• 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!

Threats Against Benghazi Whistleblowers Alleged [W:345/361]

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
27,581
Reaction score
4,664
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
THREATS AGAINST BENGHAZI WHISTLEBLOWERS ALLEGED « Gretawire

By James Rosen

At least four career officials at the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency have retained lawyers, or are in the process of doing so, as they prepare to provide sensitive information about the Benghazi attacks to Congress, Fox News has learned.

Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official and Republican counsel to the Senate intelligence committee, is now representing one of the State Department employees. She told Fox News her client and some of the others, who consider themselves whistleblowers, have been threatened by unnamed Obama administration officials.

Ive been giving the Executive branch the benefit of the doubt on Benghazi, but the evidence is mounting, and Im not sure where this is going to end up. Here we have the latest event in which intelligence officials with intimate knowledge of the attack have apparently never talked to congress. We know documents were withheld under executive privilege. We know there are survivors of the attack who have been hidden away. And when questioned by the media, the White House claims it just politics, instead of being cooperative. At a certain point you have to start asking who exactly the President works for. Is it us?

This latest change is developing in just the last couple hours. Except it to be a hot topic in the next week.
 
the Benghazi truther stuff is more conspiracy theory than breaking news.
 
What have you been up to since you left the Nixon White House?

the Benghazi conspiracy nonsense was invented by fox as a tool to help Romney. though it didn't work with the general public because fox has no credibility, it sold pretty well to Fox's viewers, so apparently they're still running with it. both sides expose tragedy for political gain, and it's slimy.
 
the Benghazi truther stuff is more conspiracy theory than breaking news.

Yeah yeah, everyone asking questions can be dismissed because they're now labeled "conspiracy theorist." :roll:

What an annoying trend from people who claim to come here for debate.
 
Yeah yeah, everyone asking questions can be dismissed because they're now labeled "conspiracy theorist." :roll:

What an annoying trend from people who claim to come here for debate.

nope, asking questions doesn't make one a conspiracy theorist. the fox confirmation bias network has done a lot more than that, though, and now it's moved into conspiracy territory.
 
the Benghazi conspiracy nonsense was invented by fox as a tool to help Romney. though it didn't work with the general public because fox has no credibility, it sold pretty well to Fox's viewers, so apparently they're still running with it. both sides expose tragedy for political gain, and it's slimy.

You mean two marines weren't left out to dry? You mean that Clinton did increase security when it was made clear to her that those on ground thought security was insufficient? Those Marine's didn't die?? Wow. Coulda' fooled me.

PS: Fox News has credibility. The fact that some people aren't smart enough to tell the difference between news and entertainment is their shortcoming, not the station's.
 
You mean two marines weren't left out to dry? You mean that Clinton did increase security when it was made clear to her that those on ground thought security was insufficient? Those Marine's didn't die?? Wow. Coulda' fooled me.

PS: Fox News has credibility. The fact that some people aren't smart enough to tell the difference between news and entertainment is their shortcoming, not the station's.

we should probably put it in context.

Terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there have been a lot of embassy attacks. i don't recall another one fueling a conspiracy theory, but i could be wrong. i'd like to know why the others haven't been given similar scrutiny.


edit to add : fox and msnbc have zero journalistic credibility. they surrendered their integrity as part of their business models.
 
nope, asking questions doesn't make one a conspiracy theorist. the fox confirmation bias network has done a lot more than that, though, and now it's moved into conspiracy territory.

And every other network confirming that the decision went as high as Hillary Clinton, that she put pen to paper in contradiction to her testimony of ignorance? What territory are they in?

You dismissive people abuse the word conspiracy theorist so much its losing meaning, it should be reserved for the Alex Jones' of the world.

Edit: Nevermind, I already know what you're going to say given "fox and msnbc have zero journalistic credibility."
 
It sorta makes sense that the current administration might go after any 'whistleblowers'. They have somewhat become famous for going after such people, more so than just about every other administration. Must have something to do with transparency. ;)
 
we should probably put it in context.

Terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there have been a lot of embassy attacks. i don't recall another one fueling a conspiracy theory, but i could be wrong. i'd like to know why the others haven't been given similar scrutiny.


edit to add : fox and msnbc have zero journalistic credibility. they surrendered their integrity as part of their business models.

Here's the Fox News story:

At least four career officials at the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency have retained lawyers or are in the process of doing so, as they prepare to provide sensitive information about the Benghazi attacks to Congress, Fox News has learned.

Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official and Republican counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, is now representing one of the State Department employees. She told Fox News her client and some of the others, who consider themselves whistle-blowers, have been threatened by unnamed Obama administration officials.

“I'm not talking generally, I'm talking specifically about Benghazi – that people have been threatened,” Toensing said in an interview Monday. “And not just the State Department. People have been threatened at the CIA.”
Toensing declined to name her client. She also refused to say whether the individual was on the ground in Benghazi on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, when terrorist attacks on two U.S. installations in the Libyan city killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.

However, Toensing disclosed that her client has pertinent information on all three time periods investigators consider relevant to the attacks: the months that led up to the attack, when pleas by the ambassador and his staff for enhanced security in Benghazi were mostly rejected by senior officers at the State Department; the eight-hour time frame in which the attacks unfolded, and the eight-day period that followed the attacks, when Obama administration officials incorrectly described them as the result of a spontaneous protest over a video.
“It's frightening, and they're doing some very despicable threats to people,” she said. “Not ‘we're going to kill you,’ or not ‘we're going to prosecute you tomorrow,’ but they're taking career people and making them well aware that their careers will be over [if they cooperate with congressional investigators].”

Federal law provides explicit protections for federal government employees who are identified as “whistle-blowers.” The laws aim to ensure these individuals will not face repercussions from their superiors, or from other quarters, in retaliation for their provision of information about corruption or other forms of wrongdoing to Congress, or to an agency’s inspector-general.

Rep. Darrell Issa, the Republican from California who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday to complain that the department has not provided a process by which attorneys like Toensing can receive the security clearances necessary for them to review classified documents and other key evidence.

“It is unavoidable that Department employees identifying themselves as witnesses in the Committee’s investigation will apply for a security clearance to allow their personal attorneys to handle sensitive or classified material,” Issa wrote. “The Department’s unwillingness to make the process for clearing an attorney more transparent appears to be an effort to interfere with the rights of employees to furnish information to Congress.”
The Obama administration maintains that it has been more than forthcoming on Benghazi and that it is time for the State Department to move on. At a recent hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Kerry noted that administration officials have testified at eight hearings on Benghazi, provided 20 briefings on the subject and turned over to Congress some 25,000 documents related to the killings.

“So if you have additional questions or you think there's some document that somehow you need, I'll work with you to try to get it and see if we can provide that to you,” Kerry told committee Chairman Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., on April 17. But Kerry added: “I do not want to spend the next year coming up here talking about Benghazi.”
Asked about Issa’s complaints about attorneys not receiving security clearances, State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell on Monday indicated that – far from threatening anyone – the administration hasn’t been presented with any such cases. “I'm not aware of private counsel seeking security clearances or -- or anything to that regard,” Ventrell told reporters. “I'm not aware of whistle-blowers one way or another.”

Ventrell cited the work of the FBI – whose probe of the attacks continues almost eight months later and without any known instances of perpetrators being brought to justice – and the Accountability Review Board. The board was an internal State Department review panel led by former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Thomas Pickering and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen. An unclassified version of the board’s final report that was released to the public contained no conclusions that suggested administration officials had willfully endangered their colleagues in Benghazi or had misled the public or Congress.

“And that should be enough,” Ventrell said at Monday’s press briefing. “Congress has its own prerogatives, but we've had a very thorough, independent investigation, which we completed and [which was] transparent and shared. And there are many folks who are, in a political manner, trying to sort of use this for their own political means, or ends.”

Read more: Obama administration officials threatened whistle-blowers on Benghazi, lawyer says | Fox News

What in this story is not credible? I'll wait.
 
It sorta makes sense that the current administration might go after any 'whistleblowers'. They have somewhat become famous for going after such people, more so than just about every other administration. Must have something to do with transparency. ;)



But what exactly are they blowing the whistle on ?.............
 
Here's the Fox News story:



What in this story is not credible? I'll wait.

because fox has chosen to be a confirmation bias-delivering entertainment network, not a legitimate news source. they cherry pick stories and data to support a preexisting conclusion rather than to choose news coverage in any unbiased way. some at fox have decided that this tragedy could be used as a weapon against Obama, and it's as disgusting as the other side using dead kids to push legislation.

i don't watch fox, so you'll have to let me know if they covered earlier embassy attacks with similar vigilance. don't waste too much of your evening researching it, though, because i already can guess the answer with 95+ percent certainty.
 
because fox has chosen to be a confirmation bias-delivering entertainment network, not a legitimate news source. they cherry pick stories and data to support a preexisting conclusion rather than to choose news coverage in any unbiased way. some at fox have decided that this tragedy could be used as a weapon against Obama, and it's as disgusting as the other side using dead kids to push legislation.

i don't watch fox, so you'll have to let me know if they covered earlier embassy attacks with similar vigilance. don't waste too much of your evening researching it, though, because i already can guess the answer with 95+ percent certainty.

How about actually answering my post? What in that article is not credible?? You made the statement that Fox is not a credible news source. If you don't watch Fox News, why do you assume their news isn't credible? Or. Are you one of those poor souls who can't tell the difference between their news broadcasts and their infotainment segments?
 
Ive been giving the Executive branch the benefit of the doubt on Benghazi,
to your credit, this appears to be true. one needs only read the winger posts in that dud, Benghazi Bombshell Drops On Obama, Hillary thread to know most have not been so circumspect

... but the evidence is mounting, and Im not sure where this is going to end up.
let's see if that admitted lack of information prevents you from offering any speculation

Here we have the latest event in which intelligence officials with intimate knowledge of the attack have apparently never talked to congress.
how do WE know this?

We know documents were withheld under executive privilege.
WE do not know this. but show us where Executive Privilege was improperly used to conceal what should be made public

We know there are survivors of the attack who have been hidden away.
no WE do not
show us who has been hidden away and how that was able to happen without kidnapping charges being filed

And when questioned by the media, the White House claims it just politics, instead of being cooperative.
it IS politics. but prove that i am wrong and identify the questions asked which the white house has refused to answer

At a certain point you have to start asking who exactly the President works for. Is it us?
most of US know the answer. he IS working for us. while the congress is working for the highest bidder

This latest change is developing in just the last couple hours. Except it to be a hot topic in the next week.
good. then you should have no problem finding the answers to the questions i have challenged you to answer. would be disappointed to see you run from such a challenge
 
How about actually answering my post? What in that article is not credible?? You made the statement that Fox is not a credible news source. If you don't watch Fox News, why do you assume their news isn't credible? Or. Are you one of those poor souls who can't tell the difference between their news broadcasts and their infotainment segments?

i don't waste my time. i watched enough fox to know that the network is only worthy of scorn from those of us who consider journalism to be even slightly noble. i dropped fox in 2005, and msnbc about a year later. it has made my life much better.

when i leaned republican, fox chose stories that reinforced my views, and i imagined that they were striking some blow against the "liberal media." i know when i'm being sold a bill of goods, though, and eventually, i could stand it no longer. this conspiracy nonsense stinks of conspiracy nonsense. no matter how much fox wants this to be watergate, it just isn't.
 
How about actually answering my post? What in that article is not credible?? You made the statement that Fox is not a credible news source. If you don't watch Fox News, why do you assume their news isn't credible? Or. Are you one of those poor souls who can't tell the difference between their news broadcasts and their infotainment segments?

Doe4s fox have the opportunity to be right? yes. Has fox blatantly and knowingly lied so bad that comedy networks have had to point it out to them? Yes. Sorry, but I don't need to be bothered confirming every piece of information from supposed news because I know that cable news organizations are less reliable than partisan blogs. The fact that once or twice fox accidentally posted a fact does not make them a reliable news source. Oh, and if you actually want to show fox is reliable you will need to show consistency which certainly is not shown by one article of theirs. So feel free to show us every article in the past 10 years.....I'll wait.
 
i don't waste my time. i watched enough fox to know that the network is only worthy of scorn from those of us who consider journalism to be even slightly noble. i dropped fox in 2005, and msnbc about a year later. it has made my life much better.

when i leaned republican, fox chose stories that reinforced my views, and i imagined that they were striking some blow against the "liberal media." i know when i'm being sold a bill of goods, though, and eventually, i could stand it no longer. this conspiracy nonsense stinks of conspiracy nonsense. no matter how much fox wants this to be watergate, it just isn't.

Doe4s fox have the opportunity to be right? yes. Has fox blatantly and knowingly lied so bad that comedy networks have had to point it out to them? Yes. Sorry, but I don't need to be bothered confirming every piece of information from supposed news because I know that cable news organizations are less reliable than partisan blogs. The fact that once or twice fox accidentally posted a fact does not make them a reliable news source. Oh, and if you actually want to show fox is reliable you will need to show consistency which certainly is not shown by one article of theirs. So feel free to show us every article in the past 10 years.....I'll wait.

This thread is about one news article. Those who call it conspiracy nonsense reinforced by that Big Bad Wolf Fox should step up and tell us what is not credible in that article. People who make those broad statements and accusations should either point out the in-credible parts of this story or stop maligning them in this instance.

I have my answer. I've asked Helix twice and he's delined. You Tererun would turn the table on me. I didn't make the wrong assumption.
 
we should probably put it in context.

Terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there have been a lot of embassy attacks. i don't recall another one fueling a conspiracy theory, but i could be wrong. i'd like to know why the others haven't been given similar scrutiny.


edit to add : fox and msnbc have zero journalistic credibility. they surrendered their integrity as part of their business models.


What other Embassy attacks took place recently wherein we drove the leader of that Country out of Power? So what do you have to say about those Foreign News Agencies. Are they Biased too. Considering they aren't part of our politics. But they are biased too.....Right?
 
What other Embassy attacks took place recently wherein we drove the leader of that Country out of Power? So what do you have to say about those Foreign News Agencies. Are they Biased too. Considering they aren't part of our politics. But they are biased too.....Right?
What difference does it make at this point in time. Huh? Already tried that one?
Well then ...
That's not her signature ... it's an autopen and it doesn't mean she read it. She's furious someone put that signature on a denial for support.
Yeah ... that'll have to do for now.
 
At a certain point you have to start asking who exactly the President works for. Is it us?

OK, I know you have probably had some romantic version of government blown up your ass so you think that because you pay taxes every member of the government is your personal bitch, but you are very wrong. Save that little tidbit up and use it on the next cop that pulls you over. They do love their pompous arrogant employers so. The tiny bit of control we have over the federal and state governments pretty much end where our vote ends. We don't even get to vote on every one of their actions, or even get to review them once a year like an employer would. We don't get to see a lot of things they do because national security would be compromised, and most of us don't get to see many of the things we are allowed to see because we have other things to do. So you are not an employer, they do not work for you, and you are welcome for the introduction to reality.
This latest change is developing in just the last couple hours. Except it to be a hot topic in the next week.

You don't even know what they are saying yet. Seriously if it is more of the same old crap that there was not enough security and that it was a mistake then we already know all of that and it was admitted to. Really, you think news is going to come out about hidden survivors, or something actually damning about Obama? Oh noes, they gots thems lawyers before going in front of a congressional review, there must be some serious **** going on because no smrt person would ever gets thems a lawyer before going to answer questions under oath. Really, your evidence the **** is going to hit the fan is a bunch of people getting counsel before testifying before congress? Especially with how badly the reps in congress have attempted to lie and blow this whole thing way out of proportion? I have never had anything top do with benghazi but if they called me into congress to testify on it I would have about 50 lawyers and I would be to be trying to communicate across the void with johnny cochrane.

But maybe you republican truthers will be right this time with your crazy. Maybe this time you will discover the proof you need to let mittens win the election. I am quite sure america is totally going to forgive congress for another huge waste of time on this issue because everything is now fixed like the economy and the wars we are in, and there are no real issues to discuss. No feel free to go wandering down that road again, I am sure it will work this time and not make reps seem like petty little fools who are overly focussed on pointless and irrelevant issues because a black man become president.
 
This thread is about one news article. Those who call it conspiracy nonsense reinforced by that Big Bad Wolf Fox should step up and tell us what is not credible in that article. People who make those broad statements and accusations should either point out the in-credible parts of this story or stop maligning them in this instance.

I have my answer. I've asked Helix twice and he's delined. You Tererun would turn the table on me. I didn't make the wrong assumption.

i'll consider the fox story if you can show me a similar level of fox coverage of any embassy attack which occurred under the previous administration. there were twelve attacks during the Bush years.
 
This thread is about one news article. Those who call it conspiracy nonsense reinforced by that Big Bad Wolf Fox should step up and tell us what is not credible in that article. People who make those broad statements and accusations should either point out the in-credible parts of this story or stop maligning them in this instance.

I have my answer. I've asked Helix twice and he's delined. You Tererun would turn the table on me. I didn't make the wrong assumption.

Fox news is home of soft core conspiracy crap. They have a terrible reputation. It does not mean they cannot publish a fact at tiomes, but that one should certainly not watch them to hear facts. You can keep saying that this article is fine, but it never addressed fox's reputation at all. If that were the way things worked then Obama would be a good presidnet the moment he mad a decision you thought was good. Does that sound silly to you, because it does to me. No, fox is a terrible and inaccurate news station that has been caught in a number of blatant lies. Oh, and you have reframed the argument from fox being unreliable to whether or not the article is unreliable. Terrible tactic which changes the argument into something you think you can defend because you know you cannot defend the reputation of faux news.
 
i'll consider the fox story if you can show me a similar level of fox coverage of any embassy attack which occurred under the previous administration. there were twelve attacks during the Bush years.

Good, get back to the original point and don't let maggie reframe the argument to something different because she cannot answer the original point.
 
the Benghazi truther stuff is more conspiracy theory than breaking news.

Well, lets see what Fact Check. org has on this so called Benghazi Truther Stuff.....just so there can be no Claims or denials of what those from the Left have said all Along from the get go. Obama, Clinton, and of the other Incompetent Fools from their Administration. Did you think there was away to get around being totally and utterly incompentent? A wrist slapper.....is that what some thought this was?

Benghazi Timeline
The long road from "spontaneous protest" to premeditated terrorist attack.....let me know when ya find can come Up with a Fox link with those referenced here.

What follows is a timeline of events that we hope will help put the incident into perspective. We call attention in particular to these key facts:
◾There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
◾Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
◾Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
◾Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24.

FactCheck.org : Benghazi Timeline
 
Back
Top Bottom