Mr. Speaker! We Need To Get Back To Benghazi

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

It's a waste of time but Congress has little else to do anyway.

Congress has a lot else to do anyway.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The Benghazi panel is stacked with people with good amount of trial experience.

But, they are not running a trial.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

But, they are not running a trial.

Honestly, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) seems to think it is a trial. When asked if his committee's work would continue into the 2016 election cycle he responded: “If an administration is slow-walking document production, I can’t end a trial simply because the defense won’t cooperate.”

Publicly, GOP leaders insist their election-year charade is actually a credible search for the facts, wherever they may lead. They’re going into this process, not on a partisan witch hunt, but as responsible public officials. House Speaker Boehner assured reporters this week that this is going to be “a serious investigation.”

Except Gowdy accidentally told the truth on national television – he’s already convinced, before the process even starts, that the White House is guilty of wrongdoing, and the far-right congressman believes it’s his job to prosecute administration officials.

Nah, this isn't a politically motivated partisan witch hunt at all.

 

[Que]

Yes!
The supposed lies came AFTER the deaths, and why is Congress STILL having a hard-on about it. It's a total waste of time and money when there are more important things to be done.

Why is it soooooo important to find if what was done was a mass conspiracy? It's time to just give it up!

They aren't supposed lies, they are easily demonstrable lies. Obfuscations if you prefer.

Waste of time and money as opposed to doing what? I don't think they will spend 800 billion to no discernible effect.

They have passed 200 bills that Harry Reid won't even bring up for Debate in the Senate. What OUGHT they do? Pass a bill that furthers Harry's agenda in direct defiance of the will of the people that swept Democrats out of office over Obamacare and installed Republicans to rein in some fiscal sanity?

They haven't accomplished either because they cannot. Personally I like it when congress is feckless...you have something you wrote your congressman about that you need on the floor?

Conspiracy? Well sure. I don't know how many people you need for it to be a mass conspiracy. From the beginning it was obvious this went all the way to the top because only Obama and Hillary needed this cover. Everyone else was as best they could with predicate decisions out of their control did what they could at the time.

There's a big difference between The President, and even his valid surrogates like the White House Counsel, or Press Secretary or a Campaign Manager or Spokesman bending the truth a bit or even outright, bald-faced lying. That is almost expected.

What you don't get to do is order actual members of government on the government payroll to falsify reports, decimate false information all in the furtherance of your campaign.

Even if for the sake of discussion they not only were not lying...lets say they weren't even mistaken...there are laws prohibiting using the resources of the government in the furtherance of a campaign. There's a specific statute preventing campaigning using your official government title...I am the Secretary of the Treasury and I urge you to vote for Obama.

This stuff actually matters whether you think it is a waste of time or not.

The Obama administration NEW all of the above when they had the hubris to think they could get away with what they did...and that is aside of the very real concern that the reason no help was sent was because it was going to make the incident look like a bigger deal than they wanted it to look. IF that happened then yeah the deaths were preventable. Recent testimony by a retired general that was the guy that SHOULD have gotten the call stopped just short of saying it was dereliction of duty not to try.

If you don't think it is a big deal by now, you likely won't even when perjury and obstruction are likely shown. You probably believe that Clinton was impeached for a blowjob...lots of people think that that. It is a reasonable assumption when you don't understand WHY the Starr investigation took so long and was so costly. The perjury charge was like sending Al Capone to Alcatraz for Income Tax evasion. Yes, Al did that, but it was the LEAST of his crimes.

 

[Que]

Honestly, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) seems to think it is a trial. When asked if his committee's work would continue into the 2016 election cycle he responded: “If an administration is slow-walking document production, I can’t end a trial simply because the defense won’t cooperate.”

Publicly, GOP leaders insist their election-year charade is actually a credible search for the facts, wherever they may lead. They’re going into this process, not on a partisan witch hunt, but as responsible public officials. House Speaker Boehner assured reporters this week that this is going to be “a serious investigation.”

Except Gowdy accidentally told the truth on national television – he’s already convinced, before the process even starts, that the White House is guilty of wrongdoing, and the far-right congressman believes it’s his job to prosecute administration officials.

Nah, this isn't a politically motivated witch hunt at all.

You are truly a dull one aren't you? A 'trial" does not connote or denote guilt or innocence. In fact it is very much the opposite of assuming guilt to refer to the "trying' of facts in a "trial".

Lets say for the sake of discussion that you are 100% correct in your conviction that Gowdy is guilty of bias. SO what? A witch hunt doesn't result in any drowned witches unless you find some witches.

You better hope you ARE right and that Gowdy comes across in the hearings, pontificating, assuming facts not in evidence and in general making an ass of himself. Because if he DOES act impartially and DOES get the Obama Administration to turn over the relevant materials and produce the relevant witnesses, you will no longer be able to whine that this was all about nothing.

Employ ALL the adjectives you wish, "Show, Biased, Kangaroo, Witch Hunt, Political, Farce, Joke" Protest all you want. The committee will meet. They will try the facts, they will issue a report. You won't like the results.

So I can see why your are fraught with panic.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

One hell of a gish gallop there query.

Which of those dozen non-points was it you wanted addressed?

How about your closer?

The Starr investigation took so long because they were on a fishing expedition that went from Whitewater, to the firing of White House travel agents, to a stained dress in the quest to find something, anything, that they could make stick. Starr's report triggered impeachment proceedings which ultimately resulted in an acquittal 4 1/2 years later at the cost of $87 million all told.

To put that in perspective, $15 million was spent on investigations into the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

You are truly a dull one aren't you? A 'trial" does not connote or denote guilt or innocence. In fact it is very much the opposite of assuming guilt to refer to the "trying' of facts in a "trial".

Lets say for the sake of discussion that you are 100% correct in your conviction that Gowdy is guilty of bias. SO what? A witch hunt doesn't result in any drowned witches unless you find some witches.

You better hope you ARE right and that Gowdy comes across in the hearings, pontificating, assuming facts not in evidence and in general making an ass of himself. Because if he DOES act impartially and DOES get the Obama Administration to turn over the relevant materials and produce the relevant witnesses, you will no longer be able to whine that this was all about nothing.

Employ ALL the adjectives you wish, "Show, Biased, Kangaroo, Witch Hunt, Political, Farce, Joke" Protest all you want. The committee will meet. They will try the facts, they will issue a report. You won't like the results.

So I can see why your are fraught with panic.

A trial implies finding guilt or innocence, this is supposed to be an "investigation", the two are not even remotely the same. They even have completely separate entries in the dictionary. Unless of course you're using that "conservapedia".

You really are dense if you think that witch hunts only result in the deaths of witches.

A truly moronic statement. I suppose all of those that died in Salem were actually witches then?

They will meet, they will ask the very same questions that have already been asked and answered, they will be laughed at and dismissed.

Panic? I'm laughing at you idiots while you chase your collective tails. Hell, it's almost as funny as the IRS "scandal".

 

[jeninflorida]

Shouldn't you put on that girl scout dress and head down looking for more welfare?

you obama people are so mentally damaged ...

One hell of a gish gallop there query.

Which of those dozen non-points was it you wanted addressed?

How about your closer?

The Starr investigation took so long because they were on a fishing expedition that went from Whitewater, to the firing of White House travel agents, to a stained dress in the quest to find something, anything, that they could make stick. Starr's report triggered impeachment proceedings which ultimately resulted in an acquittal 4 1/2 years later at the cost of $87 million all told.

To put that in perspective, $15 million was spent on investigations into the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Jen, go run along and ask your sugar-daddy how much of my taxes paid for "your" flood insurance.

 

[Que]

I love the way they think that there are word of the day gotcha moments. If a particular word is a hot button for them it means something.

Committees hold what are called hearings. In your town no doubt there are certain offenses that you can commit like either failing to water your lawn or perhaps watering your lawn when it is proscribed to do so..like that.

You might be ordered to appear before a committee, a counsel, an administrator, a hearing officer, or an administrative law judge. It doesn't change the way such a proceeding is handled because the guy at the tall table is called one thing or another.

Often these are called hearings, they are handled exactly like trials and one is expected to conduct oneself with the same sort of decorum as in a courtroom.

There are rules of evidence, standards of proof. The official has designated powers derived by statute to compel you to be there, to answer, to give evidence, and so on.

It is a trial.

Now the thing they are nitpicking on my comment is that I pointed out that two of them have extensive trial experience. Phrodeux jumped that because he is impressed with the large number of lawyers in Washington. Conducting a trial is a lot different than say forging fake signatures on straw buyer contracts for whitewater

Hearings have protocols that are directly borrowed from the courts. Military tribunals are not "trials" they are tribunals, but as anyone that has watched one will tell you it is a trial.

The Administration appears to have done wrong in a number of areas. The have not been responsive to inquiries about them. They will be required to BE responsive. Then we will know whether it was a tempest in a teapot or something substantial.

Could it be nothing? Sure. But that means that they SHOULD have known it was nothing and submitted the documents for review that would have shown it to be nothing. The fact that they are ACTING like they have something to hide and demonstrably engaged in a coverup doesn't mean that anyone IS guilty, but it doesn't suggest that THEY think they are blameless.

The fact that one must presume innocence doesn't mean that one cannot infer guilt when deciding whether to pursue a line of questioning.

I realize that this is all wasted breath on the 'But, but.... BUSH lied!" crowd...but it isn't ope to debate whether thorough hearings are going to be held...they aren't going to put it aside if a bunch of die-hard Obama supporters scream bloody murder.

 

[Que]

A trial implies finding guilt or innocence, this is supposed to be an "investigation", the two are not even remotely the same. They even have completely separate entries in the dictionary. Unless of course you're using that "conservapedia".

You really are dense if you think that witch hunts only result in the deaths of witches.

A truly moronic statement. I suppose all of those that died in Salem were actually witches then?

They will meet, they will ask the very same questions that have already been asked and answered, they will be laughed at and dismissed.

Panic? I'm laughing at you idiots while you chase your collective tails. Hell, it's almost as funny as the IRS "scandal".

No it is a select committee, conducting hearings. They have been granted broad investigative powers because in previous hearings the administration was not forthcoming. They will be able to hire investigators as needed so that they will know what to review in their hearings and who to call before their hearings.

Since you are so confident there is no wrong-doing you should be resting easy then.

I guess you are proud of your teams successes at stonewalling so far and looking forward to more of the same.

I concede they are tenacious at refusing to submit to the required oversight.

Last I checked 26% of the country agrees with you. SO you have that going for you.

 

[jeninflorida]

Jen, go run along and ask your sugar-daddy how much of my taxes paid for "your" flood insurance.

ah, I see your panties became tight by my comment. dude, mooseknuckle isn't attractive.

Since it bothers you when I call you out for consuming the welfare, why not get off the welfare? Maybe Dr Phil can take you through a 12 step program?

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

Congress is stacked with people that have law degrees. That is not nearly the same thing as trial experience.

Sure it is. Around here, they start mock trials in sixth grade. You don't get a law degree without trial experience.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

No it is a select committee, conducting hearings. They have been granted broad investigative powers because in previous hearings the administration was not forthcoming. They will be able to hire investigators as needed so that they will know what to review in their hearings and who to call before their hearings.

Since you are so confident there is no wrong-doing you should be resting easy then.

I guess you are proud of your teams successes at stonewalling so far and looking forward to more of the same.

I concede they are tenacious at refusing to submit to the required oversight.

Last I checked 26% of the country agrees with you. SO you have that going for you.

Someone should probably tell that to the GOP leadership in the House which has repeatedly referred to this as in "investigation".

The House voted Thursday to establish a select committee on Benghazi, formally launching a comprehensive and contentious investigation aimed at answering lingering questions about what happened before, during and after the terror attack that killed four Americans.

“I had a conversation with (Pelosi) yesterday and made clear that this is a serious investigation, that we want to work together to get to the truth,” he said. - John Boehner

 

[Que]

you are an idiot.

when you see a panel of people with microphones...that is a hearing..thats what congressmen do.

They are holding HEARINGS in order to INVESTIGATE the truth that so far seems to be being obstructed by stonewalling...

This whole STUPID circular argument of yours was because you dont like the word trial.

 

[Que]

Sure it is. Around here, they start mock trials in sixth grade. You don't get a law degree without trial experience.

Knowing how you honed your 'skills' is helpful in understanding your baffling rhetorical style.

Ok you take the six graders with the mock trial experience.

I will take the seasoned prosecutors with the real trial experience.

"Your intellect is truly dizzying." -The Princess Bride.

 

[KingOrfeo]

If you don't think it is a big deal by now, you likely won't even when perjury and obstruction are likely shown. You probably believe that Clinton was impeached for a blowjob...lots of people think that that. It is a reasonable assumption when you don't understand WHY the Starr investigation took so long and was so costly. The perjury charge was like sending Al Capone to Alcatraz for Income Tax evasion. Yes, Al did that, but it was the LEAST of his crimes.

You do your cause no good whatsoever by using the Clinton impeachment as a comparable example.

 

[Que]

You do your cause no good whatsoever by using the Clinton impeachment as a comparable example.

Why? It will end in exactly the same way. When a Democratic hearing castigates a Republican it is a solemn event of profound gravitas to be remembered in perpetuity...when a Democrat gets caught with his hand in the cookie-jar, (or illegal cash in his freezer) it is a matter of very little importance and soon dismissed.

Hell you guys already want to dismiss this and they still haven't answered the most basic of questions.

So the analogy is quite apt...you maintain I am sure that it was "just lying about a blowjob, which in only this case is not an EEOC matter, it is a personal matter."...despite the fact that perjury was the LEAST of his criminal behavior.

After Benghazi is finally understood and documented for what it actually was it will be dismissed by you Obama Apologists.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Why? It will end in exactly the same way. When a Democratic hearing castigates a Republican it is a solemn event of profound gravitas to be remembered in perpetuity...when a Democrat gets caught with his hand in the cookie-jar, (or illegal cash in his freezer) it is a matter of very little importance and soon dismissed.

Hell you guys already want to dismiss this and they still haven't answered the most basic of questions.

So the analogy is quite apt...you maintain I am sure that it was "just lying about a blowjob, which in only this case is not an EEOC matter, it is a personal matter."...despite the fact that perjury was the LEAST of his criminal behavior.

After Benghazi is finally understood and documented for what it actually was it will be dismissed by you Obama Apologists.

You are correct in that it will end in the same way. Almost.

It will end after the expenditure of additional tens of millions on a political witch-hunt that will ultimately accomplish nothing. In this case, not even an attempt at impeaching the President.

A complete waste of time and funds, well, unless you count making the House GOP look like complete partisan jokes. But hell, even that isn't news to anyone that's been paying attention since President Obama was elected.

 

[Que]

You are correct in that it will end in the same way. Almost.

It will end after the expenditure of additional tens of millions on a political witch-hunt that will ultimately accomplish nothing. In this case, not even an attempt at impeaching the President.

A complete waste of time and funds, well, unless you count making the House GOP look like complete partisan jokes. But hell, even that isn't news to anyone that's been paying attention since President Obama was elected.

It's cute the way you pretend to care about the money.

...might be a bit early to gloat.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Why? It will end in exactly the same way.

What, Obama will be impeached by the House, then validated by acquittal in the Senate, while all the world rolls its eyes at the silly Americans? Why would you want that to happen?

 

[koalabear]

Nixon was innocent too!!!!!!!!

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

It's cute the way you pretend to care about the money.

...might be a bit early to gloat.

It's funny that you don't seem to care about the money, especially not the hundreds of millions cut from the budget used to defend our embassies abroad from attacks like the one in Benghazi, and the 13 others that were attacked under the previous President. He who shall not be named so your panties don't bunch.