http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi.html
Not that this will change the meme all that much. I doubt that this lays anything to rest. It's an election year.
QuoteBut the lack of any crisp, hard-hitting allegation of professional misconduct or dereliction of duty, was certain to fuel further criticism of the length the investigation â€" more than two years â€" and the expense, estimated at more than $7 million, in addition to Democrats’ allegations that the inquiry was specifically intended to damage Mrs. Clinton’s presidential prospects.
And in a sign that Mr. Gowdy was also facing pressure from the right, two of the committee’s conservative members, Representatives Jim Jordan of Ohio and Mike Pompeo of Kansas, wrote a 48-page addendum including somewhat harsher criticism of the Obama administration, its response to the attacks and its subsequent public explanations.
“Officials at the State Department, including Secretary Clinton, learned almost in real time that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,†Mr. Jordan and Mr. Pompeo wrote. “With the presidential election just 56 days away, rather than tell the American people the truth and increase the risk of losing an election, the administration told one story privately and a different story publicly.â€
Presidential election is just 56 days away? Isn't it in November? I'm missing something I guess.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 28, 2016, 10:15:36 AM
Presidential election is just 56 days away? Isn't it in November? I'm missing something I guess.
I'm assuming that comes from some quote that was made two years ago, during a non presidential election. I wondered the same thing, and that's the best I can speculate.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 28, 2016, 10:15:36 AM
Presidential election is just 56 days away? Isn't it in November? I'm missing something I guess.
"First Tuesday after the first Monday in November." That's so it won't be on All Saint's Day.
Well, yeah, the report has no new evidence, but the investigation was never about "evidence" anyway. It was about proving Hillary is the antichrist who personally lead the attack on Benghazi and drank the blood of the victims to steal their power, which it has proven. You just have to read it right. Squint your eyes. KNOW that it says that before you read it. Maybe smash your head into a brick wall a few times until it DOES say that.
The next nineteen investigations may turn up something.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 28, 2016, 12:19:08 PM
The next nineteen investigations may turn up something.
We can only hope they can finally get to the truth they want instead of the annoying truth that is.
Quote from: SGOS on June 28, 2016, 10:42:39 AM
I'm assuming that comes from some quote that was made two years ago, during a non presidential election. I wondered the same thing, and that's the best I can speculate.
OK. Thanks.
Quote from: widdershins on June 28, 2016, 01:13:32 PM
We can only hope they can finally get to the truth they want instead of the annoying truth that is.
You mean the guys who voted 54 times to repeal Obamacare?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 28, 2016, 02:02:58 PM
You mean the guys who voted 54 times to repeal Obamacare?
Yeah. You know, the sensible, considerate, calm, rational, intelligent and completely unbiased members of Congress who are immediately going to start another Benghazi investigation as soon as this one turns up nothing like the rest did.
Quote from: widdershins on June 28, 2016, 03:15:28 PM
Yeah. You know, the sensible, considerate, calm, rational, intelligent and completely unbiased members of Congress who are immediately going to start another Benghazi investigation as soon as this one turns up nothing like the rest did.
I bet they don't. They wont be able to conclude it before election day. This was their one shot on this topic and it failed.
Quote from: Nonsensei on June 28, 2016, 06:43:59 PM
I bet they don't. They wont be able to conclude it before election day. This was their one shot on this topic and it failed.
They don't have to conclude it, they would be happy to say "She's under investigation...".
Chaos of battle. And difficult to discern the thoughts between ears of the leadership. As best anyone can tell, the Administration took a chance (blame Obama, not Clinton ... he is the CinC). They were apparently funneling arms thru Benghazi to our wonderful allies who were then being trained in Jordan, and who subsequently went into Syria and went bat-shit on us. Just like AlQaeda did. All the other people below Obama were "just following orders" like the good 4th Reich goose-steppers they are, including Clinton. Our embassies were bombed during Shrub's administration, and I don't remember any investigation of that, though ultimately Shrub was responsible. And his dad, who helped create AlQaeda in the first place. Don't worry, Libya is still in chaos, and President Clinton certainly intends to return there and take some pounds of flesh.
It's getting harder and harder for the rubes to accuse HRC of being a grifter when they have DJT at the top of their own ticket .
This may be the first election when the opposition party openly campaigns for the opposition.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on June 29, 2016, 06:04:33 AM
It's getting harder and harder for the rubes to accuse HRC of being a grifter when they have DJT at the top of their own ticket .
This may be the first election when the opposition party openly campaigns for the opposition.
Part of the master plan. If false controversy isn't created, the voters may die of boredom before the election. If only as many voters showed up, as currently have a positive view of Congress, they might not survive the embarrassment.
Of course the candidates are grifters ... the US is a grifter nation.
Quote from: Nonsensei on June 28, 2016, 06:43:59 PM
I bet they don't. They wont be able to conclude it before election day. This was their one shot on this topic and it failed.
You have a point. All of it was really about a smear campaign against Hillary and as time goes on that is becoming increasingly less "useful".
Personally, I think shit like this should be treated as treason. These pricks are trying to influence an election by actively and purposely spreading disinformation. It's one thing when it's some nutcase conspiracy theorist who actually sort of believes the crazy shit he's spouting (I have a friend who told me the page, paragraph and line in the Affordable Care Act where I could find the requirement that we all get microchips implanted. I brought up the bill on my phone while he talked. I said repeatedly, "I have the bill right here. It's not there." He just kept talking). It's totally another thing when they abuse the powers they have in what I think should be a very illegal attempt to influence an election. This should be prison term shit and disqualification from so much as a job at the Post Office forever.
Influence an election? Of course, there are trillions of dollars at stake. The rule of law doesn't stand a chance under those conditions. It didn't even stand a chance in ancient Athens, with direct democracy.
Quote from: Baruch on June 29, 2016, 01:15:11 PM
Influence an election? Of course, there are trillions of dollars at stake. The rule of law doesn't stand a chance under those conditions. It didn't even stand a chance in ancient Athens, with direct democracy.
Well of course they're trying to influence the election. They timed this shit to coincide with important dates with the specific intent, first, of preventing Hillary Clinton from even being the nominee and, now, to smear her in an attempt to prevent her from becoming president. I'm not talking about assholes like Trump who just say whatever crazy shit comes to mind. I'm talking about the people in power abusing that power in an attempt to sway the outcome of an election.
To me, it is some scary shit when the people in power can use that power to start actual criminal proceedings against political foes. That's how things work in North Korea (to the extreme there, of course) where even being a SUSPECTED threat to he in power can get you executed. That's how things work in China (to a somewhat lesser extreme), where speaking out against the government can get citizens run over by a tank. Essentially any scandal, even one in which no politician did anything illegal or even immoral (let's face it, Hillary Clinton did not WANT Americans to die. That was not her goal. If she had known it was coming and she could have prevented it, she most certainly would have claimed the hero points by doing it) can get CRIMINAL CHARGES brought against that politician, and the probability of those charges is DIRECTLY related to who is in charge. It's a step toward becoming North Korea. It's not even remotely comparable right now, I understand, but it's a step in that direction.
Depends on how desperate the politicians become. But I think they better get food tasters quick ;-)
Is it possible for the powerful to abuse power? Thrasymachus says you are just sour grapes and a loser. I bet Trump can spell Thrasymachus.
Quote from: Baruch on June 29, 2016, 08:24:53 PM
Depends on how desperate the politicians become. But I think they better get food tasters quick ;-)
Is it possible for the powerful to abuse power? Thrasymachus says you are just sour grapes and a loser. I bet Trump can spell Thrasymachus.
You're getting into a philosophical debate with that question. I want to say, "Of course it's possible for the powerful to abuse power", but admittedly I would be interjecting my own beliefs into that and holding all the world to the standards of an idealistic America. We certainly wouldn't stand for the Republican party passing a law calling for the death penalty for anyone with certain beliefs which would suggest they are too liberal, for instance. We would consider that an abuse of power. In North Korea, maybe not so much.
Quote from: widdershins on June 30, 2016, 01:56:04 PM
You're getting into a philosophical debate with that question. I want to say, "Of course it's possible for the powerful to abuse power", but admittedly I would be interjecting my own beliefs into that and holding all the world to the standards of an idealistic America. We certainly wouldn't stand for the Republican party passing a law calling for the death penalty for anyone with certain beliefs which would suggest they are too liberal, for instance. We would consider that an abuse of power. In North Korea, maybe not so much.
Americans have low standards, and are anything but ideal. I would certainly be in favor of the death penalty for anyone who thinks that Tom Cruise is a great actor ;-) Unfortunately, many of you would stand for the Democrat party passing a law calling for the death penalty for anyone with certain beliefs. This has had an early demonstration by hired thugs sent to disrupt Trump rallies. Not much chance a Trump America turning into North Korea ... Mr Trump probably can't spell kim chee.
Quote from: Baruch on June 30, 2016, 08:12:55 PM
Americans have low standards, and are anything but ideal. I would certainly be in favor of the death penalty for anyone who thinks that Tom Cruise is a great actor ;-) Unfortunately, many of you would stand for the Democrat party passing a law calling for the death penalty for anyone with certain beliefs. This has had an early demonstration by hired thugs sent to disrupt Trump rallies. Not much chance a Trump America turning into North Korea ... Mr Trump probably can't spell kim chee.
I didn't know "many" of us could afford to hire thugs.
Hillary-bots don't have to, the billionaires backing her can. Same as the billionaires backing Trump.
Quote from: Baruch on July 01, 2016, 07:15:43 AM
Hillary-bots don't have to, the billionaires backing her can. Same as the billionaires backing Trump.
So, not "many".
Quote from: Baruch on June 30, 2016, 08:12:55 PM
Americans have low standards, and are anything but ideal. I would certainly be in favor of the death penalty for anyone who thinks that Tom Cruise is a great actor ;-) Unfortunately, many of you would stand for the Democrat party passing a law calling for the death penalty for anyone with certain beliefs. This has had an early demonstration by hired thugs sent to disrupt Trump rallies. Not much chance a Trump America turning into North Korea ... Mr Trump probably can't spell kim chee.
Okay, I was going to "like" that post just for the Cruise comment because I couldn't agree more that the creepy bastard is a shit actor. But there would be no "Democrat" law calling for the "death penalty" at all, much less for having certain beliefs. The death penalty is almost exclusively a Republican thing and Democrats are politically correct to the extreme these days. Outlawing beliefs is not politically correct. I am pretty sure a very high percentage of the atheists I know, including those here, would fight tooth and nail against a law even outlawing Christianity, something we are adamantly against. I HATE Christianity, but I would go to war to keep it legal because I believe I am only free as long as I am free to do things I would never, ever do. If you take away a right I don't like then you can take away a thousand I do.
The republicans are just being dicks, always happened always will.