the Republicans who come out looking small, petty and without respect for those who served and died.

Just look around at any non-patrician news source, toss out the MSNBC's and the FOX's and what you have left are stories that point to Clinton holding up well against this partisan attack. This issue is a loser for Republicans in general, but they just can't see it because their primary voters love it.

 

[Denny Crane]

Wait a second here.

Waiting would scream partisanship. Having the hearings now screams partisanship.

Make up your mind

It requires partisan oversight to get to the truth. Otherwise the congresscritters will just grandstand and fawn all over the person being investigated.

 

[e_blazer]

So, from what I gather from various sources:

1. Chris Stevens was posted to Libya as ambassador in July 2012. The facility there was not up to US standards for a consulate, had inadequate security, and there are records of 100's of emails from Ambassador Stevens asking for improvements to security. Those requests were denied or ignored by the State Dept. Mrs. Clinton claims that she had no knowledge of the requests and it wasn't her job to review such requests. "Security professionals" were responsible, but nobody has ever been called on the carpet to answer for, or been fired for, the lack of adequate security.

2. At the time that Stevens arrived, other governments were closing their embassies because of concerns about growing unrest in the area.

3. In the fall of 2012, President Obama was in the midst of his reelection campaign and was touting success in Libya and a general reduction in terrorist activities as achievements of his administration.

4. When the attack in Benghazi occurred, the Obama administration, backed up by the State Department, claimed numerous times that the attack was by a disorganized mob reacting to an internet video. That narrative went on for a couple of weeks despite documented evidence that Mrs. Clinton knew the story was a lie and had made statements to her daughter and the Egyptian government that the attack was well-organized and appeared to be the work of an al Quaida affiliate.

Sure, the Republicans are using this investigation as a means to put pressure on the Clinton campaign, but that doesn't change the fact that an American ambassador and his staff were knowingly placed in harm's way without adequate security and that the ambassador and three other American's died as a result of this fact. As if that weren't bad enough, Mrs. Clinton and her staff knowingly fed the public misinformation about the nature of the attack, apparently in an attempt to assure that the President's reelection bid wasn't derailed. Partisan politics aside, these facts alone would make me question the character of Mrs. Clinton and whether she is someone worthy of the presidency.

 

[Denny Crane]

So, from what I gather from various sources:

1. Chris Stevens was posted to Libya as ambassador in July 2012. The facility there was not up to US standards for a consulate, had inadequate security, and there are records of 100's of emails from Ambassador Stevens asking for improvements to security. Those requests were denied or ignored by the State Dept. Mrs. Clinton claims that she had no knowledge of the requests and it wasn't her job to review such requests. "Security professionals" were responsible, but nobody has ever been called on the carpet to answer for, or been fired for, the lack of adequate security.

2. At the time that Stevens arrived, other governments were closing their embassies because of concerns about growing unrest in the area.

3. In the fall of 2012, President Obama was in the midst of his reelection campaign and was touting success in Libya and a general reduction in terrorist activities as achievements of his administration.

4. When the attack in Benghazi occurred, the Obama administration, backed up by the State Department, claimed numerous times that the attack was by a disorganized mob reacting to an internet video. That narrative went on for a couple of weeks despite documented evidence that Mrs. Clinton knew the story was a lie and had made statements to her daughter and the Egyptian government that the attack was well-organized and appeared to be the work of an al Quaida affiliate.

Sure, the Republicans are using this investigation as a means to put pressure on the Clinton campaign, but that doesn't change the fact that an American ambassador and his staff were knowingly placed in harm's way without adequate security and that the ambassador and three other American's died as a result of this fact. As if that weren't bad enough, Mrs. Clinton and her staff knowingly fed the public misinformation about the nature of the attack, apparently in an attempt to assure that the President's reelection bid wasn't derailed. Partisan politics aside, these facts alone would make me question the character of Mrs. Clinton and whether she is someone worthy of the presidency.

Vote for Hillary so America can look like Benghazi.

 

[magnifier661]

So, from what I gather from various sources:

1. Chris Stevens was posted to Libya as ambassador in July 2012. The facility there was not up to US standards for a consulate, had inadequate security, and there are records of 100's of emails from Ambassador Stevens asking for improvements to security. Those requests were denied or ignored by the State Dept. Mrs. Clinton claims that she had no knowledge of the requests and it wasn't her job to review such requests. "Security professionals" were responsible, but nobody has ever been called on the carpet to answer for, or been fired for, the lack of adequate security.

2. At the time that Stevens arrived, other governments were closing their embassies because of concerns about growing unrest in the area.

3. In the fall of 2012, President Obama was in the midst of his reelection campaign and was touting success in Libya and a general reduction in terrorist activities as achievements of his administration.

4. When the attack in Benghazi occurred, the Obama administration, backed up by the State Department, claimed numerous times that the attack was by a disorganized mob reacting to an internet video. That narrative went on for a couple of weeks despite documented evidence that Mrs. Clinton knew the story was a lie and had made statements to her daughter and the Egyptian government that the attack was well-organized and appeared to be the work of an al Quaida affiliate.

Sure, the Republicans are using this investigation as a means to put pressure on the Clinton campaign, but that doesn't change the fact that an American ambassador and his staff were knowingly placed in harm's way without adequate security and that the ambassador and three other American's died as a result of this fact. As if that weren't bad enough, Mrs. Clinton and her staff knowingly fed the public misinformation about the nature of the attack, apparently in an attempt to assure that the President's reelection bid wasn't derailed. Partisan politics aside, these facts alone would make me question the character of Mrs. Clinton and whether she is someone worthy of the presidency.

In a nutshell. The sad thing is Hilary won't even be hurt by this. She is protected by MSM and the Obama administration

 

[e_blazer]

In a nutshell. The sad thing is Hilary won't even be hurt by this. She is protected by MSM and the Obama administration

So, 11 hours of hearing yesterday could have been eliminated by having one of the Republicanseason read my synopsis and then having Hillary say, "At this point what difference does it make? My minions don't give a shit and will vote for me anyway. "

 

[magnifier661]

So, 11 hours of hearing yesterday could have been eliminated by having one of the Republicanseason read my synopsis and then having Hillary say, "At this point what difference does it make? My minions don't give a shit and will vote for me anyway. "

Well... Technically this isn't a trial. It's building a case. Think of this like investigators going to houses or bringing people in to give their testimonies. After all statements and evidence is gathered, it should be brought up to whomever decides to make a trial out of it. Right now, the Obama administration has that authority, so dragging their feet will benefit if a republican administration is elected.

 

[MarAzul]

Well we shall see. It seems to me she has lied multiple time in previous testimony. Perhaps the FBI will also notice. And hiding emails is obstruction of justice.
Voters that don't give a shit about that might be less than some think.

 

[Denny Crane]

So, 11 hours of hearing yesterday could have been eliminated by having one of the Republicanseason read my synopsis and then having Hillary say, "At this point what difference does it make? My minions don't give a shit and will vote for me anyway. "

It seems barfo is speechless.

 

[barfo]

It seems barfo is speechless.

Maybe. It doesn't seem like there is much to argue about here. Everyone, even Trey Gowdy, agrees nothing new came out of yesterday.

Whatever you thought about Hillary, yesterday didn't change your mind.

barfo