• 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!

Final Benghazi report from Congress to be ready before summer

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
WASHINGTON — Nearly two years after it was created, the House Benghazi Committee is plowing ahead, interviewing witnesses, reviewing documents and promising a final report "before summer" that is certain to have repercussions for Democrat Hillary Clinton's bid for the presidency.
The panel's Republican chairman, Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, said in an email to The Associated Press that the committee has made "considerable progress" investigating the deadly 2012 attacks that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.

Gowdy declined to elaborate specifically on what progress has been made beyond listing new witnesses and documents.


Read more @: Final Benghazi report from Congress to be ready before summer

Im gonna suspect that this report is gonna find what the past 7 investigations have found... No conspiracy, no wrongdoing. Will this report finally put it to rest? Doubtful, the GOP will still repeat the same old talking point no matter what.
 
Read more @: Final Benghazi report from Congress to be ready before summer

Im gonna suspect that this report is gonna find what the past 7 investigations have found... No conspiracy, no wrongdoing. Will this report finally put it to rest? Doubtful, the GOP will still repeat the same old talking point no matter what. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Since when are silly little things like evidence and facts important to the right wing - all that matters is that Hillary's involved, and if she's involved, then she must be guilty of SOMEthing!

Besides, you think they're nuts now, wait till they face what's going to happen if Trump's their nominee against Hillary....
 
"Final Benghazi Report"... will be useless, completely and with out a doubt useless.

Several more $millions and committee time wasted.
 
Hard to do a investigation when you don't have access to thousands of subpoenaed Emails

They were deleted.

Very little is ever deleted permanently. Someone who knows what they're doing can retrieve it in most cases. So either Clinton's folks are geniuses, the investigators are idiots, or there's nothing to see.

I'm all likelihood, the investigations will continue until the Democrats run Congress again. Which tells you how broken the political system is.
 
I suspect until we get a new president that appoints an Attorney General actually willing to do the job of justice instead of do the bidding of the Party, most of you are probably right...nothing to see here, at least nothing we will get to see.
 
Hard to do a investigation when you don't have access to thousands of subpoenaed Emails They were deleted.

This is truther-style irrationality.

No, you do not get to treat the lack of evidence as if it were evidence.
 
I suspect until we get a new president that appoints an Attorney General actually willing to do the job of justice instead of do the bidding of the Party, most of you are probably right...nothing to see here, at least nothing we will get to see.


If the Bush admin investigated but did not prosecute a Republican with ties to the admin and then Obama ordered the person to be prosecuted upon taking office, would you read that the same way?

Or would it, in that case, be a politically motivated prosecution designed to tarnish a perceived enemy?
 
If the Bush admin investigated but did not prosecute a Republican with ties to the admin and then Obama ordered the person to be prosecuted upon taking office, would you read that the same way?

Or would it, in that case, be a politically motivated prosecution designed to tarnish a perceived enemy?
Guess what, I don't want criminals, whoever's team they are on, to represent me. Nixon stepped down, but should well have been prosecuted to send a message to all that we do not have divine right rule, everyone is subject to the laws. Hillary worked on, and was fired from, the investigation into Watergate. So she has been on that side of the desk, knows if you violate you can be prosecuted. And several prominent Republicans did the right thing on the House Judiciary Committee voting to send the impeachment recommendations article to the House. Barry Goldwater basically told him he needed to step down.

Would love to see a few Democrats put country before Party and do the right thing as well. You cannot think she is not, if not guilty, worthy of scrutiny and a trial in these matters. Or are you too partisan for that?
 
If the Bush admin investigated but did not prosecute a Republican with ties to the admin and then Obama ordered the person to be prosecuted upon taking office, would you read that the same way?

Or would it, in that case, be a politically motivated prosecution designed to tarnish a perceived enemy?



Guess what, I don't want criminals, whoever's team they are on, to represent me. Nixon stepped down, but should well have been prosecuted to send a message to all that we do not have divine right rule, everyone is subject to the laws. Hillary worked on, and was fired from, the investigation into Watergate. So she has been on that side of the desk, knows if you violate you can be prosecuted. And several prominent Republicans did the right thing on the House Judiciary Committee voting to send the impeachment recommendations article to the House. Barry Goldwater basically told him he needed to step down.

Would love to see a few Democrats put country before Party and do the right thing as well. You cannot think she is not, if not guilty, worthy of scrutiny and a trial in these matters. Or are you too partisan for that?


I'm "too partisan" if I do not think Clinton should be put on trial? Or am I "too partisan" because I pointed out that if the tables were reversed, you and the other folk who somehow just know Clinton is guilty would almost certainly be screaming bloody murder?



At any rate, the FBI is investigating. The decision to prosecute is made by the AG's office. I'm not so partisan as to assume that the reason Hillary Clinton hasn't been indicted must be that there is a Democrat conspiracy to protect her, and that if a Republican orders a prosecution of her immediately upon taking office that this will be "justice" rather than a politically motivated attack.

Don't forget: a number of Republicans admitted point-blank that the Benghazi investigations were created simply to tarnish Hillary.




I wonder what supporters of these admitted political attack investigations would be saying if they hadn't accidentally stumbled on the email server business....
 
Last edited:
I'm "too partisan" if I do not think Clinton should be put on trial? Or am I "too partisan" because I pointed out that if the tables were reversed, you and the other folk who somehow just know Clinton is guilty would almost certainly be screaming bloody murder?

At any rate, the FBI is investigating. The decision to prosecute is made by the AG's office. I'm not so partisan as to assume that the reason Hillary Clinton hasn't been indicted must be that there is a Democrat conspiracy to protect her, and that if a Republican orders a prosecution of her immediately upon taking office that this will be "justice" rather than a politically motivated attack.

Don't forget: a number of Republicans admitted point-blank that the Benghazi investigations were created simply to tarnish Hillary.

I wonder what supporters of these admitted political attack investigations would be saying if they hadn't accidentally stumbled on the email server business....
And Watergate was a simple burglary until it led back to the White House. Accidentally? Who cares? And you think nobody on the other side might just have been out to get Nixon? That is political naivete.

Was the law broken or not? Its not like she was not informed of her obligations in these regards just as she assumed office. The FBI tutored her, she is a lawyer, she worked on an investigation of political malfeasance previously, she immediately set up this server, outside the parameters of the law, knowingly. She signed the Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement' on her second day at the State Department which detailed the criminal laws under which she could be prosecuted.

Hell, the tables were reversed. They went after and imprisoned Scooter Libby, who basically did nothing wrong, in the over hyped Valerie Plame debacle. She was no CIA agent outed any more than her husband outed her... but they had the investigation, the trial, they put Libby in jail and he had to pay a fine. And he, apparently, was not the actual source of the alleged outing of this insipid CIA employee, Plame.


Your excuses now?
 
Irrelevant Nixon references ignored....



Accidentally? Who cares?

People who are disgusted with the way national politics has been going for the last seven years should care.

People who don't think that a political witch hunt is justified if the witch hunt happens to discover a goblin instead.

You have no business calling me "partisan" if you think an investigation admitted by Republicans to have been carried out solely to smear a Democrat is retroactively justified if it happens to stumble on something that the Republicans then choose to use to smear that Democrat, but which had nothing to do with the stated (or intended) purposes of the investigation.....

...which was designed to suggest that somehow Clinton was to blame for Stevens' et. al. death. Recall the lie about the "stand down" order and similar politically motivated lies.




Was the law broken or not? Its not like she was not informed of her obligations in these regards just as she assumed office. The FBI tutored her, she is a lawyer, she worked on an investigation of political malfeasance previously, she immediately set up this server, outside the parameters of the law, knowingly.

At the time the server was set up, it was not against the law.

You are wrong.

It was, however, against her promises of "transparency".

I'm also fairly certain that the FBI is investigating whether classified information was contained in the emails, and not the setting up of the server in the first place.






Hell, the tables were reversed. They went after and imprisoned Scooter Libby, who basically did nothing wrong, in the over hyped Valerie Plame debacle. She was no CIA agent outed any more than her husband outed her... but they had the investigation, the trial, they put Libby in jail and he had to pay a fine. And he, apparently, was not the actual source of the alleged outing of this insipid CIA employee, Plame.

I'm pretty sure that Libby is a dishonest counter-example.

I'm pretty sure that everything that happened to Libby happened under the Bush admin. Therefore, it could not have been an example of an R not being prosecuted by an R admin, but being prosecuted on order of a newly elected D admin.
 
"Final Benghazi Report"... will be useless, completely and with out a doubt useless.

Several more $millions and committee time wasted.

What? They aren't even going to find a blow job after all this wasted time, money and effort?
 
This is truther-style irrationality.

No, you do not get to treat the lack of evidence as if it were evidence.

Evidence of destroying evidence IS evidence...
 
Evidence of destroying evidence IS evidence...

But do we know that what was destroyed is evidence? It's dangerous to assume an email was evidence merely because the email was deleted...

Hence the truther remark; many argued that the fact that the rubble was cleared away as quickly as possible was evidence of a conspiracy, based on speculations that the rubble would contain evidence of "nano-termite" or any of the other loony theories.



(I'm also somewhat critical of the notion that all copies of the emails were destroyed on all ends. Shouldn't the other parties to the exchange have copies if they were keeping all emails? What of any servers the emails had to pass through? etc).




Anyway, I'll wait for the FBI/AG, because it is rather highly unlikely that they have proof that Clinton committed a crime but are refusing to charge her. That would be a tremendous political gamble for the Obama admin and the admin would have to be biased through the roof for him to risk completely destroying his legacy just to try to increase her chances of election.

If this hadn't been accidentally stumbled upon in the course of an admitted political witch hunt, I might be more receptive. For the moment, I suspect the accusers more than the defenders on this one.
 
Last edited:
But do we know that what was destroyed is evidence? It's dangerous to assume an email was evidence merely because the email was deleted...

I was just making a point. You might have been fully aware of it too... I just wanted to make it anyway.
 
Very little is ever deleted permanently. Someone who knows what they're doing can retrieve it in most cases. So either Clinton's folks are geniuses, the investigators are idiots, or there's nothing to see.

I'm all likelihood, the investigations will continue until the Democrats run Congress again. Which tells you how broken the political system is.

Ah, that explains why the WH is refusing to release some of her Emails.

Because they're way too " top secret ".
 
What? They aren't even going to find a blow job after all this wasted time, money and effort?

They found a server set up for the explicit purpose of circumventing FOIA and Congressional Oversight Committee subpoena.

There's even relevant and current criminal FBI investigation.

Where have you been ?
 
They found a server set up for the explicit purpose of circumventing FOIA and Congressional Oversight Committee subpoena.

There's even relevant and current criminal FBI investigation.

Where have you been ?

riiiiiiiiiiiight. Cue the twilight zone music and bring in the conspiracy theorists.
 
Very little is ever deleted permanently. Someone who knows what they're doing can retrieve it in most cases. So either Clinton's folks are geniuses, the investigators are idiots, or there's nothing to see.

I'm all likelihood, the investigations will continue until the Democrats run Congress again. Which tells you how broken the political system is.

Maybe Hillary's own immunized bathroom server IT specialist can shed some light on that now.
 
I would not be surprised if the timing of this release will be after the FBI releases their recommendations.
 
Maybe Hillary's own immunized bathroom server IT specialist can shed some light on that now.

Bathroom Server IT Specialist would look good on a resume, maybe. It's probably possible to schmooze "immunized" into a vaccination certification just to ease any concerns of a prospective employer. Paglia (?) will probably be okay. Huma, Mills and Kennedy should probably have their wills updated.
 
Irrelevant Nixon references ignored....

People who are disgusted with the way national politics has been going for the last seven years should care.

People who don't think that a political witch hunt is justified if the witch hunt happens to discover a goblin instead.

You have no business calling me "partisan" if you think an investigation admitted by Republicans to have been carried out solely to smear a Democrat is retroactively justified if it happens to stumble on something that the Republicans then choose to use to smear that Democrat, but which had nothing to do with the stated (or intended) purposes of the investigation.....

...which was designed to suggest that somehow Clinton was to blame for Stevens' et. al. death. Recall the lie about the "stand down" order and similar politically motivated lies.


At the time the server was set up, it was not against the law.

You are wrong.

It was, however, against her promises of "transparency".

I'm also fairly certain that the FBI is investigating whether classified information was contained in the emails, and not the setting up of the server in the first place.

I'm pretty sure that Libby is a dishonest counter-example.

I'm pretty sure that everything that happened to Libby happened under the Bush admin. Therefore, it could not have been an example of an R not being prosecuted by an R admin, but being prosecuted on order of a newly elected D admin.
Irrelevant? How can one be so daft?
Pure and simple hogwash, an investigation begins then it leads where it leads. An investigator cannot know until he discovers. Investigators don't have all the answers before they start. Its similar to researching a topic for debate, you learn new things, it opens up new avenues to explore, strengths to be promoted, weaknesses to be fortified. Until you start looking you do not know where the path will ultimately lead.

Watergate was initially only an investigation of a burglary. If they then found that the criminals had links to the White House, investigators should've just ignored that, huh? If it were say, Bush? Right. If criminality is found, it should be prosecuted. Not to believe so is to encourage a class that believes itself above the law. Intellectual integrity, please.

Hmmm, why only the last 7 years, weren't disgusted the way they treated GW? Or did he deserve it? Rank hypocrisy.

I have heard nothing from Chairman Gowdy to that effect regarding the sole aim of the Committee. Link showing where he said this? There has been no discrediting of the stand down order. Valid links, please?

The FBI is investigating both.

As regards her breaching the Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement', most certainly she knew exactly what she was doing.

What if:

It is the law of the land that people in the government to whom state secrets are entrusted are required to recognize the secrets when they see them/protect them from intentional or inadvertent revelation?

It is the law of the land that everyone in the government to whom state secrets are entrusted receives a multi-hour tutorial from the FBI on how to protect state secrets?

The successful completion of that tutorial is a legal prerequisite to the receipt of a national security clearance and thus the receipt of state secrets?

That tutorial reminds the people to whom secrets are being reposed that it is their legal obligation to recognize and accept and understand the law before they can receive any state secrets?

In order to confirm that understanding, all people who receive the tutorial are required to sign an oath at the end of the tutorial recognizing, accepting and understanding the law and agreeing to be bound by it?

Clinton signed just such an oath?

Clinton had no intention of complying with the oath she signed at the time she signed it?

We know that because we know she hired the information technologist to divert her emails the same week she received the FBI tutorial?

She never told the FBI that she planned to divert all her emails -- including those that would contain state secrets -- to a private non-secure email server in her home?

It is the law of the land that the failure to secure state secrets is a felony, known as espionage?

It is the law of the land that espionage can be committed by a person who intends to expose state secrets or by a person who doesn’t care if she exposes state secrets?

The FBI explained to Clinton in her first day as secretary of state that the grossly negligent exposure of state secrets constitutes espionage?

The big question about Hillary Clinton: What if the FBI is onto her? | Fox News


Libby prosecuted under the Obama administration, are you joking? Do you know how to google? Libby resigned from his government positions hours after his indictment on October 28, 2005... pure GWBush era.
 
This is truther-style irrationality.

No, you do not get to treat the lack of evidence as if it were evidence.

Really ?

There's a distinction between not abiding by a subpoena and destroying evidence and a lack of evidence found in subpoenaed documents.

If the IRS during an audit asks you to produce documents can you just tell them that they've been destroyed and therefore you have no evidence that I cheated on my taxes ?

Nope.

We're learning more and more about the Left thanks to this Hillarry issue. Like how receptive you people are to blatant fascism and corruption when it suits your narrative
 
Back
Top Bottom