The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Looks like this is heating up, now that a select committee has been formed. Trrey Gowdy is chairing it, a person I have found exceptionally skilled at argument and questioning.

Exhibit A:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKtu2lKyCYE[/youtube]


Exhibit B, his hair.

Yeah, because this country doesn't have any more pressing issues than this faux witch hunt.

(http://www.bartcop.com/benghazi-dead-horse_n.jpg)

Sorry I misspelled Benghazi. "What difference does it make?" after all.

Here is a lefty losing his religion over the select committee.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/fck-you-move-the-fck-on-cenk-uygur-flips-off-gop-fox-on-benghazi/

Yawn...

Plenty of embassy attacks under George Bush presidency...

Fox News didn't cover any of them.

U.S. Embassy and Consulate Attacks Under George W. Bush

January 22, 2002: US consulate at Kolkata, 5 Killed
June 14, 2002: US Consulate at Karachi, 12 Killed
February 28, 2003: US Embassy at Islamabad, 2 Killed
June 30, 2004: US Embassy at Tashkent, 2 Killed
December 6, 2004: US Compound at Saudi Arabia, 9 Killed
March 2, 2006: US Consulate in Karachi, 2 Killed
September 12, 2006: US Embassy at Syria, 4 Killed
March 18, 2008 US Embassy at Yemen, 2 Killed
July 9, 2008: US Consulate at Istanbul, 6 Killed
September 17, 2008 US Embassy at Yemen, 16 Killed
TOTAL DEATHS: 60
OUTRAGED REPUBLICANS: 0

That was sort of my point.  Now that the whole "repeal Obamacare" has failed them, their next attempt to deceive, inveigle and obfuscate will be to re-open the Benghazi incident.  Something that has been beaten to death for nearly two years.  Maybe someone could open up an investigation of the Arsoner-in-Chief, Darryl Issa.

But I digress.

Yeah, but Bush wasn’t smoking dope with Jay Z or Beyonce in Vegas when those happened.  Come on, a little perspective here!

And Watergate was just a 3rd rate burglary.

Now I am curious  about the cases he quotes....was the Court talking about exculpatory evidence offered before or after taking the 5th.  She apparently - according to him - offered that after invoking her right to not answer.  Does the Court view the placement of the evidence offered differently??

Oh, puuuulllllleeeeeaaaaasssseeeee!!!  Bush was too drunk to roll a joint when he wasn't smoking with Jay Z....  Either that, or too busy fantasizing about giving Angela Merkel a rub-down....  (both publicly documented events, by the way, by others than Faux.)

You left off the hundreds killed in embassy bombings while BJ Clinton was president, and the over one year hostage taking under Jimmy Carter. But, okay...

Number of times BJ Clinton blamed attacks on video? I don't recall.
Number of times Carter blamed hostage takers on something else? I don't recall.
Number of times Bush blamed the attacks on videos? 0
Number of times Bush withheld documents from the attacks? 0 (That I know about)

Here's a link to an article to address your canard.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2013/05/10/why-werent-embassy-attacks-under-bush-clinton-investigated/

Beirut = Benghazi.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/05/ronald-reagans-benghazi.html

Jay Z wouldn’t hang with Bush.  Remember Bush was the racist bigot who caused hurricane Katrina and then stiffed the black people in New Orleans.

OKC got a basketball team out of that.  Kudos to racist bigot Bush

I think this will end up much bigger than most people realize.

You have to remember that there is evidence that our secret arms transfers were going to the wrong groups.  The State Department's plan to supply arms in support of the Arab Spring was collapsing.  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

In August (Aug 15th), Ambassador Stevens sends the State Department a memo stating his concern for the security of the Consulate after attacks in April and June.  5 Days before the attack a Libyan ship called Al Entisar (“The Victory”) was discovered docked in the port of Iskenderun, carrying 400 tons of cargo including rocket-propelled grenades and shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS) destined for Syrian rebels. The ship’s captain told the Times of London that the Muslim Brotherhood and the free Syrian Army broke into a fight over the arms.  There is suspicion that these were the exact arms used in the attack.  The administration has invoked executive privilege to block this evidence, but the creation of a select committee can force these documents to be released to a federal judge who will then review them for sensitive material vs. evidence.

The morning of the attack Stevens meets with Turkish diplomat Consul General Ali Sait Akin, over concerns that weapons, specifically soviet made SA-7 missiles had fallen into the hands of local extremist groups.  Stevens had arrived the day before by secret military transport and his presence at the annex was a secret.  The only person besides his security dispatch to know he was there was Akin.  Lindsay Graham admits that Stevens was there to "contain a situation."

That night, the attack began on the consulate, and all requests from the CIA base chief to US and Libyan forces receives no response.  After nearly half an hour, the base chief takes a small team of 7 people to go defend the consulate.  Meanwhile, after no response to his requests for rescue Ambassador Stevens begins calling other foreign consulates (NATO we would assume) in the area for help. Two hours later the remaining State Department members and CIA officers take shelter in the annex.  Rebels hit the annex with rocket propelled grenades for over 5 hours.  Finally at 6am, nearly 8 hours after the request for assistance was issued by the CIA base chief, the Libyan army arrives.

The next morning, what we now know to be a false narrative is offered to the public.  SS Clinton does not offer a statement but instead there is a strange series of appearances by the Ambassador to the UN on all of the main networks to provide the public with explanation.  There is a suspicion that Hillary may have flat-out refused to engage in the deception, and Rice was dispatched to force her hand by establishing the story, either way, she is involved now.  The promotion of the internet video by the administration and world media sparked additional protests over the next four days that resulted in the loss of at least 4 lives.  http://www.abc15.com/news/national/anti-islam-youtube-video-innocence-of-muslims-sparks-violent-protests

The primary questions that the administration refuses to provide suitable answers for are:
1. Why was there no response given to our CIA base chief when a United States asset was under attack?
2. Was there an order to stand down given, either to US or Libyan forces, and if so, why?
3. Who alerted the rebels of Steven's presence?
4. What was the source of the weaponry used?
5. Where was the president when this was happening?  Again, he has exercised executive privilege to keep this from congress.
6. Why was a false narrative given to the public?
7. Why were all references to al Qaeda and terrorism removed from the original talking points?
8. By falsely promoting a rather obscure internet video as a cause for the attack, there were additional attacks on US and European interests and several people lost their lives.  Who in the administration is complicit?
9. Why, when we have imagery from the CIA drone dispatched during the attack, the media, and the surveillance systems at both the annex and the consulate, have there been no arrests?
10. Considering that the president now labels the Benghazi attack as an act of terrorism, why has he designated the search for those responsible as a criminal investigation led by the FBI?
11. Why did the Libyan military guards outside the consulate not warn the U.S. staff of the gathering terrorists, and why did they leave the scene before the attack?
12. The administration claims there was no air support in the area during the night of the 11th, yet the survivors were evacuated by military transport on the 12th.  How? From where?
13. During the attack, what other consulates did Stevens call for help and what was their response?  Why haven't the transcripts of those calls been made available?
14. What NATO assets were in the area?
15. During the attack, did the president or his staff notify his campaign that he might have to cancel his fundraisers in Las Vegas the next day?
16. If the CIA facility in Benghazi was involved in the collection of $40 million in weapons from the U.S., as first reported by National Journal in 2011, where are they?  
17. Is it possible that the president’s intelligence finding included an authorization for the weapons collected in Libya to be transferred to Syrian rebels?  Was the CIA annex being used to facilitate these transfers?  If so, how did the weapons physically move from Libya to Syria?  By plane?  By ship?


The administration's response was a very quick and unwise subterfuge, but it was their only option if they wanted to keep a scandal away from the media until after the election, and avoid canceling an extremely important fundraiser the next morning in Las Vegas. The decisions after the fact were solely political and we understand that now.  The decisions before and during the attack may have contributed to or caused the death of people.  That is what is criminal.

If the president had come out after the attack and admitted that our efforts to support rebels in Syria (who's primary architects were Hillary Clinton, David Petraeus and Panetta, and a plan that President Obama at least publicly came out against) had backfired and caused a large cache of weaponry to fall into enemy hands, and subsequently be used to attack our consulate and kill our ambassador and 3 others on the eve of September 11th, this would likely deliver the election to Romney, and also destroy Hillary's chances for a run in 2016.  Thus, it was of the utmost importance for Democrats to squash the story and spin the narrative.  Now that the president is in quick decline and Hillary looks to be the best candidate for 2016, it would be smart for him to go ahead and fall on this sword, and even go so far as to shield Hillary by claiming he forced her hand by sending Rice out to provide the false narrative.  Biden can finish his term for him after he is removed and Hillary can scoot in to office in 2016.  That is unless he opts to throw Hillary under the bus.  I doubt she would go down without a fight though (unlike Monica).

OMG!  Waaay off into looney land here.  Just glanced at that and eyes glazed over and saw the black helicopter crowd.  Think the general public will see that too, if they even notice at all.  Only traction this will get is with the same few people that are working on ever more "detailed" conspiracies showing how the US Government was behind World Trade Center buildings destruction.

We were talking about him in the PM's but thank you for throwing that out there.

Should be interesting to watch.

If you're talking about your responses in this thread, then yes.

The society exists.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTDo4cVimgr2DvL1AgoWw1a7cRShNdnetiyvKoL5Otkwp9vQ6RV)

Watch the “OMFG Hillary is ahead in the polls with just two years to go! What are we going do? Blaming Obamacare for dead kittens has failed us! We are lost! Bengazi, you are our last hope! Save us Bengazi!” Campaign?


I’d rather watch grass grow.

Obligatory Jon Stewart

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/06/1297207/-Jon-Stewart-s-brilliant-takedown-of-right-wing-s-hypocritical-Benghazi-outrage

I am personally glad that gaspar and FoxNews is having orgasmic feelings toward Bengazi. Their continual ranting and posturing about this is just costing them time, money and votes. The American people are wise enough to not care enough, especially because there have been so many other attacks under every other President in my lifetime.

Every day they blather about Bengazi just costs them a chance to come up with a plan to help the country. They have become a gang of dissenters, crying foul so often that no one will listen to them any more. They tried to discredit Obama's birth certificate for years, and they all ended up sounding like Donald Trump and Ted Nugent.

Bengazi is a land far away from America. Foreign policy and intelligence failures are just not what people focus on. But by all means keep focusing every waking moment on this topic. The best case scenario for a win from all this for republicans is that the democrats don't nominate Hillary.

Let's have televised hearings every day about Bengazi. Let's keep wailing until we have a scapegoat. Let's give Limbaugh and Hannity the chance to speak about this non-stop for months more. Just make sure we get Donald Trump and Ted Nugent to weigh in too.

RM and others, if you think the R would start up this select committee with just this new email (which does expose the state department as being liars), you are naive.

Kinda makes you think why we suddenly are talking about freakin global warming/climate change/climate disruption now. Because we all know how damned important that is, with what's happening with our wussified response in Ukraine and the Obamacare lies and mess.

Your websites or more misleading than our websites.

It's been almost twenty months.  Why haven't they been able to prove anything then?

Can you say "witch hunt"?

I am naïve. I think the political parties and elected officials should have a plan to fix a broken healthcare system. I think they should have a plan to help people get a better job or a little more money on payday. I think they should find ways to use diplomacy to avoid the United States getting into civil wars on foreign lands.

You think they should have continual hearings about things most people don't care about. I don't hear any solutions coming from the national republicans to any of our problems. They just want to find scapegoats to things that happened under a democrat president. That ain't leadership.

That's electioneering

I can't stop smiling. Listening to Hannity on the radio is like watching car racing for the wrecks.

It is only for the national republicans. I don't see Mayor Bartlett ranting about such. I read a nice post by GT Bynum about working to find more city funding for arts program. I see Ron Peters asking questions about transparency in government. I see Blake Ewing fighting for neighborhoods.

Why is it that when you want to be a republican on a national scale you have to lose all sense about what is important to the public and not just your party? Tell me it didn't always be like this.

Um, the Benghazi "scandal" is all about transparency...

Keep posting about Bengazi. You just make my point over and over again.

Oh, and throw in some discussions about Monica Lewinski while you are at it.

Carter is always good.

Can the GOP keep the Benghazi hearings from becoming a 'circus'?

http://news.yahoo.com/can-the-gop-keep-the-benghazi-hearings-from-becoming-a--circus--222958402.html

OMG.  Those last two sentences about made me incontinent....

Where was your concern about the 1983 Beirut embassy bombing where 63 people were killed??  Wonder why Reagan wasn't held to task for that - he had been in office for two years and surely someone would have mentioned to him something about security issues?  Oh, wait...Alzheimer's...he had it.

It wasn't.  Page Belcher... excellent example of how it should be on a national scale.

He even played football for the Sooners!  But I don't hold that against him at all!

Trey Gowdy reportedly has gotten death threats. Oh well, what difference does it make?

As for the Beirut bombing, I will look back and see if Reagan blamed the attack repeatedly on a video, and then withheld documents confirming that BS story but was forced to produce them after a FOIA action. Maybe you can remind me if Reagan looked into the eyes of a surviving family member and told them he was going to arrest and prosecute the maker of the video. That would really help me understand your strawman, er, whatever point you were making.  :P

I'm more interested in global alarming or whatever than this story. That's what people REALLY want to talk about, I mean, people that make a living off of environmentalism. I keed.

From whom and about what?

How quickly we forget...or choose to forget...

http://www.phillyburbs.com/entertainment/in-debacle-reagan-escaped-the-blame-game/article_0174fce9-b60c-5b6b-8934-915bd3c2bcf7.html

"Those Marines had been ordered into Lebanon by President Ronald Reagan as a part of an international peacekeeping force following the June 1982 Israeli invasion of that country and the Palestine Liberation Organization’s withdrawal."

"Making an already-dangerous situation even more hazardous, the Marines were under strict presidential orders not to load their weapons — this, so that they would appear as peacekeepers and not as armed belligerents in the conflict and despite the fact that they were moving into a war zone."

"According to Col. Timothy J. Geraghty, the commander of the Marines in Beirut: “It didn’t take a military expert to realize that our troops had been placed in an indefensible situation. Anyone following the situation in Lebanon in ordinary news reports could realize a tragedy was in the making."

"From the outset, the American embassy in Beirut had sent numerous cables warning Washington that the invasion would provoke terrorism and undermine America’s standing in the Mideast. But there was no response."

Sound familiar? The result of White House decisions led to the greatest loss of life in Marine history. But wait! There's more!

"Against the vigorous opposition of Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, Reagan then ordered Marine commanders to call in air strikes and other attacks against the Muslims and initiated a two-week-long bombardment by American warships, including the battleship USS New Jersey.
In his autobiography, then Maj. Gen. Colin Powell observed: “Since (the Muslims) could not reach the battleship, they found a more vulnerable target — the exposed Marines at the airport.”

The Reagan administration immediately attempted to deflect blame for the attack with a deluge of false statements and misrepresentations. In a televised speech four days after the bombing, the president insisted the attack was unstoppable, erroneously declaring that the truck crashed through a series of barriers, including a chain-link fence and barbed-wire entanglements, and argued that the U.S. mission was succeeding.
Despite the fact that Reagan had dispatched the Marines into an impossible situation and then had issued orders that led to their inability to defend themselves, he suffered relatively little criticism from the press or partisan opponents, and after months of vigorous campaigning was overwhelmingly re-elected the following year"

Still sound different?

Excellent post.   I actually had forgotten about the details.

This whole thing is a witch hunt.  The Republicans are happy to trample on the constitution if it gets them some political points.  The witness invoked her 5th Amendment privilege and now they are attempting to punish her from doing so.

A blanket statement of innocents or disclaimer of involvement is NOT enough to waive the privilege.  If she spoke of specific facts, she has waived in regards to those specific facts.  But the general statement does not qualify as a waiver -

"Did you kill him!?!"

"Man, I didn't do it, you got the wrong guy!"

POOF!  - 5th Amendment out the window in every prosecution ever.  It isnt that simple.

I think the Republicans should ask for the long form birth certificates of everyone involved.

Only in "FauxWorld".... like Disney World without the reality....

Are you talking about Lois Lerner? If so, I will take the word of Trey Gowdy, former federal prosecutor, on what amounts to waiver of privilege for now. Incidentally, how many criminal cases have you worked on?

Now we read that Hillary while at State apparently didn't want Boko Haram named as a terrorist organization.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/07/hillary-s-state-department-refused-to-brand-boko-haram-as-terrorists.html

Did you read the part about why?

If you remember, 2010-2011 was a very delicate time.  The administration as a whole was trying to play down the existence of any and all terrorists groups.  NASA had been converted from a space exploration organization to a tool for Muslim outreach and al Qaeda was on the run.  Just because the group was murdering folks in the name of Islam and bombed the U.N. headquarters in Abuja killing 21 people with a suicide car bomb no longer met the new Obama definition of terrorism.  At that time, to be a terrorist you needed some association with a Tea Party group.

Did you not see how specious it was? Oh wait, the Obama state department said that, so that must be the correct answer.

And the Hillary takedown:


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/377538/hillary-clintons-state-dept-blocked-terrorist-designation-boko-haram-andrew-c-mccarthy

Yes:

Perhaps if we just stop using the word terrorism all together they will just go away.  We would certainly hate to offend or embolden anyone.

These are simply "foreign dissenters" who occasionally contribute to "man-caused disasters," and provide "unexpected transport" for "unwilling guests" in an attempt for outreach and understanding. 

Of course now that the election is over, back to the working policy. . . hit em with a hellfire. 

Kinda sounds like the general disposition of the Obama white house, but you left out that the U.S. must blame itself and its citizens for causing these things, and that terrorist acts on our own soil might just be "workplace violence". 

If we weren't so successful as a nation, people wouldn't hate us so much.  The administration is working to correct the problem by making us less exceptional, but they need your help.
(http://www.truthorfiction.com/images/OPOSTMODERNWORLD.jpg)

You really did just skip class completely on history, didn't you?

(http://media.cagle.com/53/2014/05/07/148195_600.jpg)

And while this continues to get steam, I'll leave this link out there to refer back to.  That is, for those of you who don't wear tinfoil on your heads.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/may/09/fact-checking-benghazi-our-most-recent-round-/

You would take the fact that she is a witch on the word of the guy appointed as head witch hunter?  That doesn't seem like a good idea.  Also, for the 6 years he was a state DA he was always fighting against the 5th Amendment.  That's like asking a Red Sox fan if the Yankees suck.

Not that it matters, but I've probably worked on four or five dozen criminal cases, and maybe a dozen civil cases involving the fifth amendment.  I've fought its invocation from both sides and the negative inferences one present into evidence in certain circumstances.  I am not an expert in the area, but I know enough to know that the group with torches and pitchforks isn't the right group to be deciding the ogre must die.

And this isn't an opinion on Lois Lerner.  I have no clue if she acted inappropriately or not.  The first investigation revealed there was no criminal wrongdoing, so now the GOP wants a second. They could be right and the witch must burn.

But summarily casting aside the 5th Amendment to obtain that goal isn't right.  Republican, Democrat, or in a non-political situation - I take the constitution seriously.  

Now that the torch and pitchfork crowd has voted her in contempt, the Court can sort it out once she is subpoena'd to answer again.  I'm honestly interested in the analysis on the issue.

This is pretty funny. 

http://www.examiner.com/article/rep-stockman-condemns-democrat-leaning-group-for-boko-haram-support

And you reflexively take the witch's view over the hunter. Everything you posted is a matter of point of view as to the interpretation/invocation of the privilege--except of course that you take the constitution seriously or something.  Here is what Gowdy said:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx9Z31eMucc[/youtube]

Where is this hunter wrong?

Yeah...a widely dispersed group is certainly gonna be concerned they can't get visas to the US.  And cutting off access to the US financial system - well, I bet they launder their money through Saudi banks anyway, so they would actually still have access.... you remember them - the ones associated with the Bin Laden/Bush cabal.....

But I think the most important thing is that the designation stigmatizes and isolates those foreign organizations by encouraging other nations to take similar measures.  That would certainly deter me, I I were in that position!

He was in at least one, and I think a second of the previous House committees to study and ask questions about this.  Why didn't he ask his questions then?  Or did he and now he just wants to be the petulant little child and keep asking the same question over and over until he gets the answer he wants....

Or he is just acting in concert with the rest of them to drum up campaign contributions....by far the most likely!


You never did answer my previous question about what and when causes the loss of Constitutional rights - waiver?  We do know that saying "I didn't do it...."  or  "I am innocent"... doesn't create a waiver.

Sorry for the bad link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx9Z31eMucc

You earned it.

(http://blogs.westword.com/backbeat/cypress-hill-huge-bong-mhmf.jpg)

Just learned that our ambassador was not murdered in Benghazi. He died from smoke inhalation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0eDDyQwOpk&feature=youtu.be

I wonder how many in the twin towers met a similar fate.

You mean Mr Showboat? 

How could a personal opinion statement like "I feel the tea party is dangerous" have any bearing on a persons right to invoke the 5th??  Personal opinion I am looking for a legitimate discussion of it - or at least something more real than Trey in election mode.

So, if I believe that Darrel Issa has a really bad dye job and comb-over, then I would be waiving my 5th amendment rights.... and a Great American Hero in the making!!


Here is another link..... since we are just posting for posting link's sake....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbBIzwSwD7I

Seems pretty consistent across the entire testimony.  About what one would expect from FauxWorld....


So, 7 previous hearings that uncovered nothing are still not enough for the "Electioneers", so we gotta have some more...

It seems we have a pattern.  Timothy Geithner is claiming that the White House wanted him to lie about Social Security and it's relation to the deficit when he went on the Sunday talk shows.

Just a lie for political reasons.  No one died.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2626253/White-House-wanted-Treasury-Secretary-Tim-Geithner-LIE-public-social-security.html

I remember when he did those interviews.  He seemed very frightened and combative.
(http://media.salon.com/2011/07/geithner_hits_the_sunday_shows.jpg)

That's okay then. But still, Bush lied, and this is probably all his fault. And you might be racist a bit here.  :)

Clift getting the business she richly deserves:

http://twitchy.com/2014/05/12/911-victims-just-died-of-smoke-inhalation-eleanorcliftlogic-explores-columnists-revolting-revisionism/

I was wondering what all the fuss was about over this Ben Ghazi guy. As it turns out, he's already dead:

(http://img2-1.timeinc.net/people/i/2012/news/120213/ben-gazzara-300.jpg)

Not a big fan of getting a member of an opposing party's position who comments inconsistently with that party's message, but here is something interesting from Panetta:


http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_25748782/panetta-lecture-panel-weighs-snowden-benghazi

Hope is the key word there. Not much hope for participation, legitimacy and answers in this atmosphere near midterm elections.

Not a chance in Hell.  It's going to be a whole bunch of social conservatives saying "I knew it!" and the rest of us rolling our eyes.

Krauthammer weighs in with some sage advice to the GOP on the investigation and the possible consequences if they use it as an opportunity to show-boat.

Don't really care if this is true...

(http://concisepolitics.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/image5.jpg)

Gowdy laying out the truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i4tuuy1jsw

Well gee whiz, what the hell coulda happened to cause that spike? It must be Obamacare, and NOT the Ben Rhodes email that had been disclosed right at the time of the spike. Thanks for proving the point. 

And the Daily Kos? Didn't you criticize me about a hot air link?

Judicial Watch just sued for access to the internal emails on Obamacare that the administration also refused to release to congress, so I'm sure there will be a spike in the Obamacare mentions as well.

Most transparent administration in history!

Well gee whiz, where is this all going?  What can we do about it?  Everyone's minds are made up. 

If you don't like the administration then you think Benghazi is proof that the President is an alien wanting to eat your brain.  If you favor the administration then you think this is a political move.

Daily Kos?  Who gives a smile?  That's why I typed what I did when I posted the graph.

Judicial watch smears peanut butter on their nipples thinking about Ann Coulter.  Good source.

Well played sir.

They did what congress could not and obtained the proof that the Benghazi talking points were indeed politically manipulated.  What they do in the privacy of their kitchen/bedroom is irrelevant.

Ann Coulter though

OMG!

You mean politicians had talking points that were political? How dare they!

Get out the torches!

Brilliant!

I just couldn't tell for sure whether he was talking about Obama or Bush's embassy attacks....oh, yeah...then he said Stevens.

Whey  (as in Trey...) didn't he ask these questions in the previous hearings he was part of??

Looks like ol' Judicial Watch just broke its foot off again--this time in the backside of the IRS.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/krauthammer-new-emails-proves-lie-in-white-house-claim-irs-didnt-target-gopers/

Not a smidgen of corruption I guess.

Translation:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cuu0I7oZWU[/youtube]

Chicago style politicians never really retire.  They get retired when the seeds they plant start to bloom.

I found a story that stated Pelosi picked the dems to be on Gowdy's committee. Unfortunately, someone posted this pic along with that story. The horror..

(http://buzzpo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/aaaab-162x300.jpg)

Looks like we're gong to try and be ready this time.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BoqjS_YCQAI6Fw-.jpg)

Our domestic media should pick this up in a day or two after they clear it with the White House.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/africa/2014/05/27/U-S-deploys-warship-with-1-000-marines-near-Libya.html

The United States is deploying an amphibious assault vessel carrying 1,000 marines near the Libya coast in case the U.S. embassy must be evacuated, a U.S. defense official said Tuesday.

The USS Bataan was to be in the area "in a matter of days," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The move was described as "precautionary" in case conditions in Libya, where militia battles have plunged the country into anarchy, worsen and require the embassy's evacuation.

The State Department said last week that the embassy in Tripoli was operating normally despite an offensive launched against Islamist militias by a dissident general, Khalifa Haftar.

In addition to the 1,000 marines on board, the Bataan is equipped with several helicopters.



The United States also has available 250 marines, seven tilt-rotor Osprey aircraft and three refueling aircraft in Sigonella, Italy.

The precautions come amid ongoing controversy over a September 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in which four Americans, including ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed.

Makes you wonder if Libya is in better shape after we took out Uncle Moamar a few years back.  Sure, he was a tyrant but was that better than anarchy for the common Libyan?

Smashing a cockroach is futile, unless you intend to destroy the whole nest.

When you take out a tyrant, and leave a vacuum, other tyrants will move in.  We have no business being world police any more. We have no clear foreign policy.  We would be smart to close most of our remaining embassies in the Middle East/Africa. At least until we have some different leadership.

Like I have said before, it is part of the plan of the powers that be.  We told him to sit down and shut up a couple decades ago and he did.  Then he started looking around and formulating a plan - he was working on an African Union along the lines of the European Union.  Which could have made the continent an economic powerhouse on its own rather than just colonies.   THAT could not be tolerated by the powers that be, so we helped in Libya.....helped the SAME people who were going to Iraq and Afghanistan to kill our kids - but in this, they were our good buddies....

Yeah, but OKC had to give it back. The good news was that they were able to buy Seattle's team.

Sent from my little slice of Heaven.

What about Iraq?

I’m pretty sure the Kurds approve of the new leadership and I believe the political situation has stabilized quite a bit.  Either that or the media is ignoring all the massive anarchy and genocide still on-going in Iraq.

I also think Israel is thankful that Saddam isn't around paying the families of Palestinian/Hamas suicide bombers.

Are you kidding me? Stable? The country is melting down. The Kurds are only being left alone because there's mostly open warfare now between the Shia and Sunni.

2 hours ago, 15 dead in bombing:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/attacks-iraq-kill-15-people-23953392

May 29th, 54 dead in bombings
http://rt.com/news/162132-iraq-violence-dead-bombing/

May 27th, 17 dead in bombing:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27593159

May 27th The iraqi government is dropping barrel bombs on Shia strongholds in Fallujah (like what's happening in Syria) targeting even a hospital:
http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/bombing-north-iraq-s-capital-kills-five-5974718

May 25th, 12 dead in bombing:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/car-bombing-liquor-store-north-iraq-kill-12-23859993

May 17th, 5 dead in bombing:
http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/bombing-north-iraq-s-capital-kills-five-5974718

And it was better under Hussein’s control?

The Sunni and Shia have been at war for 1300+ years.  I don’t think there will ever be a long-term solution to this.  You can put whomever you want to in power in Iraq and there will still be a conflict between the varying factions of Islam.

At least with Hussein gone, they are not attacking nor invading neighboring countries.  At least not for now.

Yes, it was.

With Hussein gone, it means they are no longer attacking Iran.  Much better for us now....it's always good to have an unfettered/unrestrained Iran!

You asked the question of Libya was better off under Moamar. Then a similar question needs to be asked was Iraq better off under Saddam with American sanctions and an enforced no fly zone. Iraq is exactly where I (and many others) predicted it would be. A thuggish Iran backed majority Shia government subjugating and taking some measure of revenge on the Sunni minority.  We did for Iran what they could never do themselves. Gave them a largely client state in Iraq. Go Us! Even HW Bush knew this was a likely outcome if Iraq was invaded. It's why he didn't topple Saddam in the 1990s.

Even better, the Iraq invasion was a pretext for Iran’s hardliners to clamp down on power and was a powerful recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and the Talliban. IEDs started in being used Iraq and then spread to Afghanistan if you recall.

Thank you President Obama.

A unified Iraq and Iran will work out great for us.

Here is a story covering the Diane Sawyer interview with Hillary. I know it does not place Hillary in the best of lights, so I apologize in advance to RM about it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/06/10/abc-newss-diane-sawyer-destroys-hillary-rodham-clinton-on-benghazi/

We finally got one!
http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-captured-benghazi-suspect-in-secret-raid/2014/06/17/7ef8746e-f5cf-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html?hpid=z1

I wonder if the location of this suspect was part of some trade?  Hmmm?

We traded Bergdahl back....

Probably about as good as our whole meddling in the area has been working for so many years....and western Europe for all those centuries before that!!

Interesting.  So initially I thought from the reports that they nabbed someone new, but apparently this is the same guy that CNN tracked down and interviewed a year ago about the attacks.  He was seen in the videos of the attacks. We've known who and were he was for over a year. 

Damon interviewed Khattala one year ago, and said he did not act like a man being wanted for a terrorist attack, and was even willing to talk to U.S. investigators. When CNN host John Berman asked what “explained the gap” between her ability to find him and the government’s year-long search, Damon cited “a number of factors.”

“After the attack on the U.S. consulate and then the CIA shutting down its annex after the attack, the U.S. did not have the reach into Libya and Benghazi it needed perhaps to pick him up,” Damon said. “Also playing into all of this is the sensitive nature of Libyan politics. Picking him up is going to inflame the situation here. But again, this was not a man who was in hiding. I was the first television correspondent to speak to him but he had spoken to one or two other print outlets beforehand. He did not feel the need to secure himself other than with this small unit of Libyan forces that were part of one of Islamist militias there.” http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-reporter-who-found-benghazi-suspect-last-year-not-a-man-who-was-in-hiding/

Here's the comments from John King in July of 2013:
"It is interesting," says King. "The FBI has put some photos up on its website of people of interest, but they haven't arrested anybody. And I'll tell you this: We've been working on a project here at CNN for a special due out later ... And Arwa Damon, our great correspondent, went back to Benghazi. She sat down with one of the people the FBI says is a lead suspect for 2 hours. He says he's never been contacted by the Libyan government, never been contacted by the FBI, so that is why you have this exasperation among some leading Republicans in the Congress."


This makes it blatantly apparent that there was NO investigation taking place after the 9/11 Benghazi attack.  None!

And the plot thickens. . .

Apparently this guy was also interviewed by the NYT in October of 2012, and he echoed the then still popular Susan Rice/Obama internet video line.

Mr. Abu Khattala, 41, wearing a red fez and sandals, added his own spin. Contradicting the accounts of many witnesses and the most recent account of the Obama administration, he contended that the attack had grown out of a peaceful protest against a video made in the United States that mocked the Prophet Muhammad and Islam. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/world/africa/suspect-in-benghazi-attack-scoffs-at-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Ahmm! Mr. President, we have found your man.

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/t1.0-9/1623664_10152361016187740_3667343226665646271_n.jpg)

I thought it was odd that one of you guys obsessed with Bengazi didn't post this story. Then I read it and realized it made you all wrong. So I posted it for you. You are welcome.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/usworld/no-stand-down-given-order-in-benghazi-officers-testimony-indicates/article_639f1d82-6715-5415-8bdf-6798fc78b3bb.html

No 'stand-down' given order in Benghazi, officers' testimony indicates
 

The testimony of nine military officers undermines contentions by Republican lawmakers that a “stand-down order” held back military assets that could have saved the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans killed at a diplomatic outpost and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya.
 
The “stand-down” theory centers on a Special Operations team of four — a detachment leader, a medic, a communications expert and a weapons operator with his foot in a cast — who were stopped from flying from Tripoli to Benghazi after the attacks of Sept. 11-12, 2012, had ended. Instead, they were instructed to help protect and care for those being evacuated from Benghazi and from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.

The senior military officer who issued the instruction to “remain in place” and the detachment leader who received it said it was the right decision and has been widely mischaracterized. The order was to remain in Tripoli and protect some three dozen embassy personnel rather than fly to Benghazi some 600 miles away after all Americans there would have been evacuated.

And the medic is credited with saving the life of an evacuee from the attacks.

Transcripts of hours of closed-door interviews with the military leaders by the House Armed Services and Oversight and Government Reform committees were made public for the first time on Wednesday. The Associated Press had reviewed the material ahead of its release.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the Oversight panel, has suggested Hillary Rodham Clinton gave the order, though as secretary of state at the time, she was not in the military chain of command. Despite lingering public confusion over many events that night, the testimony shows military leaders largely in agreement over how they responded to the attacks.


The initial Sept. 11 assault on the diplomatic post, which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and another American, prompted immediate action both in Benghazi and in Tripoli. Though not under any known further threat, the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, was evacuated early in the morning of Sept. 12, its sensitive information and computer hard drives destroyed. Diplomats and military officials left in armored vehicles for a classified U.S. site several miles away. Upon arrival there, the head of a small detachment entrusted with training Libyan special forces told his higher-ups he wanted to take his four-member team to Benghazi.


Military officials differ on when that telephone conversation took place, but they agree that no help could have arrived in Benghazi in time. They put the call somewhere between 5:05 a.m. and 6:30 a.m. local time. It would take about 90 minutes to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi. The next U.S.-chartered plane to make the trip left at 6:49 a.m., meaning it could have arrived shortly before 9 a.m., nearly four hours after the second, 11-minute battle at the CIA facility ended at about 5:25 a.m.
Republicans investigating Benghazi have clashed over whether military superiors, in effect, ordered the team to stand down. Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., the Armed Services Committee chairman, has cited previous testimony from military officers that ordering the foursome to stay in Tripoli and protect embassy personnel there didn’t amount to “standing down.”


Others, such as Issa and Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, have said a stand down order was given.


“We had proximity, we had capability, we had four individuals in Libya armed, ready to go, dressed, about to get into the car to go to the airport to go help their fellow countrymen who were dying and being killed and under attack in Benghazi, and they were told to stand down,” Chaffetz said more than a year ago. “That’s as sickening and depressing and disgusting as anything I have seen. That is not the American way.”

Beyond questions of timing, the testimony of Rear Adm. Brian Losey, who was then Special Operations commander for Africa, also challenged the idea the team had the capacity to bolster security in Benghazi. Losey said there was “never an order to stand down.” His instruction to the team “was to remain in place and continue to provide security in Tripoli because of the uncertain environment.”

Saw that article.  Didn't bother to post, because it's not going change minds.  For those that can only scream "Benghazi!", facts (and some acceptance of the fog of war) make no difference.

I'm sure after they get wind of the final results of the report, it will be crickets in here....nothing to see, move along...

 :P

Tulsa World seems to be unavailable....

The Select Committee on Intelligence released this yesterday:

http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi%20Report.pdf (http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi%20Report.pdf)

NBC wrote:

"The Republican-led House Select Committee on Intelligence on Friday released its report on the deadly 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and it found that the military and the Central Intelligence Agency responded appropriately during the attacks.
The investigation, which took nearly two years and thousands of hours of work, found the CIA had “ensured sufficient security” and “bravely assisted” on the night of attacks that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. The panel also found no intelligence failure prior to the attacks.
The committee said it found no evidence that the military was ordered to “stand down” during the attacks in Benghazi, as some had claimed, and that “appropriate U.S. personnel made reasonable tactical decisions that night.” It also found no evidence of similar claims that the CIA was involved in arms shipments or other unauthorized activities."

Note that it says this originated in the House, arguably the less sane chamber of our Federal government.

This is the House intelligence committee. Not Trey Gowdy's "select committee".

The title page says "House Select Committee on Intelligence," Guido. Is that different?

That's the "permanent" committee. Trey Gowdy's committee is the House Special Panel on Benghazi or some other name...I understand that committee received the report you posted already.

I guess when you're own House controlled committee finds no basis regarding admin conspiracies, you just stomp your feet and say that committee's findings are 'full of crap'.

This is hilarious.  Some 40-odd times this has been investigated and it comes up the same every time.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/23/politics/lindsey-graham-benghazi-report/

Maybe the Senate should appoint a Super Special Committee to investigate the investigation conducted by the House Extra Special committee. I'm okay with that provided they don't use all the seats on the short bus.

Honestly, the amount of money thrown down this particular rat hole should be our main focus.

Ed W

Now we KNOW a youtube video led to the death of Ambassador Stevens. It was not a terrorist attack.

Time for another committee since this report obviously won’t be well-received.

(http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4710/993/400/Beat_Dead_Horse.jpg)

(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/5c31da4236b0fa82aecd4663f95219e463dcc248/c=4-0-2997-2250&r=x513&c=680x510/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2014/11/28/635527350716286901-112814lville-benghazi.jpg)

And now this happens.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?smid=tw-bna

"Oh, you wanted ALL the emails, not just those I wanted to give you? Sorry, I misunderstood."

Will this effectively eliminate her from holding any type of political office ever again.....???

Is that how she and Slick solicited the millions from the middle east for the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of of State?

A little lightness to round out your day!

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10154173642315215&fref=nf

Really? You think using a personal e-mail account is the deal-breaker?

You don't think that every Senator, Congressman, Governor, etc. doesn't have a private gmail, yahoo account and sometimes uses it?

You guys are gasping at straws. Create all the outrage you want. Dress like Sean Hannity for all I care.

Yes. Using a personal e-mail CAN be a way to hide conversations. But if you release them, what are you hiding?
 

Are you kidding? Do you not remember the gnashing of teeth over Sarah Palin's email controversy? Also, you need to understand that most everyone is condemning her over this. And the contributions to her foundation.

Nobody remembers Sarah Palin's email controversy. That is your reason for your outrage?

If they did it to our woman running for President, we need to do it to their candidate running for President.

Seems childish to me, but go ahead and freak out.

Remember, this is the group that still has their panties in a wad over how Bengazi was handled....

One embassy event where 4 people were killed.  While they ignore the half a dozen or so embassy killing events under Baby Bush regime where 32 were killed....

Mountain out of a molehill.  The law that banned her and other government employees from using personal email as primary correspondence during her duties as SoS didn't go into effect until last year (The Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014).

Another point - Secretary Kerry is the first Sec of State to use a dot gov address as his primary email.

Republicans, once again, making a big deal out of nothing.  Fitting that it should be updated in this dumpster fire of a topic.

If Hillary gets elected, there's one thing I don't think we'll have to worry about, highly doubtful that she will be schlepping an intern.

Maybe.....

Not to disturb your slumber an inordinate amount, but no one knows what kind of arrangements Bill, Hillary, and "fill in the blank" have.  And no matter what it is - it's no one's business but theirs!

Thanks for that mental image which will require decades of therapy for me to deal with....

Rapid right winger Ron Fournier weighs in:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/twenty-sixteen/maybe-hillary-clinton-should-retire-her-white-house-dreams-20150303

And looney righty Lawrence O'Donnell as well.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-odonnell-clinton-using-private-email-stunning-breach-of-security/

Nobody remembers? So many nobodies have weighed in that within 24 hours of this revelation the "look who else broke the rules" crowd has come to Ms. Clenis' rescue.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/5-examples-lawmakers-email-lawbreakers-article-1.2135674

We know. It was only four dead Americans. Many others died in other embassy attacks. Obama has many more lives to throw away by terrorist attacks before it really matters; right?

I mean, excluding Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky of course.

Thanks, F. Lee.

No.  Been addressed before.  And yet, somehow the "Bengazi birthers" just don't seem to get it.  And they NEVER say anything about the other events.  Much like you never decry the 32, but are all over the 4.....  As in who started the thread...

Theirs.... plural form of "their"... plural including all the parties, which would/could mean Monica, Paula, etc.  Monica appears to have been consensual.  Guess we'll never know about the rest any more than we will know about Clarence Thomas, huh?

But then they impeached Thomas, didn't they?   Oh,...wait... nevermind!!

Pleasure's all mine, Night Court.

Do you not understand that if it was not for the current investigation we would never have learned that Ms. Clenis withheld documents pertaining to this loss of life by Americans fighting terrorists? I know you don't care, but do you at lest understand? 

I forgot. Did Clarence Thomas get disbarred and impeached for whatever he did?

I absolutely do care.  About 8 times as much as you apparently, since I care for the 32 AND the 4.  What is curious to me is how the right wing extremists who wrap themselves in the 'shroud' (claiming to be Christian) can simultaneously be so intellectually dishonest - but then I remember....they really aren't...they have just hijacked the bus so to speak and are neither honest, nor Christian.

How is it you do not appear to understand by about 8:1 ??

And you don't find it disturbing that he wasn't?  For doing as much if not more??

Instead, he was rewarded, wasn't he...?
Goes to the same intellectual dishonesty so often manifest in the right wing extremists.



And don't worry about any "apparent" bias on my behalf toward the right wing - I'm getting wound up to go after Blobama again over his latest attempts at co-opting the US Constitution through his 'running dogs' in the BATF.  Just waiting to see if this "do nothing" Republican congress has the co-jones to actually do something about the overreach and power grabbing by the BATF.  So far, they have failed...as expected.  But we will see, won't we?

Please don't tell me you're speaking of the proposed ban on certain armor-piercing 5.56mm/.223 ammo...

Why, yes!  That is it exactly!  How good of you to bring it up!!!  Shall we get started.....

Specifically, the green tipped cartridge made by Federal Cartridge (company, not government).  And probably others, but this is the one I know a little about and have used.  This round has been procured by the US military since probably the late 80's - one specific intended target during the 90's was the enemy in Afghanistan and Iraq who wore so called "body armor" - they wanted it to be "armor piercing" with the addition of a small steel sabot insert into the bullet.  Turns out, it wasn't - didn't penetrate the body armor well enough to be called armor piercing, but the nomenclature has stuck and now we see great wailing, moaning, and gnashing of teeth over a really non-event.  But from the opposite side one normally associates with whiners of this type - hint; not the RWRE!

It does make a really good target round, though, and the brass can be easily reloaded to a hunting round if desired.  Since the Fed's (govt, not company) finally have exhausted all ideas and the requisite decade or so to make a decision had elapsed, they stopped buying from Federal (company), leaving an apparent stock of at least hundreds of millions of rounds that have been sold for the last 8 - 10 years or so as near as I can tell - the first ones I saw were probably 6 - 8 years ago.  Great for plinking!!  But for hunting or defense, I definitely would not be interested - wildly inadequate for either/both.

That is what the LWRE's are whining about today...

Oh, and complaining that it can be used as a pistol round...  Ok... So??  An idiot would use it in a pistol.  Someone serious about a pistol would use a .40 or .45.



The reality is, for overall military use, the M-16 - and the AR-15 platform with .223/5.56 in general is marginal as a war weapon.  Yeah, I know...we have killed lots of people with them over the decades, so yes, they are deadly.  Good for us.

The AR-10 platform, in particular the .308/7.62 x 51 NATO round is much better overall, all time, all temperature, all environments.  It is even a better round that used in the weapon of our enemy - the AK-47, 7.62 x 39.  I have heard of AK's being fitted to 7.62 NATO, and THAT would be the best of all possible worlds - both for warfare AND for hunting!!  Someday when I get rich, I may buy one!

In the meantime, the M1A  MA9106 with black composite stock is really nice!!  It's on my Christmas wish list!  The kids just can't quite get it together yet....

http://www.springfield-armory.com/products/standard-m1a/



Now accepting Comments, questions, inquiries, cash, coin, stamps, and negotiable securities....

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/aw30vw/dirty-rodham-scandal


The short version for those who dont have the time (for facts):
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/0nhhwt/moment-of-zen---wow

You wanna know how bad this email controversy really is? I mean, with all due respect to Jon Stewart and those that complain incessantly about abusive government authority (except when they do not).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DCwmYHr-_M[/youtube]

I don't have access to this sort of information, but I bet there are a bunch of email addresses set up like this for people who have power that wish to remain in power.

It's not like these folks give a rat fart about whether we see what they are doing or not.

Conservative/Liberal/Moderate...they will have secrets they will refuse to share.

Yeah, but it still looks bad.  I'm obviously not a Hillary basher, but I can't understand how they let this happen.  Even if she chose to use a personal account for connectivity or ease (and the security issues could be worked out), it's still not a hard thing to auto-copy those over to the official server.

Having said that, I also don't get how no one immediately (when they reviewed the other official emails) saw that she must have an external account?  I have both personal and work emails set up on my PC and phone.  Occasionally, on purpose or by accident, I mix the emails.  But it's obvious where my email came from. (i.e., if I send to a work recipient - who is on a work server - my personal account is stamped on the inbound message, and vice-versa.) So the only way these emails would have been "secret" is if they were between her and another person who was also not on the official govt email system.  Given that the vast majority of her emails would have been to other govt officials, all of those emails should already be in the released set.  Of course it's possible there is some huge plan to cover this all up, but my understanding is that this was a gmail account she was using, so again I can't believe that she/they did this with an honest attempt to cover up anything.  

Although, again, given the stupidity of this whole debacle, anything is possible.

Why now?

What I read said the emails were requested and delivered in 2014...it has been a done deal for at least 3 months or so.  And maybe longer?

Oh, yeah...for the SAME reason it's valid for us to question Baby Bush lousy record as "Liar in Chief" !!

Got no problem with that point, but if you start b!tching about one side doing it, then you do it yourself, then there is the problem. That's what is it at issue--I mean apart from Hillary's "what difference does it make". Or this could just be another vast right wing conspiracy [sir Edmund] Hillary has complained about. 

Well, if you want to get really picky, Colin Powell did pretty much the same thing.  No one's busting his chops for it.  Yet.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/secretary-of-state-colin-powell-also-used-personal-email-account/

True, but Clinton was using a personal email server that was in her residence, not Yahoo or GMail,  meaning one of the Clinton Foundation employees was in charge of the archiving and service.

Just stop it. Since Powell did something similar, whatever Hillary did is a-okay. Even when she was screeching about how gawd-awful baby Bush's secret emails were, the fact she did the same or worse is just not newsworthy.

Bwahahaha....

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vACQP8IBqH4[/youtube]


The "why now" is that I thought this was learned during the Benghazi investigation.

And as has been noted repeatedly in the last several days....nothing illegal happened and even the timing issues were pretty mundane.  How many did Baby Bush deliver when asked?

It's all about perspective again.  And how low the bar was set for improper behaviour by the previous regime.  The RWRE is frothing at the mouth over pretty much a non-event.  It was even a non-event when Hillary mentioned it in the previous video about Bush - and she understood the relative importance - not very - by the position in the list quoted.  Note how the official "The Script" analysis skips right over those two things!

Secret wiretaps
Secret tribunals
Extraordinary rendition
Torture
Lying to justify fake war - killing thousands of our kids and costing trillions, held off budget so no one knew the true scope.


Yeah...it's emails Hillary and Colin waited until asked for that are the most important things....

Hillary using a personal e-mail was not against the law. President Obama signed an executive order last year making it so, but Hillary had left the job as Secretary of State a year before. Hoss points out that Colin Powell did the same thing. No one said a word.

Bottom line is that Hillary has had a lifetime of republicans taking shots at her on everything she has ever done. If you believe that this is the first time that she has been asked by the media to produce e-mails, you are as naive as sauerkraut.

It is easy to suggest that the reason she did this was to hide from scrutiny. She was asked to provide these e-mails and complied. Now the government has these e-mails and the public has a right to see them. She is correct to demand they be released.

If guido911 is upset and thinks that she is hiding something but then is supporting the government hiding them as well, then he is a hypocrite.

Maybe Guido is hoping Hilary is concealing nude photos of herself and they will be revealed with a new email dump?

Ok, maybe I just threw up in my mouth a little...

Kill that image with fire

I am close to nuking myself from orbit, just to make sure....

GOOD GRIEF. It is not me that is slamming Hillary. It's her own words and allies doing so. Get a hold of yourself, medicate maybe.

The Clintons are power.  

She is bullet-proof.
This is like throwing rocks at Superman.

There is more money and influence backing Hillary than any candidate in history.  The election is bought and paid for.  

The only reason she has not announced her candidacy officially yet, is to give Warren, and any other competition, an opportunity to flair-out.  

The Republicans will field a list of experimental candidates this election and observe, without waisting too much energy.

Hillary's tests will come once she is in office, and I think she will be a good president, because she values commerce, and like her husband, is good at pacifying the emotional while not impeding the productive.

Well, Sir Edmund Hillary said some of the emails from her personal account were "personal", and have apparently been destroyed. I am certain we should just take her word for it, because if Bush did that I am sure we would all trust him.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W33iveUy-v8[/youtube]

And somehow you have deluded yourself into thinking he didn't do that - and exponentially more...


This whole thing is just more RWRE intellectual dishonesty.

Saw this pic on Drudge. shuddering, reaching for Zofran.

(http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/5yBMdYmQk6pAmxy6JO4nYg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTM3NztpbD1wbGFuZTtweG9mZj01MDtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz02NzA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2015-03-10T200104Z_1584556413_GM1EB3B0B0V01_RTRMADP_3_USA-POLITICS-CLINTON.JPG)

She handed over the emails in paper form (about 3 trees worth) instead of native format on a thumb drive.  The printed documents did not contain full header information.
This is going to drive the Republicans crazy, because there is legal precedents requiring "native format" for electronic documents. 
Of course she knows that.  It's a marvelous trap!  If they were smart, they would be watching the other hand.

Republicans are no more than flies for the Clintons, it's the growing support for Democratic challengers that she is concerned about.  It would be very unwise to mount a resistance. They are the party, and will have more corporate and special interest backing than any candidate(s) in history.  If the liberal fringe begins to quiver, they will be mowed down.  Warren, the proggies, and even Obama are in her web, and best not make too much movement.

The Clintons are not going to let what happened last time happen again, and I think that will be a victory for everyone.

Drudge is having a feeding frenzy over this. This is a hilarious blog post.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/11/john-kerry-tom-cottons-right-were-not-negotiating-a-legally-binding-deal-with-iran/

Periods of prolonged silence replaced with jackassedness bursts. Sir Edmund's recent tweet.

"GOP letter to Iranian clerics undermines American leadership. No one considering running for commander-in-chief should be signing on."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqSD4aRDMiI[/youtube]

That's the look she gives Chris Hayes and Lawrence O'Donnell when they aren't praising her and she threatens to spank them.

Sounds like a possible "Itchy and Scratchy" bit....

(https://thisistwitchy.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/george-costanza-shrinkage.jpg)

Government procedure is for her to have signed an agreement under oath when she began her work at the State Department requiring her to safeguard classified records, and another agreement under oath when she ended her work that she had returned all records to the government. All records, not just classified information.

Failing to secure classified secrets in a government-approved facility or moving them to a non-secure facility outside the government’s control is a misdemeanor, punishable by a hefty fine and a year in jail. Using a false email address that gives the clear impression that the user is not using a government server when she is, or one that creates the false impression that the emailer is using a government server when she is not, is also a felony.

Will the Department of Justice prosecute Clinton for retaining 48 months of classified records on her personal server after she left office, as it did Gen. David Petraeus, who kept 15 months of classified records in a desk drawer in his home after he left office?

Broom  > Sweep > Rug

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

That's just plain silly Hoss.

Because the Bush Admin did this in 2007 it makes it ok? No. It was NOT ok in 2007 and its not ok today. Especially when she herself spoke directly about this during her campaign. Clinton said, “We know our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps, the secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts.”

Laws and rules were put in place to make sure this did not happen again.

Did I say it was ok?  I'm comparing the level of hand-wringing here.  The Republicans have made themselves nearly apoplectic over this.  Even many of my right-leaning friends say this is a non-controversy.  But think whatever you want.

Get a flux capacitor and go back in time, because you obviously have ZERO recollection over the hand wringing that went on during W's presidency. This is a walk in the park for Sir Edmund compared to the Bushitler years.

Really?

So were there 8 inquiries into this email thing during the 'Bushitler' era, as you so colloquially put it?  8 inquiries that inevitably led to finding out nothing, as this whole deal with Benghazi has fettered out?

Republicans have made Democrats look like rank amateurs when it comes to hand-wringing.

They also didn't try and undermine the authority of a sitting President during diplomatic negotiations..oh wait, Bush was never really much of diplomat, was he?  So that comparison is moot.

My bad, Judge Stone.

 ::)

When you lost MoDo:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-an-open-letter-to-hdr22clintonemailcom.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0

I did not know we had diplomatic relations with Iran. Thanks for clearing that up.

Wild RWRE Murdochian deflection moment... Hoss said "diplomatic negotiations". 

Watch out, H...you'll be accused of 'defending me'.

 :o

I see Jeb Bush has an email controversy. Forget about Sir Edmund, then. Time to move on.

Bill's private server went down too......

(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTY4MjU0ODk0MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwOTU0Mzc0._V1_SX214_CR0,0,214,317_AL_.jpg)

(Groan)...but I'll probably steal it.

This is a trap. The Clintons are the most cunning of the pack.

Don't write anything you can phone. Don't phone anything you can talk. Don't talk anything you can whisper. Don't whisper anything you can smile. Don't smile anything you can nod. Don't nod anything you can wink. --Earl Long

There is noting on that server but recipes and fluff. If there ever was, it has long been eradicated. Hillary will guard, and delay any access to the native formats and actual files for as long as she can, and with as much fight as she can, to create as much suspicion as she can. This focuses all of the energy into this one scandal and away from everything else. 

It's chess, and she is drawing her opponent's attention.

 

Lol..!!  I've been accused of soooo much worse....

Actually, I am a defender of truth, justice, and the American Way!!    Well, at least the good parts of the American Way - not the carp parts....

There are only a few places where you veer off into the weeds too much, and I will continue to help you along the path to enlightenment as time, energy, and opportunity permits!

No....and typing slowly so you can keep up.... INCLUDE Bush in exactly the same way.  Include EVERYBODY under the same umbrella - not allow Bush's to escape scrutiny the way they have for decades.   Not the one-sided, biased, deflecting method of the Murdochian Nonsense World Faux News propaganda BS.

Hmm, its food for thought.
Just because it's a conspiracy theory doesnt necessarily make it an invalid theory.

Think she might stoop to this tactic?

FERGUSON, Mo. (AP) — Ferguson officials were inundated with open-records requests from media outlets and the public following the fatal shooting of Michael Brown by a police officer.
In response, the St. Louis suburb sought payments of thousands of dollars before even beginning to fulfill some of those requests.

In some cases, the city sought down payments of $2,000 from media organizations before it would begin processing requests. Karr said those were rare cases in which the city would have to hire an information technology consulting firm to retrieve emails at a cost of $135 an hour and a $500 base fee. She said one request would have required the retrieval of 50,000 emails.

The Associated Press, CNN, St. Louis Public Radio and the Radio Television Digital News Association all filed complaints with the office of Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster, asserting that the fees violated the state Sunshine Law. Although Missouri law limits copying charges to the average hourly pay of clerical staff, public entities can charge their "actual cost" for research time and any "extraordinary computer programming" that's necessary.




It takes an IT specialist $135/hr to click on "arrange by subject"?

Don't encourage him!!  We gotta try to get him to move beyond 6th grade potty humor....

We are going to Potty train you to keep you from crapping on every thread......

Lol....funny.  Now if we could just channel that vestigial humor into productive thought and commentary....

The latest 'final' report is out.  Have downloaded it and started to read.  Nothing new, of course.  It's only been done 7 times before by congress and a few times more by other groups.

Now...when are we gonna get all the attention for the events that killed 86 people in embassy and diplomatic facility attacks and wounded hundreds more during the Baby Bush regime??

Why are we still talking about this?

Exactly!


Ask Trey...

I'd like to ask him why he spent 7 million of the taxpayer's money on something that was essentially a witch hunt (pun sort of intended..)

With nothing new.  Of course. 


I downloaded the report yesterday afternoon and started reading it last evening.  Trey put a whole bunch of garbage to blow it up to 800 pages - as compared to report from investigation #7 which was only about 75 pages.

Of course, then I gotta ask, if it was all Hillary, why was it Trey and his buddies specifically cut the money for funding extra security at diplomatic mission in Libya, and prohibited including extra personnel?

Or why the extremist right is going on and on about changing uniforms to clothes and back somehow preventing military from Spain coming to the rescue...when it's Trey who said that in truth (strange place for him!), nothing could have been done in the time available.

Or why was it Steven's didn't go out the 'back door' when the attacks began.  Apparently that was a viable option not taken.  And yeah, I know - can't second guess what he was thinking at the time...that's a sucker bet.  It just worked out badly for him.

Or the lie the extremist right is going on about "smile" related to someone saying (Susan Rice, I think) protests were inspired by Cairo.  When the CIA has openly said that it was a typo - they didn't mean Cairo, they meant Benghazi.

And why after 8 Congressional investigations about 4 embassy people killed, no "smoking gun" of wrongdoing by anyone associated with this event, and ongoing jingoism - lies, why has there been NO investigations of the 86 people killed and hundreds wounded in diplomatic facilities during the Baby Bush regime??

No answers, Trey - or any of your extremist right minions?       I thought not....




Ran across Trae Crowder some time back.  Just seems like this would be the place for this little video...he is talking about people like the other Trey....

https://www.facebook.com/traecrowder/videos/vb.452650521612283/460197060857629/?type=2&theater

After a U.S. consulate in Benghazi was attacked and four Americans were murdered in 2012, the Republican-led House of Representatives ordered eight congressional investigations, including a special select committee whose two-year, $7 million probe lasted longer than the main Watergate investigation. But after four American soldiers were ambushed and killed in neighboring Niger five years later, House Republicans opened no such investigations. Nearly two years after the attack, the Pentagon has quietly closed its probe into the incident and declined to discipline any military commanders who ordered the troops into a danger zone with no plan and no backup.
 
https://www.salon.com/2019/06/06/trump-dodged-his-own-benghazi-pentagon-quietly-closes-investigation-into-niger-ambush/