The Latest Wing-Nut Bengazi OUTRAGE.......

[DarrinS]

Email to Chelsea on same day of attack.

http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/Tab%2050.pdf

[ChumpDumper]

Who knows? It's irrelevant.Not really. If Hilary sid that surely there was something he could be charged with right?

[tlongII]

Not really. If Hilary sid that surely there was something he could be charged with right?

That's not my point. It just exposes her for the liar she is.

[ChumpDumper]

That's not my point. It just exposes her for the liar she is.Who's to say that guy isn't lying?

[tlongII]

Who's to say that guy isn't lying?

Who has more motivation to lie?

[Spurminator]

http://i.imgur.com/bH40JXp.gif

[Nbadan]

http://i.imgur.com/bH40JXp.gif

:lol

Bernie! Bernie!!

[Nbadan]

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/AnderN/2015/AnderN20151023_low.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

Who has more motivation to lie?I don't know. That guy could have all kinds of motivation to lie.

[tlongII]

^^ Jeebus :rolleyes

[ChumpDumper]

You know this guy personally?

[Trill Clinton]

http://i60.tinypic.com/dwf7so.gif

[boutons_deux]

Obama perfectly trolls Republicans after Benghazi fiasco hearing with hilarious ‘grumpy cat’ meme

http://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/obama-grumpy-cat-800x430.jpg


“Overall though, we are making enormous progress and it does make you wonder why is it that Republican politicians are so down on America,” he said. “Have you noticed that? I mean they are gloomy. They’re like Grumpy Cat.”

http://cdn.grumpycats.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/chase-field-meme-625x468.jpg

He then mimicked the face of the Internet’s favorite cat (http://www.grumpycats.com/), a blue-eyed kitty whose downward scowl has inspired many memes.

"Everything's terrible, according to them"

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/obama-perfectly-trolls-republicans-after-benghazi-fiasco-hearing-with-hilarious-grumpy-cat-meme/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=rawstory

[Clipper Nation]

This is the same Obama who went on a worldwide apology tour, right?

[spurraider21]

wow look at all these wing-nuts outraged over bengazi



https://i.gyazo.com/a0fa8c99058e3e2d7da1b06492a4b3d6.png

[HI-FI]

I wrote this about the topic back in April this year:



You could see the problems with this thing from a mile away, especially after McCarthy's comments. I don't know why the GOP keeps doing this stuff to themselves.
What do you think should've happened? Either way seems like Clinton bufu'd Libya, I'm sure there is a political component to the hearings just like blaming it on some shitty video during an election. I also think this goes way above Shillary imo.

[ChumpDumper]

What do you think should've happened? Either way seems like Clinton bufu'd Libya, I'm sure there is a political component to the hearings just like blaming it on some shitty video during an election. I also think this goes way above Shillary imo.So what do you think the strategy was to be carried out for the six weeks until the election?

[boutons_deux]

goes way above Shillary imo.

How about WAY BEFORE Hillary?

Thanks, Repugs! For de-stabilizing the Middle East and North Africa.

[boutons_deux]

needs its own headline

GOP Congresswoman Asks Hillary Clinton If She Spent the Night Alone on Day of Benghazi Attacks

Roby wanted to know what Clinton was up to on September 11, 2012, the night that terrorists attacked the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya. "Who else was at your home—were you alone?" Roby asked.

Yes, Clinton responded.

"The whole night?" Roby followed up.

"Well, yes, the whole night," Clinton said, a wide smile dawning on her face as she laughed.

"I don't know why that's funny," said Roby.

Everyone else in the hearing room clearly did.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/10/gop-congresswoman-wants-know-if-hillary-spent-night-alone-benghazi-attacks

I wonder if they were trying to get Hillary to say she was screwing Blumenthal?

[boutons_deux]

It's Howdy Gowdy Time, It's Howdy Gowdy Time


http://moshesharon.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/graham-howdy-doody.jpg

Dear god, more stupid from Trey Gowdy (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/26/1439791/-Dear-god-more-Trey-Gowdy-stupid)

Does Trey Gowdy have any other setting (http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-october-25-2015-n451121) beyond "stupid?"


So with respect to responsibility, with the placing of the mission, with the request for more security [...] I have a perspective which is rooted in the previous ARB that the Secretary of State, himself or herself, should do that personal review.

He is saying that a secretary of state should personally review the security arrangements of every diplomatic mission in the department's purview.

Here's a list of the State Department's 307 embassies, consulates, and diplomatic missions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diplomatic_missions_of_the_United_States) around the globe.


So Gowdy thinks that the secretary of state needs to determine whether six foot walls are adequate for each of those 307 facilities, or whether they should be eight feet tall?

Where security cameras should be placed?

What kind of glass to use?

The size of the compound's security detail?

The placement of physical anti-vehicle barriers?

The adequacy of local law enforcement coverage?

Contingency plans in case of attack or natural disaster?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/26/1439791/-Dear-god-more-Trey-Gowdy-stupid?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

Obviously, Gowdy learned a lot from the Benghazi scandal, and mastered how the State Dept operates.

[spurraider21]

^Left wing outrage over Benghazi

[boutons_deux]

^Left wing outrage over Benghazi

You Lie, and you're full of bullshit.

you couldn't recognize ridicule if it climbed up your nose

[spurraider21]

:lol you lead this thread in posts with well over 2x the amount of posts as the next guy

https://i.gyazo.com/e0bc2edce400c3858e3addfe939bc14d.png

^left wing outrage over benghazi

[boutons_deux]

Benghazi Committee Backfires As Voters Now Support Hillary Clinton On Emails

The NBC News poll reveals that having Hillary Clinton testify in front of the House Benghazi Select Committee was a major mistake by the Republican Party The hearing gave Clinton a platform and allowed her to turn public opinion on her emails in her favor. Republicans thought they would use the high-profile hearing to stop Hillary Clinton. Instead, they shot themselves in the feet.

According to all the recent polling, Clinton is a stronger presidential candidate today than she was before she testified in front of the Benghazi Committee. She now leads in every early state and nationally. Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) gave Clinton a surge in momentum when he admitted that the Benghazi Select Committee was a partisan political stunt.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/11/03/benghazi-committee-backfires-voters-support-hillary-clinton-emails.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

[spurraider21]

^more left wing outrage over benghazi

[boutons_deux]

Intelligence review concludes Clinton emails didn't contain classified information (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/06/1445980/-Intelligence-review-concludes-Clinton-emails-didn-t-contain-classified-information)



http://images.dailykos.com/images/171638/large/RTS5OEU.jpg?1445533697

Hey, guess what. Claims of "top secret" information in Hillary Clinton's email are, according to the intelligence officials tasked with investigating it, untrue (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-email-no-highly-classified-215599#ixzz3qjwilvMT).


The determination came from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s office and concluded that the two emails did not include highly classified intelligence secrets.

Concerns about the emails' classification helped trigger an on-going FBI inquiry into Clinton's private email set-up. [...]"

The initial determination was based on a flawed process," the source said.

"There was an intelligence product people thought [one of the emails] was based on, but that actually postdated the email in question."


So there you go. Apparently the dispute between the State Department and the intelligence community was based on the intelligence community flagging information in one of the emails as being from a classified source, but the State Department emails were written before the intelligence effort in question, based on other, non-secret information. It was just a flub by an overzealous reviewer.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/06/1445980/-Intelligence-review-concludes-Clinton-emails-didn-t-contain-classified-information?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-benghazi-email-shows-dod-offered-state-department-forces-that-could-move-to-benghazi-immediately-specifics-blacked-out-in-new-document/

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released a new Benghazi email (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-benghazi-support-01511/) from then-Department of Defense Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash to State Department leadership immediately offering “forces that could move to Benghazi” during the terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. In an email sent to top Department of State officials, at 7:19 p.m. ET, only hours after the attack had begun, Bash says, “we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.” The Obama administration redacted the details of the military forces available, oddly citing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption that allows the withholding of “deliberative process (http://www.foia.gov/faq.html#exemptions)” information.
Bash’s email seems to directly contradict testimony given by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2013. Defending the Obama administration’s lack of military response to the nearly six-hour-long attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Panetta claimed (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/panetta-blames-intelligence-gap-defenses-lack-preparation-benghazi/story?id=18430374) that “time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.”
The first assault (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf) occurred at the main compound at about 9:40 pm local time – 3:40 p.m. ET in Washington, DC. The second attack on a CIA annex 1.2 miles away began three hours later, at about 12 am local time the following morning – 6 p.m. ET.

The newly released email reads:

From: Bash, Jeremy CIV SD [REDACTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:19 PM
To: Sullivan, Jacob J; Sherman, Wendy R; Nides, Thomas R
Cc: Miller, James HON OSD POLICY; Wienefeld, James A ADM JSC VCJCS; Kelly, John LtGen SD; martin, dempsey [REDACTED]
Subject: Libya
State colleagues:
I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton].
After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include a [REDACTED].
Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to procure the approval from host nation. Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us [REDACTED].
Jeremy
Jacob Sullivan was Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the time of the terrorist attack at Benghazi. Wendy Sherman was Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, the fourth-ranking official in the U.S. Department of State. Thomas Nides was the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.
The timing of the Bash email is particularly significant based upon testimony given to members of Congress by Gregory Hicks (http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/06/politics/benghazi-whistleblower/), Deputy Chief of Mission of the U.S. embassy in Tripoli at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attack. According to Hicks’ 2013 testimony, a show of force by the U.S. military during the siege could have prevented much of the carnage. Said Hicks, “if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.”
Ultimately, Special Operations forces on their own initiative traveled from Tripoli to Benghazi to provide support during the attack. Other military assets (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-forces-obama-administration-release-pentagon-benghazi-attack-documents/) were only used to recover the dead and wounded, and to evacuate U.S. personnel from Libya. In fact, other documents (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-state-documents-show-quick-white-house-effort-to-link-benghazi-to-internet-video/) released in October by Judicial Watch show that only one U.S. plane was available to evacuate Americans from Benghazi to Tripoli and raise questions (https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-dscc-docs-01733-pg-8/) about whether a delay of military support led to additional deaths in Benghazi.

The new email came as a result of a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on September 4, 2014 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/09-09-14-jw-v-state-01511-clinton-notes-benghazi/) (No. 1:14-cv-01511)), seeking:


Records related to notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This request includes, but is not limited to, notes taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or employees of the Office of the Secretary of State during the attack and its immediate aftermath.

“The Obama administration and Clinton officials hid this compelling Benghazi email for years,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The email makes readily apparent that the military was prepared to launch immediate assistance that could have made a difference, at least at the CIA Annex. The fact that the Obama Administration withheld this email for so long only worsens the scandal of Benghazi.”

[boutons_deux]

"Special Operations forces on their own initiative traveled from Tripoli to Benghazi to provide support during the attack."

they got there very late, and/or were totally ineffective

Benghazi!

[boutons_deux]

Fox Falsely Claims Defense Dept. Email Contradicts Obama Administration's Benghazi Testimony


But During Same Testimony, Panetta Pointed To Forces That Had Been Deployed That Night

Panetta: Several Units Ordered To Prepare To Deploy To Libya In Response To Attack But Did Not Arrive In Time. During the same February 2013 hearing in which he stated that "time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response" to the Benghazi attacks, Panetta said that he had immediately ordered DOD assets to respond:


In the months since the tragedy at the temporary mission facility and the nearby annex in Benghazi, we've learned that there were actually two short-duration attacks that occurred some six hours apart. And again, there was no specific intelligence that indicated that a second attack would occur at the annex, which was located some two miles away.

The bottom line is this: that we were not dealing with a prolonged or continuous assault which could have been brought to an end by a U.S. military response. Very simply, although we had forces deployed to the region, time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.

Despite the uncertainty at the time, the Department of Defense and the rest of the United States government spared no effort to do everything we could to try to save American lives. Before, during and after the attack, every request the Department of Defense received, we did, we accomplished. But again, four Americans' lives were lost, and we all have a responsibility to make sure that that does not happen again.
[...]
Soon after the initial reports about the attack in Benghazi were received, General Dempsey and I met with President Obama, and he ordered all available DOD assets to respond to the attack in Libya and to protect U.S. personnel and interests in the region. It's important to remember that in addition to responding to the situation in Benghazi, we were also concerned about potential threats to U.S. personnel in Tunis, Tripoli, Cairo, Sana'a and elsewhere that could potentially require a military response.

In consultation with General Dempsey and AFRICOM commander General Ham, I directed several specific actions.

First, we ordered a Marine fleet anti-terrorism secure team, a FAST team, stationed in Spain to prepare to deploy to Benghazi.

A second FAST platoon was ordered to prepare to deploy to the embassy in Tripoli. A special operations force, which was training in Central Europe, was ordered to prepare to deploy to an intermediate staging base in Southern Europe, Sigonella, and a special operations force based in the United States was ordered to deploy to an intermediate staging base in Southern Europe as well at Sigonella. [Hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 2/7/13, via Nexis, emphasis added]


During Testimony, Panetta Also Described How A "Tripoli-Based Security Team" Was Deployed And Arrived Before End Of Attacks. Later in the same testimony, Panetta explained:

The quickest response option available was a Tripoli-based security team that was located at the embassy in Tripoli. And to their credit, within hours, this six-man team, including two U.S. military personnel, chartered a private airplane, deployed to Benghazi. Within 15 minutes of arriving at the annex facility, they came under attack by mortar and rocket-propelled grenades.


Members of this team, along with others at the annex facility, provided emergency medical assistance and supported the evacuation of all personnel. Only 12 hours after the attacks had begun, all remaining U.S. government personnel had been safely evacuated from Benghazi. [Hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 2/7/13, via Nexis, emphasis added]

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/12/08/fox-falsely-claims-defense-dept-email-contradic/207353

TSA self-bitch slaps, yet again.

Fox! :lol

Judicial Watch! :lol

VRWC stinkers, all of them

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fox Falsely Claims Defense Dept. Email Contradicts Obama Administration's Benghazi Testimony


But During Same Testimony, Panetta Pointed To Forces That Had Been Deployed That Night

Panetta: Several Units Ordered To Prepare To Deploy To Libya In Response To Attack But Did Not Arrive In Time. During the same February 2013 hearing in which he stated that "time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response" to the Benghazi attacks, Panetta said that he had immediately ordered DOD assets to respond:


In the months since the tragedy at the temporary mission facility and the nearby annex in Benghazi, we've learned that there were actually two short-duration attacks that occurred some six hours apart. And again, there was no specific intelligence that indicated that a second attack would occur at the annex, which was located some two miles away.

The bottom line is this: that we were not dealing with a prolonged or continuous assault which could have been brought to an end by a U.S. military response. Very simply, although we had forces deployed to the region, time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.

Despite the uncertainty at the time, the Department of Defense and the rest of the United States government spared no effort to do everything we could to try to save American lives. Before, during and after the attack, every request the Department of Defense received, we did, we accomplished. But again, four Americans' lives were lost, and we all have a responsibility to make sure that that does not happen again.
[...]
Soon after the initial reports about the attack in Benghazi were received, General Dempsey and I met with President Obama, and he ordered all available DOD assets to respond to the attack in Libya and to protect U.S. personnel and interests in the region. It's important to remember that in addition to responding to the situation in Benghazi, we were also concerned about potential threats to U.S. personnel in Tunis, Tripoli, Cairo, Sana'a and elsewhere that could potentially require a military response.

In consultation with General Dempsey and AFRICOM commander General Ham, I directed several specific actions.

First, we ordered a Marine fleet anti-terrorism secure team, a FAST team, stationed in Spain to prepare to deploy to Benghazi.

A second FAST platoon was ordered to prepare to deploy to the embassy in Tripoli. A special operations force, which was training in Central Europe, was ordered to prepare to deploy to an intermediate staging base in Southern Europe, Sigonella, and a special operations force based in the United States was ordered to deploy to an intermediate staging base in Southern Europe as well at Sigonella. [Hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 2/7/13, via Nexis, emphasis added]


During Testimony, Panetta Also Described How A "Tripoli-Based Security Team" Was Deployed And Arrived Before End Of Attacks. Later in the same testimony, Panetta explained:

The quickest response option available was a Tripoli-based security team that was located at the embassy in Tripoli. And to their credit, within hours, this six-man team, including two U.S. military personnel, chartered a private airplane, deployed to Benghazi. Within 15 minutes of arriving at the annex facility, they came under attack by mortar and rocket-propelled grenades.


Members of this team, along with others at the annex facility, provided emergency medical assistance and supported the evacuation of all personnel. Only 12 hours after the attacks had begun, all remaining U.S. government personnel had been safely evacuated from Benghazi. [Hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 2/7/13, via Nexis, emphasis added]

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/12/08/fox-falsely-claims-defense-dept-email-contradic/207353

TSA self-bitch slaps, yet again.

Fox! :lol

Judicial Watch! :lol

VRWC stinkers, all of them




Could you explain how you reconcile that with posting thinkprogress and nakedcapitalism? Any reasonable person would take that logic, apply it to you and hold you to the same standard.

You self bitch slap by this means. It's multidimensional hypocrisy.

[boutons_deux]

Could you explain how you reconcile that with posting thinkprogress and nakedcapitalism?

if you can't reconcile those two sites I post from, then your multi-dimensional stupidity is beyond help.

[TheSanityAnnex]

"Special Operations forces on their own initiative traveled from Tripoli to Benghazi to provide support during the attack."

they got there very late, and/or were totally ineffective

Benghazi!
You think the redacted forces from Bash's email were the same forces from Tripoli that went on their own?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

if you can't reconcile those two sites I post from, then your multi-dimensional stupidity is beyond help.

Oh I told you how I reconcile it. It's hard to be a coward on the interwebs but you manage.

[boutons_deux]

You think the redacted forces from Bash's email were the same forces from Tripoli that went on their own?

I have no idea, I wasn't there.

[boutons_deux]

Oh I told you how I reconcile it. It's hard to be a coward on the interwebs but you manage.

you reconciled nothing. If you're looking for one of your multi-page pissing contests, go piss on yourself.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I have no idea, I wasn't there.

Then why did you quote, bold, and highlight in red the team from Tripoli?

If you've noticed I haven't been on the Benghazi scandal bandwagon. I found this latest email and it's redactions very interesting though.

[boutons_deux]

Then why did you quote, bold, and highlight in red the team from Tripoli?

If you've noticed I haven't been on the Benghazi scandal bandwagon. I found this latest email and it's redactions very interesting though.

it took them HOURS to get there, TOO LATE, the 4 were already dead

[Th'Pusher]

If you've noticed I haven't been on the Benghazi scandal bandwagon.

:lol You're quote is whatdifferencedoesitmake?

[boutons_deux]

They have no shame: It’s confirmed, Fox News lied egregiously (again) in its latest Benghazi “bombshell”

Newly released document confirms that Fox News (with an assist from the GOP) flagrantly lied about Benghazi


On Wednesday, I picked apart the latest attempt by conservatives to churn up some old-fashioned Benghazi conspiracy theorism, as Fox News used some clumsy sleight of hand (http://www.salon.com/2015/12/09/just_give_it_up_already_fox_news_breaks_out_yet_an other_benghazi_lie_to_give_life_to_a_long_discredi ted_conspiracy_theory/) to suggest that the Obama administration had lied about not being able to save the people under attack at the Libyan diplomatic outpost.

Fox’s entire argument was based on a newly released, partially redacted email that, per the conservative network, “contradicted” former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s claim that there were no military assets capable of arriving to Benghazi in time to make a difference.

As I and others (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/12/08/fox-falsely-claims-defense-dept-email-contradic/207353) noted, the email didn’t actually contradict Panetta, and the whole thing was trumped-up nonsense.

Well, now the Democrats on the Benghazi committee have released (http://democrats-benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/unredacted-email-debunks-rehashed-conservative-conspiracy-theory) the full, unredacted email, and it confirms what we already knew: Fox News lied, and rather egregiously so.

But, as the unredacted version (http://democrats-benghazi.house.gov/sites/democrats.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/2015_12_09_unredacted_DOD_email.pdf) shows, the forces identified in the email were the same special operations and Marine anti-terrorism teams that Panetta had ordered to respond. As I wrote yesterday, “all Fox News has done is confirm what we already knew: the Defense Department ordered military assets to respond to Benghazi.” There is no story, there is no new information, and there is no conspiracy.

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/10/they_have_no_shame_its_confirmed_fox_news_lied_egr egiously_again_in_its_latest_benghazi_bombshell/

[xrayzebra]

Hillary Clinton’s most repugnant lie
Liar, liar, pantsuit on fire: Hillary Clinton still insists she didn’t tell the grieving families of the Benghazi victims that an anti-Islam video was to blame.

Yet family members say she said just that, three days after the attack, at the Sept. 14, 2012, ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base.

George Stephanopoulos asked her Sunday if she’d told the victims it was about the film. Clinton gave a flat “no.”

http://nypost.com/2015/12/09/hillary-clintons-most-repugnant-lie/

[boutons_deux]

GOP’s Benghazi Committee passes ignominious milestone


As of Wednesday, the House Select Committee on Benghazi has been in existence for 609 days, surpassing the length of time the 9/11 Commission took to investigate the terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people on Sept. 11, 2001.

“Instead of following the bipartisan model set by the 9/11 Commission, which brought our entire nation together after we were attacked by terrorists, Republicans created a highly partisan Select Committee with an unlimited budget to attack their political opponents,” said Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the committee’s top Democrat. “Republicans continue to drag out this political charade closer to the 2016 presidential election, and the American taxpayers continue to pay the price.”



Remember, even congressional Republicans have admitted (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/another-republican-admits-benghazi-panel-political) the committee is a partisan exercise, making it that much more difficult to justify its prolonged existence.

For the record, the 9/11 Commission, a bipartisan panel created to investigate the worst terrorist attack ever on American soil, conducted its work over 1 year, 7 months, and 25 days – which works out to 604 days, five fewer than this current charade.

A report from Benghazi Committee Democrats added (http://democrats-benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/benghazi-committee-passes-5-million-mark), “The Benghazi Select Committee has surpassed multiple previous congressional investigations, including the investigations of Hurricane Katrina, the attack on Pearl Harbor, the assassination of President Kennedy, Iran-Contra, Church Committee, and Watergate.”

What’s more, the Benghazi investigation, which has cost American taxpayers nearly $5.6 million (http://askedandanswered-democrats.benghazi.house.gov/cost/), isn’t done. There is no end date in mind, and there’s every reason to believe GOP lawmakers will just keep it going, probably with this year’s elections in mind.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gops-benghazi-committee-passes-ignominious-milestone?cid=sm_fb_maddow

[boutons_deux]

How Fox News Plans To Use Michael Bay’s Benghazi Film To Sink Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Run

“Breaking tonight. A Kelly File exclusive on the gripping new film that may pose a threat to Hillary Clinton’s hopes for the White House.”

That’s how Megyn Kelly fired the first shot (http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/01/04/foxs-megyn-kelly-says-that-benghazi-film-could/207745) in Fox News’ campaign to use a Michael Bay movie on the Benghazi attacks to prevent Hillary Clinton from winning the presidency. After their much-hyped Benghazi select committee fizzled (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/10/22/wash-posts-wemple-fox-all-but-acknowledges-the/206370), they’ve now pinned their hopes on the director of The Rock.

13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi opens in theaters January 15. Based on a 2014 book (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/09/11/facts-media-havent-covered-from-the-new-13-hour/200729) written by journalist Mitchell Zuckoff and five former CIA contractors who defended the diplomatic post and nearby CIA annex during the 2012 assault, the film aims to provide a dramatic eyewitness portrayal of the attacks and the heroism displayed that night.

Based on the 20 minutes Kelly spent on the film during her broadcast Monday night, Fox thinks it can be something more:

a way to redeploy all the shoddy reporting and conspiracy-mongering (http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/09/16/report-foxs-benghazi-obsession-by-the-numbers/200694) they’ve pushed for the last three years as a weapon against Clinton’s campaign.

Interviewing three of the former CIA contractors about the movie based on their book, Kelly sought to revive long-debunked myths about the Obama administration’s efforts to respond to the attack.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/how-fox-news-plans-to-use-michael-bays-benghazi-film-to-sink-hillary-clintons-presidential-run/

[boutons_deux]

Gowdy's lesson learned from Clinton Benghazi hearing: Carry out your partisan witch hunt in private (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/7/1467060/-Gowdy-s-lesson-learned-from-Clinton-Benghazi-hearing-Carry-out-your-partisan-witch-hunt-in-private)

REP. TREY GOWDY (R-SC): Yes, sir, we're actually doing an interview today with a witness named Charlene Lamb.

We are up to our sixty-sixth witness interview, :lol the overwhelming majority of which have never been talked to by any congressional committee before.

And you're right, Secretary Clinton was in public.

But it's the only one that's been in public, and it's the only one that's going to be in public because the private transcribed interviews are so much more effective for gathering information than a public spectacle. :lol

So, all the rest of them are going to be in private, and all the rest of them will be productive. :lol

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/01/07/1467060/-Gowdy-s-lesson-learned-from-Clinton-Benghazi-hearing-Carry-out-your-partisan-witch-hunt-in-private?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

[TheSanityAnnex]

Gowdy's lesson learned from Clinton Benghazi hearing: Carry out your partisan witch hunt in private (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/7/1467060/-Gowdy-s-lesson-learned-from-Clinton-Benghazi-hearing-Carry-out-your-partisan-witch-hunt-in-private)

REP. TREY GOWDY (R-SC): Yes, sir, we're actually doing an interview today with a witness named Charlene Lamb.

We are up to our sixty-sixth witness interview, :lol the overwhelming majority of which have never been talked to by any congressional committee before.

And you're right, Secretary Clinton was in public.

But it's the only one that's been in public, and it's the only one that's going to be in public because the private transcribed interviews are so much more effective for gathering information than a public spectacle. :lol

So, all the rest of them are going to be in private, and all the rest of them will be productive. :lol

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/01/07/1467060/-Gowdy-s-lesson-learned-from-Clinton-Benghazi-hearing-Carry-out-your-partisan-witch-hunt-in-private?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

uh oh

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-2016/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-2016/index.html)

Washington (CNN)The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee released a scathing statement Friday, calling on Hillary Clinton to "come clean" after the State Department released an email in which she asked an aide to send information on a non-secure system after attempts to send the document securely failed.


Sen. Chuck Grassley said the email, released at about 1:30 am Friday morning along with about 3,000 other emails from Clinton's State Department tenure, is "disturbing," and "appears to show the former Secretary of State instructing a subordinate to remove the headings from a classified document and send it to her in an unsecure manner."
On June 16, 2011, top Clinton aide Jake Sullivan wrote to Clinton to say she would get "tps" -- presumably short for "talking points" that evening. The subject of the email is redacted so it's not clear what topic these points covered.





The next morning, Clinton wrote back to say she hadn't received them yet, and after a few minutes Sullivan responded that staff were having issues sending the document in a secure fax but that they were "working on it."
"If they can't," Clinton replies, "turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

Read More


READ: Hillary Clinton 'surprised' by State staffer's personal email use (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/hillary-clinton-personal-email-staffer-state-department/index.html)
Clinton's critics are now seizing on the email, and say it shows a disregard of the security of classified information.
"It raises a host of serious questions and underscores the importance of the various inquiries into the transmittal of classified information through her non-government email server," said Grassley, who went on to ask: "How long has the State Department been aware of this email? Why is it just now being released? Was her instruction actually carried out? If so, has the FBI opened a criminal inquiry into these circumstances?"
A State Department official declined to comment on Grassley's statement, but told CNN earlier in the day that the department has "no indication at this time that the document being discussed was emailed to her."
"I'm not going to speculate about whether the document being discussed was classified," this official added. "Generally speaking, I can say that just because a document is sent via a secure method doesn't mean that it's classified. Many documents that are created or stored on a secure system are not classified."
A spokesperson for Grassley's office says it is working under the assumption the email was classified, since Clinton's aides would have had other ways to send the document to her if it wasn't, such as through email.
READ: Clinton and Sanders spar over who can win in November (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/clinton-sanders-las-vegas-dinner/index.html)
Clinton's email practices have been a source of criticism since March 2015, when it was revealed she used a private email server to conduct official business while at the State Department.
She has vehemently insisted she never sent or received information that was classified at the time it was sent.
The State Department has backed her on that claim, but have since retroactively classified information in over 1,000 of her emails.
The State Department is in the process of releasing Clinton's work-related emails, which total nearly 55,000 pages, to the public, which is how this new email came to Grassley's attention. The department is scheduled to release the last of Clinton's emails at the end of this month.

[boutons_deux]

The Truth About Benghazi Is Finally Going to Be Exposed


http://www.motherjones.com/files/blog_lamar_smith.jpg

You remember Lamar Smith, don't you? He's the nutbag congressman from Texas who's been harassing NOAA because they've published papers saying the climate has warmed up.

Smith knows that climate change is a hoax, so he wants NOAA to turn over vast troves of email that his staff can trawl for evidence of the government's massive conspiracy to fudge the data.

So far NOAA hasn't cooperated, but Smith can harass them because he's the chair of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. Climate change is science,1so that puts it squarely in his bailiwick.

But there's more to science than climate change.

You know what else is science?

Cybersecurity.

And do you know one of the key cybersecurity vulnerabilities in the US government?

Email servers. And do you know who used private email servers a few years ago?

Hillary Clinton.

And do you know what she was writing emails about?

Benghazi.

So that means Benghazi falls under Smith's jurisdiction: (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-house-science-panel-217774)


Science Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) on Wednesday launched his own investigation of Clinton’s private email server, invoking the panel’s jurisdiction over cybersecurity issues. The new investigation will focus on the private IT companies involved in maintaining the Clinton server.

....The Smith probe, according to three letters sent to the company's involved with the server, will focus on Colorado-based Platte River, which housed Clinton’s server after she left State; Datto, the Connecticut-based back-up company they used as a backstop; and SECNAP, a Florida company that provided cybersecurity for her server.


It's about damn time, if you ask me.

John Boehner wouldn't allow investigations like this because he was scared it would make congressional Republicans look like idiots. That's typical Boehner. Just another gutless Beltway sellout.

But Paul Ryan is running things differently, and now Smith has been unleashed.

Finally, we'll get the truth.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/01/truth-about-benghazi-finally-going-be-exposed

[boutons_deux]

Tom DeLay, another TX Repug POS, says his friends in FBI are preparing to indict Hillary.

... right-wing hate media jumping on it.

[Nbadan]

Smith can harass them because he's the chair of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee

Lamar Smith deserves his own thread I tell ya..

[boutons_deux]

GOP committee’s lawyer undercuts Benghazi conspiracy theory

there’s evidence that Gowdy’s former top committee staffer already concluded that the question has been answered truthfully. The Benghazi panel is investigating a conspiracy theory that the committee’s lawyer considers bogus.


According to the letter, that staffer, former Gen. Dana Chipman, said in interviews with former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and former Defense Department Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash that the department did all it could on that night when Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed.

“I think you ordered exactly the right forces to move out and to head toward a position where they could reinforce what was occurring in Benghazi or in Tripoli or elsewhere in the region,” Chipman told Panetta in the committee’s January interview with the former defense secretary, according to transcribed excerpts. “And, sir, I don’t disagree with the actions you took, the recommendations you made, and the decisions you directed.”

Chipman was similarly deferential to Bash. “I would posit that from my perspective, having looked at all the materials over the last 18 months, we could not have affected the response to what occurred by 5:15 in the morning on the 12th of September in Benghazi, Libya,” said Chipman, who himself served 33 years in the Army.



And if the military did everything it could that night, the conspiracy theory is no more. The Benghazi committee is asking questions that have been answered to the satisfaction of the committee’s top lawyer, chosen by the committee’s Republican chairman.

Circling back to our previous coverage (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/pentagon-pushes-back-against-benghazi-panels-demands), Republicans have already admitted (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/another-republican-admits-benghazi-panel-political) the Benghazi panel is a partisan exercise, making it that much more difficult to justify its prolonged existence – at a cost ofnearly $7 million (http://askedandanswered-democrats.benghazi.house.gov/cost/).

Now there’s evidence the committee is not just annoying the Department of Defense for reasons no one seems able to defend, the panel’s former top lawyer has also seen the evidence and rejected the investigation’s basic premise.

To reiterate (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gops-benghazi-committee-just-keeps-going-and-going) a recent observation, though I find the Republicans’ Benghazi Committee ridiculous, I’m not suggesting the deadly terrorist attack in Libya, which left four Americans dead, is unworthy of investigation. Just the opposite is true – Congress had a responsibility to determine what happened and take steps to prevent similar attacks in the future.

But therein lies the point:

seven separate congressional committees investigated the Benghazi attack before the Select Committee was even created.

This was already one of the most scrutinized events in American history.

Republican lawmakers, however, didn’t quite care for what the evidence told them, so they effectively concluded, “Maybe an eighth committee will tell us something the other seven committees didn’

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-committees-lawyer-undercuts-benghazi-conspiracy-theory?cid=sm_fb_maddow

Benghazi! :lol

[boutons_deux]

Benghazi Chairman Contradicts Fox Report, Admits Military Could Not Have Saved Lives In Benghazi Attack


Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) directly contradicted claims made by anonymous Fox News sources who argued the military could have done more to prevent loss of life during the 2012 attack on an American compound in Benghazi, Libya.

Fox correspondent Adam Housley cited two anonymous sources in an attempt to revive a debunked smear (http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/05/11/fox-news-resorts-anonymous-sources-attempt-revive-debunked-benghazi-claim/210373)against the Obama administration and Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton that officials hadreadily available assets (http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/01/31/conservative-media-claim-withheld-clinton-email/208279)that could have saved lives during the attack.

After Housley’s report aired during the May 11 edition of Fox News’ Special Report, Gowdy urged (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/05/12/benghazi-pipeline-how-two-anonymous-fox-sources-may-end-speaking-benghazi-select-committee/210403) Housley’s two “witnesses” to appear before the select committee he heads and speak.

On May 17, Fox host Bill Hemmer asked Gowdy about reports that his attorney, Dana Chipman, said (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/05/16/benghazi-chairman-s-own-counsel-undercuts-conservative-myth-benghazi-response-was-willfully/210437) nothing more could have been done to save Americans in Benghazi.

Gowdy responded, “I don’t think there’s any issue with respect to that -- they couldn’t,” directly contradicting the accounts of the anonymous sources appearing onSpecial Report on May 11. From the May 17 edition of Fox News’ America’s Newsroom:

https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/05/17/benghazi-chairman-contradicts-fox-report-admits-military-could-not-have-saved-lives-benghazi-attack/210468

Benghazi! :lol

Repugs' WITCH HUNTING! :lol

[boutons_deux]

Repugs end their Benghazi witch hunt.

No witches found.

In the meantime, the Repug Congress passed 100s of bills of Good Governance that were 100% For The People.

[RandomGuy]

Then why did you quote, bold, and highlight in red the team from Tripoli?

If you've noticed I haven't been on the Benghazi scandal bandwagon. I found this latest email and it's redactions very interesting though.

soooo, you want potential enemies to know what kind of forces might be deployed against them?

Of course the OOB is redacted.

Why are they interesting?

What do you mean?

[boutons_deux]

Borowitz pointed out that the Repugs should have saved their Benghazi $Ms and spent it repealing Obamacare 10 mores times.

[boutons_deux]

Benghazi Ambassador Chris Stevens’ Family Just Made Donald Trump Look Like an Even Bigger Fool

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/745304731346702336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

When asked who she blames for the attack that took her brother’s life, this is what she had to say:

I do not blame Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta. They were balancing security efforts at embassies and missions around the world. And their staffs were doing their best to provide what they could with the resources they had. The Benghazi Mission was understaffed. We know that now. But, again, Chris knew that. It wasn’t a secret to him. He decided to take the risk to go there. It is not something they did to him. It is something he took on himself.

She was then asked what she thought of Hillary Clinton’s conduct on Benghazi:

She has taken full responsibility, being head of the State Department, for what occurred. She took measures to respond to the review board’s recommendations. She established programs for a better security system. But it is never going to be perfect. Part of being a diplomat is being out in the community. We all recognize that there’s a risk in serving in a dangerous environment. Chris thought that was very important, and he probably would have done it again. I don’t see any usefulness in continuing to criticize her. It is very unjust.

Here’s what she had to say about whether or not she felt her brother’s death had been politicized:

Yes! Definitely politicized. Every report I read that mentions him specifically has a political bent, an accusatory bent. One point that seems to be brought up again and again is the accusation that the attack was a response to the video. I could understand why that conclusion would be made, because it was right after the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt. But, frankly, it doesn’t matter that that was the thinking, that night, about why the attack occurred. It’s irrelevant to bring that up again and again. It is done purely for political reasons.


Dr. Stevens also went on to say that it’s “not appropriate” for some (mostly Republicans) to use her brother’s death as an election issue and that he had “a lot of respect” for Hillary Clinton.

She also said that this new report recently released didn’t “look like anything new” and that what Republicans found was what we had already known.

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/benghazi-ambassador-stevens-family-just-made-donald-trump-look-like-a-fool/

[boutons_deux]

Republicans’ Benghazi Committee just keeps going


Ironically, the partisan panel, created to undermine Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, accidentally exonerated her.

But at least it’s over, right? The longest congressional investigation in the history of the United States may have ended with a whimper, but at least it ended?

Actually, no. The Huffington Post had this piece (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/benghazi-committee-is-still-doing-stuff_us_5773f8a4e4b0d1f85d480560) yesterday.


A day after releasing an 800-page report that failed to pin any fresh blame on Hillary Clinton, the House Select Committee on Benghazi was back to work Wednesday, interviewing a man who allegedly used the hashtag “#ifyouvoteforhillaryyouarebeyondstupid.”

The report the committee released Tuesday was not necessarily the final product, as it has a working session and a vote on whether to adopt it set for July 8.



This isn’t a joke. The Benghazi Committee’s GOP members have already come to the conclusion that U.S. military forces couldn’t have reached the Libyan city in 2012 in time to make a difference, but GOP committee members nevertheless want to hear sworn testimony from an Air Force mechanic who reached the opposite conclusion in a partisan post on Facebook.

In other words, the final report has been released to the public, but Republicans aren’t giving up, and the search for evidence that doesn’t exist continues.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republicans-benghazi-committee-just-keeps-going?cid=sm_fb_maddow

Repug GOVERNANCE! :lol

[pgardn]

The investigation needed to take place, but it definitely got strung out for political purposes.

The problem for the Republicans now that this is over is the crying wolf syndrome.

The above stated, Hillary describing the attack might have been carried out by a bunch of guys walking around was extremely callous and disingenuous. It adds to the feeling she is a lying ice queen.

Survey says: Win for the democrats

[Pelicans78]

It is a win for Hillary but proves how incompetent and shallow she is as a candidate. Unfortunately the other guy has no record of anything.

[boutons_deux]

"Hillary describing the attack might have been carried out by a bunch of guys walking around"

link to her direct quote?

[pgardn]

"Hillary describing the attack might have been carried out by a bunch of guys walking around"

link to her direct quote?



Do you live in San Antonio?

If so, NPR right after 7 pm yesterday. You can look up the podcast. I totally agree with the guy that quoted the remark and his assessment of the remark. Btw there was a very in depth look at the real significant pieces of the 800 pages. Very good stuff IMO.

[boutons_deux]

Do you live in San Antonio?

If so, NPR right after 7 pm yesterday. You can look up the podcast. I totally agree with the guy that quoted the remark and his assessment of the remark. Btw there was a very in depth look at the real significant pieces of the 800 pages. Very good stuff IMO.

so you say "he said. she said"

ok, indict her

[pgardn]

so you say "he said. she said"

ok, indict her

"Guys out for a walk one night figuring they would kill some Americans" DIRECT QUOTE FROM HER VOICE.

Direct quote just listened to it. ON POINT is the program.

So Boots...

GFY

Lazy bastard.

[pgardn]

I have often put down facts/what I heard or read reported without referring to a specific source. Anyone who has actually tried looking them up because they are not lazy bastards, knows I'm not lying. Boots, part of my job in getting projects done is asking the right questions to the right people to figure out where the kinks are, and who might be dropping the ball or even lying about what they have completed.

Boots. It's a very good thing we don't work together in my line of work.

To the rest of the board sorry for anything that seems boastful. I get perturbed with lazy ass ideologues.

[boutons_deux]

With Clinton exonerated, conspiracy theorists turn on Trey Gowdy

far-right radio personality Michael Savage told (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/michael-savage-trey-gowdy-should-be-impeached-wasting-my-time-benghazi) his audience, “Trey Gowdy should be impeached for wasting my time! He promised us a lot! Remember?” (Members of Congress can be expelled, but not impeached, under the U.S. Constitution.)

Of course, Savage isn’t alone. The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank explained today (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/benghazi-conspiracy-theorists-turn-on-trey-gowdy/2016/06/29/7c513ed4-3e44-11e6-80bc-d06711fd2125_story.html) that “conspiracy-minded” conservatives are blaming Gowdy “for failing to deliver the goods.” There was a meeting yesterday of the “Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi,” :lol where members agreed the far-right South Carolinian let them down by failing to confirm their beliefs.


A woman in the crowd floated a new Benghazi conspiracy. “Has someone in the GOP leadership gotten their fingers involved in watering down some of this to benefit Secretary Clinton?” she asked. Nobody rebutted this idea.

Herein lies a lesson for Republicans who are perpetually trying to appease the far right: It’s a fool’s errand. They went to the tea party – and now they’re taking Donald Trump to the prom.

Likewise, then-House Speaker John Boehner named the Benghazi committee because activists were dissatisfied that seven previous congressional investigations had failed to uncover major scandal material.

Now an eighth has produced more of the same – and the agitators are as agitated as ever.


There’s a certain twisted logic to this. The unhinged right starts with the ideologically satisfying answer –

President Obama and Hillary Clinton are guilty of horrible Benghazi-related wrongdoing – and then works backwards, looking for “proof”

that matches the conclusion. When their ostensible allies fail to tell these activists what they want to hear, they could reevaluate their bogus assumptions, but it’s vastly easier to believe Republicans have let them down.

Wait, it gets worse.

As Milbank reported (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/benghazi-conspiracy-theorists-turn-on-trey-gowdy/2016/06/29/7c513ed4-3e44-11e6-80bc-d06711fd2125_story.html), a former Ted Cruz adviser complained yesterday that Gowdy “did not draw a connection between the dots.” And why not? According to

retired Gen. Thomas McInerney, the Benghazi Committee chairman “had his reasons – political” for holding back.
McInerney “speculated that congressional leadership had approved ‘black operations’ to run weapons from Benghazi to Islamic State forces in Syria.”

This is what it’s come to: Benghazi conspiracy theorists are so creative, and so unmoved by evidence or reason, that they can convince themselves that congressional Republicans are in on the conspiracy.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/clinton-exonerated-conspiracy-theorists-turn-trey-gowdy?cid=sm_fb_maddow

:lol Holy shit, you rightwingnut assholes are crazier, more paranoid, more circle-jerky than ever. :lol

[DarrinS]

Shillary called ONE of the 35 survivors several weeks after. And only after being urged to do so by Huma.

[boutons_deux]

Shillary called ONE of the 35 survivors several weeks after. And only after being urged to do so by Huma.

indict her!

[pgardn]

indict her!

Wtf are you writing.
This is not something legal. It's done, it's over, the Republicans found nada.

Its about her as a slime ball.
But of course Democrats can't be slime balls.

[Winehole23]

not much buzz about this in this thread or outside of it:


The National Security Council would not allow the House Benghazi committee to review information about possible U.S. covert action in Libya that might have preceded the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi.


And employees at the CIA, State Department and Defense Department refused to answer specific questions about whether the U.S. sent, oversaw or was otherwise involved in weapons transfers to Libyan rebels, according to an exclusive copy of a section of the final Benghazi committee report provided to POLITICO.


“Over the course of nearly a dozen interviews with the State Department, the Defense Department and the CIA personnel witnesses consistently refused to answer questions related to certain allegations with respect to the U.S. activity in Libya even though the House specifically gave the committee access to materials relating to intelligence sources and methods,” reads an excerpt from the “compliance” section of the report.


“Most of these questions related in some way to allegations regarding weapons,” the report continues. “These refusals meant significant questions raised in public relating to Benghazi could not be answered.”



Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/benghazi-report-findings-2016/2016/06/benghazi-report-weapons-trafficking-224869#ixzz4DM9i3GSv

[boutons_deux]

not much buzz about this in this thread or outside of it:

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/benghazi-report-findings-2016/2016/06/benghazi-report-weapons-trafficking-224869#ixzz4DM9i3GSv

[/COLOR][/LEFT]

Tons of Saddam's weapons not secured by the Repug invasion of Iraq for BigOil ended in Libya and throughout the M/E and Africa.

Recall that dickhead Cheney made sure that his military suckers, CIA mercenaries absolutely secured the Ministry of Oil building while museums, armories, etc got looted.

WMD were not found, but the Real Threat of Saddam's FINDABLE arms was ignored.