Bengazi!!!

[guido911]

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.

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?

[guido911]

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

[swake]

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?

[Gaspar]

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

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.

[guido911]

Did you read the part about why?

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

[guido911]

And the Hillary takedown:

What happened here is obvious, although the commentariat is loath to connect the dots. Boko Haram is an Islamic-supremacist organization. Mrs. Clinton, like the Obama administration more broadly, believes that appeasing Islamists — avoiding actions that might give them offense, slamming Americans who provoke them — promotes peace and stability. (See Egypt for a good example of how well this approach is working.) Furthermore, if you are claiming to have “decimated” al-Qaeda, as the Obama administration was claiming to have done in the run-up to the 2012 election, the last thing you want to do is add jihadists to the terror list (or beef up security at diplomatic posts in jihadist hot spots, or acknowledge that jihadist rioting in Cairo or jihadist attacks in Benghazi are something other than “protests” inspired by “an Internet video” . . .)

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

[swake]

Did you?

Yes:

Inside the Clinton State Department, the most vocal official opposing designating Boko Haram was Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson, who served in that position from 2009 to 2013. Several officials said that the Nigerian government was opposed to the designation and Carson was focused on preserving the relationship between Washington and Abuja.

Carson defended the decision to avoid naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization in a Wednesday phone call with reporters.

“There was a concern that putting Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list would in fact raise its profile, give it greater publicity, give it greater credibility, help in its recruitment, and also probably drive more assistance in its direction,” he said.

[Gaspar]

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. 

[guido911]

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". 

[Gaspar]

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.

[heironymouspasparagus]

If we weren't so successful as a nation, people wouldn't hate us so much.

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

[Hoss]

[Hoss]

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-/

[cannon_fodder]

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?

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.

[guido911]

This is pretty funny. 

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