Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,288
Yes, I do know that. If I'm depending on Eric Holder's continued corruption so what. He's got the juice to keep this shit on the DL. So either way you're wasting time.
Yes, I do know that. If I'm depending on Eric Holder's continued corruption so what. He's got the juice to keep this shit on the DL. So either way you're wasting time.
M
miles
Guest
Nobody will do any time because of this, regardless of the evidence. Government employees are above the law and immune from prosecution.
And how long has Holder been in contempt of Congress?
And how long has Holder been in contempt of Congress?
U
unregistered
Guest
Last edited by a moderator:
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,288
And he'll still be untouchable because he didn't do anything wrong.
RobDownSouth
No Kings
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 77,656
There are always rumors.
Rumors that you delight in passing along.
And then, when they don't come to pass, you have "plausible deniability" ("oh my, I never said I BELIEVED those silly rumors, I was merely PASSING THEM ALONG!")
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Posts
- 5,907
Sure. Here let me help you.
http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130222162701/coasterpedia/images/5/58/Magnifying_glass.png
From Salon:
Thursday, Sep 18, 2014 06:58 AM EDT
The right’s new Benghazi problem: Crazy people bored and confused by a serious hearing
Trey Gowdy's first Benghazi hearing was in many ways serious and substantive. Here's why that probably can't last
Simon Maloy
The first hearing of the House Select Committee on Benghazi was held Wednesday morning, and for the most part it was a dull affair. The focus of the hearing was on the progress made in implementing recommendations laid out by State Department’s Account Review Board (ARB) report on the attacks. It was a topic suggested by Democratic committee member Rep. Adam Schiff, and while the questioning provided some informative glimpses into how State Department bureaucracy handles security issues at diplomatic facilities, it lacked the bombast and fireworks of previous House Benghazi hearings.
To his credit, this was precisely the sort of hearing that committee chairman, Trey Gowdy, promised us. “There is this notion out there, as some of my colleagues have said, that this will be a circus, a kangaroo court,” Gowdy said back in July. “No one who values their professional reputation wants to be part of that. I don’t want to be part of that.”
That’s not to say the hearing wasn’t without its moments of grandstanding and theatrical flourish. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio threw himself down a rabbit hole with a long rant challenging the independence of the Accountability Review Board. And when Gowdy got his turn in front of the cameras he slipped back into his familiar pattern of loudly demanding witnesses respond to loaded questions that he knows they can’t actually provide answers to. When State Department Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Gregory Starr testified that he brings his concerns over inadequate security measures directly to Secretary of State John Kerry, Gowdy said: “Was it done on September 10 of 2012? Was it done prior to Benghazi? Because this recommendation has existed for more than 10 years.” “I was not here at that time,” Starr replied. “I’m sorry I cannot tell you.”
But all told, the hearing was very likely a disappointment to the conservatives who believe that a vast Benghazi conspiracy exists and that Trey Gowdy would use his extra-special investigatory skills to unearth the smoking gun evidence that has thus far eluded every other congressional investigation into the matter. On Fox News yesterday afternoon, they were actually complaining that the Republicans on Gowdy’s committee weren’t outraged enough. “They have been beating the drums about this,” Fox News’ Harris Faulkner said. “I was shocked there was so little passion in this.”
Complaining about a lack of “outrage” is a touch ironic given that yesterday’s hearing was on one of the biggest unresolved issues raised by the attacks in Benghazi: the problems in providing security for diplomatic staff. If the State Department can’t adequately protect its personnel, that’s something you can feel justifiably outraged over. It’s certainly far more worthy of intense scrutiny than the editing process for White House talking points and all the other trumped-up controversies that draw the bulk of attention from Republicans and conservatives.
And that’s why, in spite of yesterday’s uneventful hearing, I still strongly doubt that Gowdy will keep a lid on the craziness. Both parties want the issue of diplomatic security addressed, and he’s bought himself a measure of goodwill with Democrats and the press by acting against type and holding a quiet, informative hearing on the State Department’s risk management strategies and best practices. But that’s not what conservatives and Republicans want or expect from the Benghazi select committee, and that’s not what Gowdy promised them.
After the House voted in favor of creating the committee, Gowdy released a statement laying out what he hoped to accomplish:
As many frustrated parties have gone to great pains to point out, many of these “outstanding questions” were answered long ago and several times over. And, in the time since that statement was issued, the suspected ringleader of the attacks was captured by U.S. authorities.
When Democrats and other critics of the Republican Benghazi obsession deride the committee as a “witch hunt,” the focus on the already-answered unanswered questions is what they’re talking about. Gowdy himself indicated that he’ll be revisiting these questions soon enough in his opening statement at yesterday’s hearing: “Given the gravity of the issues at hand, I would rather run the risk of answering a question twice than run the risk of not answering it once.”
When he does go down the “unanswered questions” road, the partisan bickering and sideshow antics will very likely start anew. And Gowdy will go down that road because Republicans and conservatives want THE TRUTH. They want proof that Barack Obama made a conscious decision to let Americans die. They want the damning documents that will derail Hillary Clinton’s 2016 ambitions. They want the coverup exposed and all relevant parties impeached.
When they don’t get any of those things, they’ll settle for a little outrage.
Thursday, Sep 18, 2014 06:58 AM EDT
The right’s new Benghazi problem: Crazy people bored and confused by a serious hearing
Trey Gowdy's first Benghazi hearing was in many ways serious and substantive. Here's why that probably can't last
Simon Maloy
The first hearing of the House Select Committee on Benghazi was held Wednesday morning, and for the most part it was a dull affair. The focus of the hearing was on the progress made in implementing recommendations laid out by State Department’s Account Review Board (ARB) report on the attacks. It was a topic suggested by Democratic committee member Rep. Adam Schiff, and while the questioning provided some informative glimpses into how State Department bureaucracy handles security issues at diplomatic facilities, it lacked the bombast and fireworks of previous House Benghazi hearings.
To his credit, this was precisely the sort of hearing that committee chairman, Trey Gowdy, promised us. “There is this notion out there, as some of my colleagues have said, that this will be a circus, a kangaroo court,” Gowdy said back in July. “No one who values their professional reputation wants to be part of that. I don’t want to be part of that.”
That’s not to say the hearing wasn’t without its moments of grandstanding and theatrical flourish. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio threw himself down a rabbit hole with a long rant challenging the independence of the Accountability Review Board. And when Gowdy got his turn in front of the cameras he slipped back into his familiar pattern of loudly demanding witnesses respond to loaded questions that he knows they can’t actually provide answers to. When State Department Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Gregory Starr testified that he brings his concerns over inadequate security measures directly to Secretary of State John Kerry, Gowdy said: “Was it done on September 10 of 2012? Was it done prior to Benghazi? Because this recommendation has existed for more than 10 years.” “I was not here at that time,” Starr replied. “I’m sorry I cannot tell you.”
But all told, the hearing was very likely a disappointment to the conservatives who believe that a vast Benghazi conspiracy exists and that Trey Gowdy would use his extra-special investigatory skills to unearth the smoking gun evidence that has thus far eluded every other congressional investigation into the matter. On Fox News yesterday afternoon, they were actually complaining that the Republicans on Gowdy’s committee weren’t outraged enough. “They have been beating the drums about this,” Fox News’ Harris Faulkner said. “I was shocked there was so little passion in this.”
Complaining about a lack of “outrage” is a touch ironic given that yesterday’s hearing was on one of the biggest unresolved issues raised by the attacks in Benghazi: the problems in providing security for diplomatic staff. If the State Department can’t adequately protect its personnel, that’s something you can feel justifiably outraged over. It’s certainly far more worthy of intense scrutiny than the editing process for White House talking points and all the other trumped-up controversies that draw the bulk of attention from Republicans and conservatives.
And that’s why, in spite of yesterday’s uneventful hearing, I still strongly doubt that Gowdy will keep a lid on the craziness. Both parties want the issue of diplomatic security addressed, and he’s bought himself a measure of goodwill with Democrats and the press by acting against type and holding a quiet, informative hearing on the State Department’s risk management strategies and best practices. But that’s not what conservatives and Republicans want or expect from the Benghazi select committee, and that’s not what Gowdy promised them.
After the House voted in favor of creating the committee, Gowdy released a statement laying out what he hoped to accomplish:
As many frustrated parties have gone to great pains to point out, many of these “outstanding questions” were answered long ago and several times over. And, in the time since that statement was issued, the suspected ringleader of the attacks was captured by U.S. authorities.
When Democrats and other critics of the Republican Benghazi obsession deride the committee as a “witch hunt,” the focus on the already-answered unanswered questions is what they’re talking about. Gowdy himself indicated that he’ll be revisiting these questions soon enough in his opening statement at yesterday’s hearing: “Given the gravity of the issues at hand, I would rather run the risk of answering a question twice than run the risk of not answering it once.”
When he does go down the “unanswered questions” road, the partisan bickering and sideshow antics will very likely start anew. And Gowdy will go down that road because Republicans and conservatives want THE TRUTH. They want proof that Barack Obama made a conscious decision to let Americans die. They want the damning documents that will derail Hillary Clinton’s 2016 ambitions. They want the coverup exposed and all relevant parties impeached.
When they don’t get any of those things, they’ll settle for a little outrage.
U
unregistered
Guest
No, read for comprehension, it's the crazies on the right these hearings will bore.
U
unregistered
Guest
RobDownSouth
No Kings
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 77,656
Hasn't been much substance in the Benghazi scandal department, has there?
Better luck next smear.
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
Good lord...
They haven't even gotten into the meat of the thing. All they did was placate Liberal whining.
☜
They haven't even gotten into the meat of the thing. All they did was placate Liberal whining.
☜
IrezumiKiss
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 74,229
So, nothing happened.
Great. Could've bought some new iPhones with that money.
RobDownSouth
No Kings
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 77,656
Doesn't seem to be attractin' much traction on the non-tinfoil-hat websites.
Better luck next smear.
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,288
The only scandal was ever that Republicans are so eager to smear Obama that they would talk ill of American dead and we're too good to take that to the press so yes it's a non-scandal. Good luck if Democrats ever grow balls.
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
LOL.
Lets see...
Which 'team' was it that insisted that Stevens was not assassinated, but merely died of smoke inhalation due to his own incompetence in not getting out the window into a hail of bullets?
By the by...whatever happened to the daily count of troops killed? Code pink has gotten awfully quiet.
I guess using the deaths of service members to castigate an administration is so 2006?
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,288
Neither of those definitions contradict each other.
Code Pink got quiet? Okay sure go prove it. I thought that fatalities were going down and we all agreed but since your argument is they have remained steady or inceased prove it otherwise you've answered why they went "silent".
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
Which faction was standing on top of the pile of dead bodies in order to defeat America while still in the field...
IrezumiKiss
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 74,229
Action faction?
Conjunction junction?
What's your funk-tion?
Conjunction junction?
What's your funk-tion?
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
The guy who went out the window into that "hail of bullets" is still alive.
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
...and the guy how stayed with his security and followed protocol died in the attack. Let's blame the victim, not the guy who never bothered to send help.
Even the answers to support your twisted narrative have not been forthcoming. you have no idea when anyone went out the window. You have no idea when the ambassador succumbed.
The same people saying "brave Americans" with a straight face are also pushing your "accidental death" during a "demonstration" that "got out of hand" over the trailer to a video -that none of them had watched.
That version is two years dead and you are still pushing that multi-level soap.
Last edited:
Similar threads
