• 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!

State Department emails conflict with Clinton’s Benghazi testimony

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,050
Reaction score
33,368
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
State Department emails conflict with Clinton’s Benghazi testimony | Fox News

Newly released emails conflict with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 11-hour testimony before the Benghazi Select Committee, according to a review of the transcripts and public records.

One of the conflicts involves the role played by Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal.

Regarding the dozens of emails from him, which in many cases were forwarded to her State Department team, Clinton testified: "He's a friend of mine. He sent me information he thought might be of interest. Some of it was, some of it wasn't, some of it I forwarded to be followed up on. He had no official position in the government. And he was not at all my adviser on Libya."

But a newly released email from February 2011 shows Blumenthal advocated for a no-fly zone over Libya, writing, "U.S. might consider advancing tomorrow. Libyan helicopters and planes are raining terror on cities." The email was forwarded by Clinton to her deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan with the question, "What do you think of this idea?"
It would probably be easier to remember how many times she's told the truth.
 
As much as I dislike Hillary, the example by that source does not prove real "conflict" with her Benghazi testimony.

She clearly said "He sent me information he thought might be of interest. Some of it was, some of it wasn't, some of it I forwarded to be followed up on." In this case that the OP source article went with an email wanting a no-fly zone that Sidney Blumenthal may have sourced, but was also a desire at the time of Tony Blair, confirms that some of his emails did end up being "followed up on." That does not mean he necessarily was a confidant or the true source of policy. Just that his suggestion in this case did become policy, even if for other reasons than what both Blumenthal or Blair may have been thinking. Even the second email mentioned does not advance the theory all that much further. Even the last policy related question on security matters and whatever Stephens may or may not have brought up just makes the matter more muddy on who knew what and when. It does not show that Hillary outright lied as much as it makes it worse that she may not be executive enough in handling requests throughout her role as Secretary of State. Worth looking into, yes. Does it mean she lied, not really so sure.

The only thing we may have as a matter to discuss is the handling of more sensitive information, or even classified information, with parties that may not have been really authorized to have it and then discuss the matter. Her personal email server use notwithstanding in this argument, the real matter from my chair is all of us overlooking what she handled and how she handled it in accordance with government policy. We already know she misrepresented the use of the server in the first place, the extent of its use, and what information ended up in those emails. But no one is really going after her for that.

Republicans are throwing sincerity to the wind in hopes something related to Benghazi sticks purely for political reasons. The OP article is a good example of the problems over at FoxNews.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the GOP should hold another Congressional Hearing on the matter :)

FFS, don't say that!

You do realize we have had more Congressional Hearings on Benghazi than 9/11 attacks, the 1998 Embassy Bombings in Tanzania and Nairobi, the Oklahoma City Bombings, the USS Cole Attack, or the Boston Marathon Bombing and subsequent manhunt. We have more Congressional Committees looking at Benghazi than committees assigned to the 9/11 attacks, USS Cole Attack, and the Boston Marathon Bombing... COMBINED!

If this is not a witch hunt, there never has been a witch hunt in all of history.
 
While I certianly think Hillary is a liar, I think this particular example is a stretch.
 
FFS, don't say that!

You do realize we have had more Congressional Hearings on Benghazi than 9/11 attacks, the 1998 Embassy Bombings in Tanzania and Nairobi, the Oklahoma City Bombings, the USS Cole Attack, or the Boston Marathon Bombing and subsequent manhunt. We have more Congressional Committees looking at Benghazi than committees assigned to the 9/11 attacks, USS Cole Attack, and the Boston Marathon Bombing... COMBINED!

If this is not a witch hunt, there never has been a witch hunt in all of history.
The way I see it, another hearing can only help her chances. And, we definitely need the Republicans to remind the American people exactly why they do not deserve to be elected next year. :)
 
The way the right is going on and on about Clinton, it's obvious that they're scared she's going to win the election
 
The way the right is going on and on about Clinton, it's obvious that they're scared she's going to win the election

At this point I think the best hope the GOP has is if Sanders figures a way to get the Dem nod, but assuming Hillary does get the nomination the general election is her race to lose.
 
Another Congressional hearing! Why not, as the GOP has nothing better to do. 13% Congressional approval rating for a reason.
 
Another Congressional hearing! Why not, as the GOP has nothing better to do. 13% Congressional approval rating for a reason.

Paul Ryan is promising another congressional investigation into Planned Parenthood

Paul Ryan doubtful about defunding Planned Parenthood - CNNPolitics.com
"We're just beginning to start a committee to investigate Planned Parenthood. That's important. So the special committee on Planned Parenthood, I think, should be in the driver's seat overseeing this process."
 
Another Congressional hearing! Why not, as the GOP has nothing better to do. 13% Congressional approval rating for a reason.

Fantastic, they are trending downward yet again. This 114th Congress managed to get themselves up to 17% just a few months ago.
 
Paul Ryan is promising another congressional investigation into Planned Parenthood

Paul Ryan doubtful about defunding Planned Parenthood - CNNPolitics.com

Holy ****. This is just absurd.

Paul Ryan is trying to play the political game by appealing to his base because I sincerely doubt that Ryan cares about Planned Parenthood. But if he can make a special committee...and they make the recommendation to not pursue defunding, then he can shift the blame.

Although that plans did not work very well for Boehner and Benghazi.
 
Shrillary lied? I'm shocked!
 
Back
Top Bottom