• 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

No he offered.....that if she felt that her use of private emails was a concern of hers. He was willing to leave that as an option for her.

That doesn't mean she cannot be subpoena'd in the future due to any revelations that come forth, and over a specific issue.

she hung him out to dry
he wanted a private hearing she INSISTED on a PUBLIC one
notice who one that early round
 
If he can't interrupt her and bring her back on point. She will waste time with her ramblings and memories.

Even better. The more she looks like she's dissembling, the more she reinforces the image that she's untrustworthy.
 
Even better. The more she looks like she's dissembling, the more she reinforces the image that she's untrustworthy.

I don't think she can lose that perception, and I think it will increase without any help from her screw ups with Benghazi. Although it would be nice if it was the last straw to break the camel's back.

Did you see that Boone Pickens said he thinks she will drop out. Wonder why he would think that despite being a Bush man.




Boone Pickens: Hillary Clinton will drop out of 2016 race......

Noted oil and gas man T. Boone Pickens isn’t shy about his feelings on Washington, and he didn’t hold back in an interview with Yahoo Finance Editor-in-Chief Andy Serwer at the Milken Global Conference in Los Angeles. Pickens, Founder of BP Capital, says, “I don’t think Washington has a clue” just how extensive U.S. energy resources are. Pickens says the number one thing he would like to see from the next President is a U.S. energy policy, which he believes is non-existent at this point.

Pickens says he doesn’t think Clinton will make it to the end of the campaign. He says, simply, “I think she’ll pull out of the deal.” Pickens points to questions surrounding Clinton’s use of a personal email account and server during her time as Secretary of State. In a news conference about the email account, former Secretary Clinton said she had some 30,000 emails deleted out of more than 60,000 emails sent or received between March 2009 and February 2013.

“She’s got too much to explain… scrubbing the server like she did,” he says. “Her timing may be very bad.”.....snip~

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boone...ton-will-drop-out-of-2016-race-154056399.html

Big money talking, huh?
 
she hung him out to dry
he wanted a private hearing she INSISTED on a PUBLIC one
notice who one that early round


Seems the WSJ had it all from April. Note she didn't say anything and her attorney said it was unnecessary. Then Gowdy LET her choose her fate.



The committee previously requested two appearances from Mrs. Clinton over her exclusive use of a private email during her time at the State Department: one public hearing and one private transcribed interview.

An attorney for Mrs. Clinton said this week that a private interview was unnecessary and that the former secretary of state was willing to answer questions about her email arrangement in public.

In his letter, Mr. Gowdy said a private interview still remained an option if Mrs. Clinton was concerned about the privacy implications of testifying about her email practices. He encouraged her to meet with the panel twice.....snip~

Trey Gowdy Asks Hillary Clinton to Testify at Benghazi Hearing in May - Washington Wire - WSJ
 
I think Republicans seriously overestimate how much Americans care about Benghazi and Clinton's emails. They want to get her in trouble but aren't they basically using tax payers money to try and help out their parties candidate for next year? So who should really be getting in trouble?
 
I think Republicans seriously overestimate how much Americans care about Benghazi and Clinton's emails. They want to get her in trouble but aren't they basically using tax payers money to try and help out their parties candidate for next year? So who should really be getting in trouble?

No, we definitely don't overestimate " Americans " and especially left leaning Americans.

Not after 2008 and especially not after 2012. Millions proved that they're easily influenced by superficial and empty narratives and equated bumper sticker slogans to Presidential qualifications...twice.

So no, we take a very realistic view of the moronic constituency that continues to back the left at the expense of the rest of us.

Whats overestimated is Hillary's chances to win the nomination and the Presidency.

She couldn't get anyone to show up for her stupid book tour or buy her book. The Democrats she stumped for in 2014 no longerr have a job.

She's not a " sure thing " she's a extension of the corruption, incompetence and failure of the last 7 years.
 
I worked at headquarters for a multi-national corporation, and experienced first-hand how business differs from government. Business has to make a profit, where the government doesn't have that Damocles sword hanging over its head. Business could never have an $18 trillion debt, as an example, or they would have long since had to file for bankruptcy - so their eye is always on the bottom line. In truth, most of us have the same limitations on our family budgets, so I understand that thinking. What I don't understand is why those in DC seem to think otherwise, and I'm talking both sides of the aisle. Business also seems to be more nimble in making decisions, too; plus a CEO and his advisors can get fired almost immediately if the shareholders get irate enough, so I wonder, if government had to live under the same conditions, if we'd be in better shape financially than we are?. I think we probably would be, because of the accountability factor, and they wouldn't be allowed to keep their job until the next election, either. The only "shareholders" in government are the taxpayers, and few politicians seem to care what we think - until election time comes. Then we're suddenly important again, and the cycle continues, ad nauseum, as lots of promises are made to correct things that aren't working. Weird way to live, but I guess we're used to it. :shock:

If I can just interject your wall...

The banks did have billions in liabilities. Remember the bank bailouts at taxpayer expenses that Started under Bush? I'm against all bailouts: the ones authorized by Bush and Obama, but if you're going to "go there" make sure you go all the way. Both Dems and Reps gave the banks billions with no accountability.
 
Seems the WSJ had it all from April. Note she didn't say anything
you do realize that one's attorney can speak on one's behalf
you think hillary was going to say something different that what her lawyer wrote on her behalf?

... and her attorney said it was unnecessary.
NO
her attorney said a PUBLIC hearing would be required

Then Gowdy LET her choose her fate.
NO
gowdy got hung out to dry when his request for a private meeting was rejected by hillary via her lawyer



The committee previously requested two appearances from Mrs. Clinton over her exclusive use of a private email during her time at the State Department: one public hearing and one private transcribed interview.

An attorney for Mrs. Clinton said this week that a private interview was unnecessary and that the former secretary of state was willing to answer questions about her email arrangement in public.
notice how gowdy was shot down
hillary is calling the shots on this PUBLIC hearing
do you have any inkling why hillary would insist on a PUBLIC hearing, contrary to gowdy's request for a private one. likely not, so stay tuned and watch what she does

In his letter, Mr. Gowdy said a private interview still remained an option if Mrs. Clinton was concerned about the privacy implications of testifying about her email practices. He encouraged her to meet with the panel twice.....snip~
she made gowdy her eunuch
notice how she rejected his repeated request for a closed hearing
notice how she rejected his appeal for a second hearing ... he "encouraged" her. this committee chair got his wings clipped. and that's just the preview of the results to expect from the 18th


 
she hung him out to dry
he wanted a private hearing she INSISTED on a PUBLIC one
notice who one that early round

She sure did, he wanted a private meeting and she said she would decline if it wasn't public.
 
benghazi-cartoon-luckovich-495x357.jpg


"It's it's" 'MURICAN!



If you have something to say, use words.

If that implies a snub at ignorant Americans be advised I am Canadian, and YES is is a major part of our culture to demand accountability, as a matter of fact a foemer Senator, Mike Duffy is on trial for fraud. No one's claiming witch hunt, it's a straight forward trial of his peers, it is what we do. We even put politicians in jail if they are bad enough, like lying under oath which is cool in "liberal Amerika".

And you know what else genius, I am a liberal, worked for and got elected a single mom as premier of this province. I have always supported universal health care and always will, it is far superior to the genius plan concocted by the "first black president"

Oh, btw, we have never had a black prime minister, nope, but we have had two East Indian premiers, five women premier's currently in office, and one First Nations Canadian premier.

So while sneering though pictures you didn't even create, take care that I see you about as much a liberal as Idi Amin shouting socialist slogans and posting comics, the wolrd has passed you by. The "liberalism" your party is seeking is revisionist conservatism with a massive does of incompetence thrown in..

and that IS American.....at least has been the last seven years

Oh, and did you know that gay and lesbian marriage has been legal here for 18 years? Yeah.

So take your ****ty "progressive" snobbery and park where Obama don't shine. Me and my neighbors fought these wars and won, without the need of death threats from "liberal" gay sympathizer's.
 
I think Republicans seriously overestimate how much Americans care about Benghazi and Clinton's emails. They want to get her in trouble but aren't they basically using tax payers money to try and help out their parties candidate for next year? So who should really be getting in trouble?

I understand for those that don't want to know the truth they would suggest such. But trust in a government official is paramount in most peoples priority. Trustworthy Hillery, she is not.
 
I was taken aback this morning after reading the headline "Hillary agrees to testify." It sounded like she was in charge of the investigation and had a decision to make - and that surprised me. What would have happened if she had said no? I'm not being snarky; I honestly don't know how these things work. :shock:

Then there would likely be a subpoena issued to compel her to testify.
 
Seems the WSJ had it all from April. Note she didn't say anything and her attorney said it was unnecessary. Then Gowdy LET her choose her fate.



The committee previously requested two appearances from Mrs. Clinton over her exclusive use of a private email during her time at the State Department: one public hearing and one private transcribed interview.

An attorney for Mrs. Clinton said this week that a private interview was unnecessary and that the former secretary of state was willing to answer questions about her email arrangement in public.

In his letter, Mr. Gowdy said a private interview still remained an option if Mrs. Clinton was concerned about the privacy implications of testifying about her email practices. He encouraged her to meet with the panel twice.....snip~

Trey Gowdy Asks Hillary Clinton to Testify at Benghazi Hearing in May - Washington Wire - WSJ

That's bull**** and I can use clownhall to prove it.

Clinton Lawyer: Request For An Interview Denied, Mr. Gowdy. - Matt Vespa

On March 31, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC)–chairman of the House Select Committee of Benghazi–requested a transcribed interview with Hillary Clinton to answer questions regarding the use of her private email system during her tenure as Secretary of State. Yesterday, the Clinton lawyers responded by saying no (via NYT):


Hillary Rodham Clinton’s lawyer told Representative Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks, that she saw no need for a private interview over her use of a private email account while secretary of state and asked that he not delay her next appearance before the committee.

The letter from Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, comes as she is ramping up her presidential campaign and hoping to put the controversies over her email use and the attack in Libya behind her.

“There is no reason to delay her appearance or to have her testify in a private interview,” Mr. Kendall wrote, adding that she has already publicly answered questions about her email practices at the State Department.

Mrs. Clinton has testified on Benghazi before House and Senate committees, and Mr. Kendall said she would be happy to discuss her email use when she testifies before Mr. Gowdy’s panel.
 
That's bull**** and I can use clownhall to prove it.

Clinton Lawyer: Request For An Interview Denied, Mr. Gowdy. - Matt Vespa

On March 31, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC)–chairman of the House Select Committee of Benghazi–requested a transcribed interview with Hillary Clinton to answer questions regarding the use of her private email system during her tenure as Secretary of State. Yesterday, the Clinton lawyers responded by saying no (via NYT):


Hillary Rodham Clinton’s lawyer told Representative Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks, that she saw no need for a private interview over her use of a private email account while secretary of state and asked that he not delay her next appearance before the committee.

The letter from Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, comes as she is ramping up her presidential campaign and hoping to put the controversies over her email use and the attack in Libya behind her.

“There is no reason to delay her appearance or to have her testify in a private interview,” Mr. Kendall wrote, adding that she has already publicly answered questions about her email practices at the State Department.

Mrs. Clinton has testified on Benghazi before House and Senate committees, and Mr. Kendall said she would be happy to discuss her email use when she testifies before Mr. Gowdy’s panel.


Whats BS Pete? The Wall Street Journal had a copy of Gowdy's letter.
 
I have said it before, unless they can prove that Hilary deliberately tried to get those Americans killed in Benghazi, I think this is a non-story.

And I also find it incredibly hypocritical that Reps do not seem to give a care about the thousands of American and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths in Operation Iraqi Freedom and it's aftermath...but they go absolutely berserk over these four American deaths in Benghazi.

This does not just smell of partisanship hypocrisy...it absolutely reeks of it.


And, once again, I am neither Rep nor Dem and I think Hilary would make a lousy POTUS...so I am not partisan at all on this.
 
Whats BS Pete? The Wall Street Journal had a copy of Gowdy's letter.

It said nothing refuting what Townhall reported. nice try but you are WRONG.
 
It suggest that Republicans value the lives of Americans who served their country and died doing so as opposed to a lame president who hides behind a lie of a "spontaneous demonstration" and sends in the FB ****ing I to get the terrorists who are as we speak training other terrorists.

And if you're so concerned about the lives of Iraqi's, let's talk about that early withdrawal and Obama's "I ended the war" which seems to still be a war.

To equate the lives lost of servicemen and diplomats to a bunch of baby killing terrorists shows the true colors of the Amerikan liberal.....

It's it's American it has to be apologized for, and uniformed Americans are fodder for the great left wing propaganda wars

You have completely lost your mind.

You honestly think the Iraqis he was lamenting were insurgents?
 
I have said it before, unless they can prove that Hilary deliberately tried to get those Americans killed in Benghazi, I think this is a non-story.

And I also find it incredibly hypocritical that Reps do not seem to give a care about the thousands of American and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths in Operation Iraqi Freedom and it's aftermath...but they go absolutely berserk over these four American deaths in Benghazi.

This does not just smell of partisanship hypocrisy...it absolutely reeks of it.


And, once again, I am neither Rep nor Dem and I think Hilary would make a lousy POTUS...so I am not partisan at all on this.

The difference between the deaths is that Iraq was a combat operation where casualties are expected, and Benghazi was not. That doesn't mean the deaths in combat aren't mourned. They are. The argument that Iraq was unnecessary is a different argument - one best carried out in a discussion of Bush's foreign policy. The situation in Libya was not a combat situation according to the administration, and while I would agree that would be a standard conclusion, events leading up to the evening of the attack strongly suggest that it actually might have been one, and nothing - absolutely nothing - was done to address that reality. There was a concerted effort to cover that reality up instead.
 
I worked at headquarters for a multi-national corporation, and experienced first-hand how business differs from government. Business has to make a profit, where the government doesn't have that Damocles sword hanging over its head. Business could never have an $18 trillion debt, as an example, or they would have long since had to file for bankruptcy - so their eye is always on the bottom line. In truth, most of us have the same limitations on our family budgets, so I understand that thinking. What I don't understand is why those in DC seem to think otherwise, and I'm talking both sides of the aisle. Business also seems to be more nimble in making decisions, too; plus a CEO and his advisors can get fired almost immediately if the shareholders get irate enough, so I wonder, if government had to live under the same conditions, if we'd be in better shape financially than we are?. I think we probably would be, because of the accountability factor, and they wouldn't be allowed to keep their job until the next election, either. The only "shareholders" in government are the taxpayers, and few politicians seem to care what we think - until election time comes. Then we're suddenly important again, and the cycle continues, ad nauseum, as lots of promises are made to correct things that aren't working. Weird way to live, but I guess we're used to it. :shock:

Polgara this post was a pleasure to read.
 
I have said it before, unless they can prove that Hilary deliberately tried to get those Americans killed in Benghazi, I think this is a non-story.

And I also find it incredibly hypocritical that Reps do not seem to give a care about the thousands of American and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths in Operation Iraqi Freedom and it's aftermath...but they go absolutely berserk over these four American deaths in Benghazi.

This does not just smell of partisanship hypocrisy...it absolutely reeks of it.


And, once again, I am neither Rep nor Dem and I think Hilary would make a lousy POTUS...so I am not partisan at all on this.


Its not just Benghazi DA. :2wave: Its all of Libya. Tripoli and the Embassy there too.

Now a failed state, breeding and training ground for terrorists. 3 different Major groups. With access to Oil and to the Atlantic Coast.

Although now Benghazi is part of ISIS and is considered an Emirate.

Hopefully they will bring out how Hillary and the State Dept hired Ansar al Sharia as security for Benghazi. Same group that left the first calling card and blowing a hole in the gate with the first attack on the Consulate. Then doing the hit on the Anniversary date.

Same group that went after the Brits and Italians Ambassadors. Then hit the Red Cross.
 
Whats amusing is why they laugh at Benghazi.....that this Committee of Number 9. Has caused 2 IG Investigations. One for where the 6 Billion that was lost at State while she ran the place. The other for her aides and their Special Designation as Employees of State.

Then they got copies of the Emails that Blumenthal sent to Hillary......while she broke her agreement with BO over Foreign Donors to Charity. Then allowing a breach of US National Security.....and opening up BO and the White House too.

Plus they were the ones to discover Hillary's Emails and that State never had Hillary's when the other Committees asked for the info. I would stress "asked" as no other committee had the powers to compel any to do anything.

Any rational person would want these things investigated, regardless of political lean-but the left is being absolutely partisan, and flippant in the face of transparency.

If this administration had been republican, they'd already have made several movies about the corruption in this white house.
 
If I can just interject your wall...

The banks did have billions in liabilities. Remember the bank bailouts at taxpayer expenses that Started under Bush? I'm against all bailouts: the ones authorized by Bush and Obama, but if you're going to "go there" make sure you go all the way. Both Dems and Reps gave the banks billions with no accountability.

Yes, I do remember that - but it was billions, not trillions, and was probably caused in part by people who bought a house they couldn't afford, and when the "teaser" interest rate became a real interest rate, they defaulted and walked away, leaving the banks with houses they didn't want on their books.

Whatever happened to the "old-fashioned" bankers who wouldn't give you a loan until they verified that you had a job, weren't currently in debt over your head, had never filed for bankruptcy, made sure you could repay the loan they might make to you, and wanted you to produce the past two years of IRS filings to verify your job earnings? That used to be the rules, and banks were sound back then. Hence the saying "you can take that to the bank," which meant it was a sure thing. Not any more, I guess!

The point in my post was to show that American taxpayers are on the hook for nearly $160 trillion dollars for European derivatives - derivatives that are only pieces of paper with nothing backing them! And that's only what I know about, but it's probably more! I know that banks all over the world are tied together, but neither the American taxpayers, nor the Federal Reserve nor the FDIC have the money to cover this outrageous amount, so why does it fall on us to be responsible for it? "Too big to fail" is not our doing! They gambled with the money they received, and it's our fault? Nuts to that! :shock: :thumbdown:
 
It said nothing refuting what Townhall reported. nice try but you are WRONG.

Looks like it was saying the same thing that the WSJ did Pete. They just didn't have a copy of Gowdys letter. To know about encouraging Hillary to still meet with the panel.

That letter from TownHall was from Clinton's Attorney.
 
Polgara this post was a pleasure to read.

Greetings, US Conservative. :2wave:

Thank you, but the differences are too stark to ignore, and it bothers me that our government seems to be trying to make life as difficult as possible for the business world - you know, the entities that provide jobs for people so they can have their income taxed to pay for everything the government wants to spend money on, whether it makes sense or not! :2mad:
 
Back
Top Bottom