• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Clinton agrees to testify on Benghazi, emails this month

yes, and fast and furious. and the IRS 501c(4) issue. nothing but one non-scandal after another from your inept side

Fast and Furious....yep..that is another obama admin scandal. All obama admin scandals are handled the same. Obfuscate...deny, and wait it out.
 
Oh boy! New evidence is why the investigations are going on!? :lamo Great! Maybe more of their conspiracy theories can be proven as what they are, total made up partisan bull****! Keep it up!

Just keep attempting to wish this and other obama admin scandals away. Unless "Hussein" Obama and Hillary comer clean.....this will dog hillary all the way into 2016.
 
Sorry. The reason Hillary had not been willing to show up before the 'investigative' committee was the chairman's insistence that all the hearings be secret. Only when Gowdy agreed to hold public hearings did she agree to testify.

GOPers have too often shown themselves willing to leak false information from secret hearings to complicit media, in order to denigrate their political opponents.

People keep saying that she has destroyed evidence which would prove her evil actions but for some reason they can't yet provide proof of such behaviour. Irrational hatred does cause belief in fallacies.

Why did Hillary have her email server wiped clean? Huh???????
 
Just keep attempting to wish this.

I dont have to. The past 7+ investigations have already done that. And it wasnt me who "whitewashed it" it was the GOP's own investigation, which so many like you praised as the holy truth.
 
Looks like Trey is going to make Huma testify also.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., in a 15-page “Interim Progress Update” released on the one-year-anniversary of the committee’s creation, blamed the Obama administration for delays in the panel’s probe. “It is difficult to conduct a fact-centric congressional investigation when the Administration impedes the Committee’s progress by repeatedly failing to answer the Committee’s requests or to provide information in a timely manner,” wrote the South Carolina Republican.

“The largest impediment to being able to write the final, definitive accounting of what happened before, during and after the terrorist attacks in Benghazi is the Executive Branch itself.”


Benghazi News: Gowdy Seeks Huma Abedin, Clinton Aides
 
It does appear that ranking member on Gowdy's committee, Elijah Cummings (D-MD) was correct when he said, "“At every turn, the Select Committee comes up with a new excuse to further delay its work and then blames its glacial pace on someone else. Like the investigation itself, this memo is short on substance, short on accomplishments, and short on a plan for how to get this investigation done.”

As noted in the link from post #205, the 'investigation' led by Rep. Gowdy is "little more than an attempt to smear the former secretary of State amid her presidential campaign"

The longer they can drag out this 'investigation', the longer they can 'leak' misinformation to the media. A media, which despite the labelling as liberal, will spew forth the negatives on any public person.

Back in December Gowdy Indicates Monthly Benghazi Hearings Until ‘Questions Answered’. A year since he opened the 'investigation' and the GOPers got nothin' and they don't really care because it is all about attacking the President and his former Secretary of State. Not because they believe they are aiding in the security of the nation but because they think any smears they come up with will negatively impact Democratic candidates in the 2016 elections. It's all about the talking points and taking total control of the federal government. Power is their only goal, security of the American public is secondary.
 
Looks like Trey is going to make Huma testify also.

Don't you luv it when the naysayers talk all that BS about how the Gowdy Committee got nothing. Seems they busted out Clintons emails and server. Discovered that State didn't have the records that the other Benghazi Committees requested. Since they didn't have any power to do anything. Of course most of those naysayers couldn't figure that part out. Then they tried to rely on the Intell Committee and what Rogers said. Who was being called out for not actively pursuing the investigation. As well as complained about to the Speaker by other committee members.

Then due to what they find.....we now know her aides were using her Private server.

Also.....for some reason. They think Hillary took some responsibility since she uttered those words. With Responsibility comes consequences. Now ask them to show what Consequences she has taken. What reprimands were given to her.

Lets not forget from the very first report.....that it was a damning report. As it showed Hillary's incompetence then that of her people she put in State. Showed they didn't have a clue as to what was going on in Libya. Nor Benghazi.

Cummings did a lot of blocking and blaming the repubs yet couldn't even admit he was wrong when others pointed out Hillary and her teams **** ups. Its not like Cummings was trying to get to the bottom of anything. All he cared about was trying to protect BO peep and Hillary. He sold out.....as he put BO and Hillary over Country.

As well as over the Death of an Ambassador. Cummings is nothing more than a piece of **** that needs to be taken out and dumped. At sea would work. Since that mope couldn't handle swimming in deep water.
 
Why did Hillary have her email server wiped clean? Huh???????

Obviously it was an attempt to hide her multiple attempts to take control of America by conspiring with Russia, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. </sarcasm>

In December, Clinton turned over 55,000 pages of emails to the State Department. Clinton has asked that those roughly 30,000 emails be released to the public. State Department officials have said they will release them after they have been reviewed.

"Representatives of Secretary Clinton's office have been in touch with the committee and the State Department to make clear that she would like her emails made public as soon as possible and that she's ready and willing to come and appear herself for a hearing open to the American public," Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said in an email.

Then there is this -- Colin Powell also used personal email at State Dept., but was it illegal? Apparently not, the law did not go into effect until after Hillary left the position of Secretary of State.
 
Don't you luv it when those at least partially responsible admit to that responsibility


Yeah I luv it.....since it was a complete deflection. :lol: Did you still want to fall back on that this Committee. Didn't come up with anything? :lamo


Did budget cuts from Congress play a role in the lack of security?

MSNBC's Ronan Farrow pointed to unfulfilled spending requests for embassy security funding and put the responsibility on Democrats and Republicans in Congress. "It’s easy to gain political plaudits by saying ‘spend less around the world,’ and then it leads up to these tragedies," he said.

While it's true that Congress did not fully fund embassy security requests from the Obama administration in recent years, funding for embassy security is actually up from 2008, and up dramatically since before 9/11.

How does this tie into the Benghazi attack? State Department officials and government experts lay more blame on decisions by upper management not to provide the temporary Benghazi facility with more officers and better protections than on the availability of money. We rated Farrow's claim Mostly False.....snip~

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...act-checking-benghazi-our-most-recent-round-/
 
Yeah I luv it.....since it was a complete deflection. :lol: Did you still want to fall back on that this Committee. Didn't come up with anything? :lamo


Did budget cuts from Congress play a role in the lack of security?

MSNBC's Ronan Farrow pointed to unfulfilled spending requests for embassy security funding and put the responsibility on Democrats and Republicans in Congress. "It’s easy to gain political plaudits by saying ‘spend less around the world,’ and then it leads up to these tragedies," he said.

While it's true that Congress did not fully fund embassy security requests from the Obama administration in recent years, funding for embassy security is actually up from 2008, and up dramatically since before 9/11.

How does this tie into the Benghazi attack? State Department officials and government experts lay more blame on decisions by upper management not to provide the temporary Benghazi facility with more officers and better protections than on the availability of money. We rated Farrow's claim Mostly False.....snip~

Fact-checking Benghazi: The rhetoric hasn't matched up with reality | PolitiFact


What!!??!! You are relying on a "known, liberal website" to debunk my talking points? I can't believe it. Oh, the shame I feel. :roll:
 
What!!??!! You are relying on a "known, liberal website" to debunk my talking points? I can't believe it. Oh, the shame I feel. :roll:

Oh....What difference does it make. :2razz:
 
Don't you luv it when the naysayers talk all that BS about how the Gowdy Committee got nothing. Seems they busted out Clintons emails and server. Discovered that State didn't have the records that the other Benghazi Committees requested. Since they didn't have any power to do anything. Of course most of those naysayers couldn't figure that part out. Then they tried to rely on the Intell Committee and what Rogers said. Who was being called out for not actively pursuing the investigation. As well as complained about to the Speaker by other committee members.

Then due to what they find.....we now know her aides were using her Private server.

Also.....for some reason. They think Hillary took some responsibility since she uttered those words. With Responsibility comes consequences. Now ask them to show what Consequences she has taken. What reprimands were given to her.

Lets not forget from the very first report.....that it was a damning report. As it showed Hillary's incompetence then that of her people she put in State. Showed they didn't have a clue as to what was going on in Libya. Nor Benghazi.

Cummings did a lot of blocking and blaming the repubs yet couldn't even admit he was wrong when others pointed out Hillary and her teams **** ups. Its not like Cummings was trying to get to the bottom of anything. All he cared about was trying to protect BO peep and Hillary. He sold out.....as he put BO and Hillary over Country.

As well as over the Death of an Ambassador. Cummings is nothing more than a piece of **** that needs to be taken out and dumped. At sea would work. Since that mope couldn't handle swimming in deep water.

The left knows nothing of facts, but rather myths and assumptions pieced together from pop culture and interaction with other leftists.
This puts gruberites and an enormous disadvantage.

They dont need to understand whats happening-they will figure it out and even if they dont-its going to happen anyway.
 
Don't you luv it when those at least partially responsible admit to that responsibility

The problem with your argument is that Hillary testified under oath that funding (cut or otherwise) in no way impacted decisions made about the embassy or impaired defense of the facility.

What else you got?
 
Yet another possible theme song for the Hillary Klintonov 2016 campaign:

 
The problem with your argument is that Hillary testified under oath that funding (cut or otherwise) in no way impacted decisions made about the embassy or impaired defense of the facility.What else you got?
i have never seen this could you please share a cite which documents the context in which it was expressed
 

those above cites are what you offer in response to my request that you provide a cite showing us hillary stated what you attributed to her here [the emphasis below is added by me]

The problem with your argument is that Hillary testified under oath that funding (cut or otherwise) in no way impacted decisions made about the embassy or impaired defense of the facility.

What else you got?

now, i have reviewed what you have offered in reply
and you have NOTHING showing hillary said what you attributed to her
i find that dishonest

to the other forum members, PLEASE watch the video cite [below] he provided for the five minutes between 34:30 and 39:30 and you will see that hillary argues exactly the opposite of what us conservative has falsely portrayed her to have stated

in those five minutes you will hear that the security budget at state was cut by 10% - before the negative fiscal impact of sequestration across the board
in that five minutes you will hear hillary express her desire to be able to reallocate state budgets to better secure the state department employees, an action the then democratic lead senate approved but an action the republican lead house denied

us conservative, this is my final snipe hunt in pursuit of a fact you might have posted. it is now obvious your post was intentionally misrepresentative of what was actually said. given your inability to post verifiable material, i can no longer view your posts as containing anything of value

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQjnPeFRTLE
[34:30 - 39:30]
 
those above cites are what you offer in response to my request that you provide a cite showing us hillary stated what you attributed to her here [the emphasis below is added by me]



now, i have reviewed what you have offered in reply
and you have NOTHING showing hillary said what you attributed to her
i find that dishonest

to the other forum members, PLEASE watch the video cite [below] he provided for the five minutes between 34:30 and 39:30 and you will see that hillary argues exactly the opposite of what us conservative has falsely portrayed her to have stated

in those five minutes you will hear that the security budget at state was cut by 10% - before the negative fiscal impact of sequestration across the board
in that five minutes you will hear hillary express her desire to be able to reallocate state budgets to better secure the state department employees, an action the then democratic lead senate approved but an action the republican lead house denied

us conservative, this is my final snipe hunt in pursuit of a fact you might have posted. it is now obvious your post was intentionally misrepresentative of what was actually said. given your inability to post verifiable material, i can no longer view your posts as containing anything of value

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQjnPeFRTLE
[34:30 - 39:30]

Is there really a need to be so internet dramatic?

I read it, I (briefly) looked up some links, and then had an engagement.

Some time tomorrow I will track it down.
 
those above cites are what you offer in response to my request that you provide a cite showing us hillary stated what you attributed to her here [the emphasis below is added by me]



now, i have reviewed what you have offered in reply
and you have NOTHING showing hillary said what you attributed to her
i find that dishonest

to the other forum members, PLEASE watch the video cite [below] he provided for the five minutes between 34:30 and 39:30 and you will see that hillary argues exactly the opposite of what us conservative has falsely portrayed her to have stated

in those five minutes you will hear that the security budget at state was cut by 10% - before the negative fiscal impact of sequestration across the board
in that five minutes you will hear hillary express her desire to be able to reallocate state budgets to better secure the state department employees, an action the then democratic lead senate approved but an action the republican lead house denied

us conservative, this is my final snipe hunt in pursuit of a fact you might have posted. it is now obvious your post was intentionally misrepresentative of what was actually said. given your inability to post verifiable material, i can no longer view your posts as containing anything of value

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQjnPeFRTLE
[34:30 - 39:30]



The Bottomline JB, is that bs security excuse is nothing more than that. A ****ing Lame ass excuse. But that was to be expected from the Left. They are really not up on to much smart power. Especially the Left leaning here at DP.
 
The Bottomline JB, is that bs security excuse is nothing more than that. A ****ing Lame ass excuse. But that was to be expected from the Left. They are really not up on to much smart power. Especially the Left leaning here at DP.

let's see, if the question is 'why did you not have enough security?', the answer 'you cut my friggin security budget and would not allow me to reallocate to assure my staff was secure' seems like something more than a BS response
 
let's see, if the question is 'why did you not have enough security?', the answer 'you cut my friggin security budget and would not allow me to reallocate to assure my staff was secure' seems like something more than a BS response

Such was never the case and it was a deflection by Democrats and specifically by Patrick Kennedy and Elijah Cummings.. During an election year. Moreover they already validated that Congress did increase the funding.

Once Ansar al Sharia blew a Hole in the gate with the first known attack.....State had the funds to put on an entire new gate back on. They didn't. Fault theirs.....just like not knowing what Obvious warning signs were and not taking any appropriate measures. Despite their very own people asking for appropriate measures to be taken.
 
Such was never the case and it was a deflection by Democrats and specifically by Patrick Kennedy and Elijah Cummings.. During an election year. Moreover they already validated that Congress did increase the funding.

Once Ansar al Sharia blew a Hole in the gate with the first known attack.....State had the funds to put on an entire new gate back on. They didn't. Fault theirs.....just like not knowing what Obvious warning signs were and not taking any appropriate measures. Despite their very own people asking for appropriate measures to be taken.

see the video us conservative provided; watch the 5 minutes from 34:30 to 39:30 and hear for yourself that the congress slashed the state department's security budget
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQjnPeFRTLE

but continue to monday morning quarterback and ignore reality
 
see the video us conservative provided; watch the 5 minutes from 34:30 to 39:30 and hear for yourself that the congress slashed the state department's security budget
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQjnPeFRTLE

but continue to monday morning quarterback and ignore reality


Go back a page or two and check out that Politi-Fact link. Then go check fact check. org. Then CNN.....after that, you will have caught up with rest of us and reality.
 
Back
Top Bottom