• 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!

Sources: Clinton confidant who sent Libya memos paid $200G by Brock network

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,055
Reaction score
33,368
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sources: Clinton confidant who sent Libya memos paid $200G by Brock network | Fox News

The Clinton confidant under scrutiny on Capitol Hill over detailed Libya memos he sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told lawmakers earlier this week he has been pulling in $200,000 a year from Clinton ally David Brock's media operation, congressional sources tell FoxNews.com.

The figure is far higher than initially reported.

While the payments to Sidney Blumenthal may not reflect any apparent conflict of interest, his work with Brock's liberal advocacy and media groups was a focus of his high-profile deposition on Tuesday before the House Benghazi committee. Republicans' rationale for the questioning was that his financial and political interests are important context, at a time when he was sending high-level guidance to Clinton.
Unvetted intelligence, that describes Clinton too.
 
From the linked article:

+++

"While the payments to Sidney Blumenthal may not reflect any apparent conflict of interest, his work with Brock's liberal advocacy and media groups was a focus of his high-profile deposition on Tuesday before the House Benghazi committee. "

*bolding mine

+++

And that says it all, for anyone that doubts this is a political witch-hunt.

This is how Fox operates - they state a harmless fact such as the above, where they clearly state there is no conflict of interest, which ordinarily would be the end of the story. But they append the truthful statement with some sleight-of-hand allusion to some conspiratorial narrative they wish to spin for their & their party's political expediency. Then, they go on with the suppositional narrative (as if fact) in great detail for many lines & paragraphs if in print, or words & minutes on-air, until the viewer has lost sight of the original mostly accurate & true statement, and is only left with the overriding impression of the false narrative.

They then beat on the false narrative all day (same as their party's congressional inquisatory panels), including bringing on 'guests' and 'experts' from their party who further hammer-down their spun narrative.

And that, ladies & gentleman, is how 1/3 of the GOP faithful (including Mr. Trump) have come to believe President Obama is a Muslim from Kenya, along with the rest of the myriad of lies they espouse - and God only knows what else they & their party will cook-up for the rest of the election season!
 
From the linked article:

+++

"While the payments to Sidney Blumenthal may not reflect any apparent conflict of interest, his work with Brock's liberal advocacy and media groups was a focus of his high-profile deposition on Tuesday before the House Benghazi committee. "

*bolding mine

+++

And that says it all, for anyone that doubts this is a political witch-hunt.

This is how Fox operates - they state a harmless fact such as the above, where they clearly state there is no conflict of interest, which ordinarily would be the end of the story. But they append the truthful statement with some sleight-of-hand allusion to some conspiratorial narrative they wish to spin for their & their party's political expediency. Then, they go on with the suppositional narrative (as if fact) in great detail for many lines & paragraphs if in print, or words & minutes on-air, until the viewer has lost sight of the original mostly accurate & true statement, and is only left with the overriding impression of the false narrative.

They then beat on the false narrative all day (same as their party's congressional inquisatory panels), including bringing on 'guests' and 'experts' from their party who further hammer-down their spun narrative.

And that, ladies & gentleman, is how 1/3 of the GOP faithful (including Mr. Trump) have come to believe President Obama is a Muslim from Kenya, along with the rest of the myriad of lies they espouse - and God only knows what else they & their party will cook-up for the rest of the election season!

Desperate to derail a thread by bringing in unrelated pap.
 
Desperate to derail a thread by bringing in unrelated pap.
Good morning!

Actually, I was going after the source.

But fair enough.

I'll respect the topic, irrespective of the source.

And, I'll go further to say that while the source exonerates Sec'y Clinton & Mr. Blumenthal by stating there was no conflict of interest, we're all free to draw our own conclusions, no matter how right or wrong they may be!
 
Good morning!

Actually, I was going after the source.

But fair enough.

I'll respect the topic, irrespective of the source.

And, I'll go further to say that while the source exonerates Sec'y Clinton & Mr. Blumenthal by stating there was no conflict of interest, we're all free to draw our own conclusions, no matter how right or wrong they may be!

....er, no. It states there is no apparent conflict of interest with him taking money as a political consultant while also officially working as a messaging consultant to a charity while unofficially working as a policy consultant to SECSTATE. I would tend to disagree with that, but regardless, this doesn't mean that Blumenthal had no conflict of interest when advising SECSTATE about Libya while also representing Libyan business interests, which is where his conflict of interest comes from.
 
....er, no. It states there is no apparent conflict of interest with him taking money as a political consultant while also officially working as a messaging consultant to a charity while unofficially working as a policy consultant to SECSTATE. I would tend to disagree with that, but regardless, this doesn't mean that Blumenthal had no conflict of interest when advising SECSTATE about Libya while also representing Libyan business interests, which is where his conflict of interest comes from.
I see where you're going with this, and fair-enough in that regard.

But individuals with business (foreign or otherwise) interests are drawn upon for their input all the time.

I don't see what makes this instance different than others, except for the playing politics by her political enemies.
 
From the linked article:

+++

"While the payments to Sidney Blumenthal may not reflect any apparent conflict of interest, his work with Brock's liberal advocacy and media groups was a focus of his high-profile deposition on Tuesday before the House Benghazi committee. "

*bolding mine

+++

And that says it all, for anyone that doubts this is a political witch-hunt.

This is how Fox operates - they state a harmless fact such as the above, where they clearly state there is no conflict of interest, which ordinarily would be the end of the story. But they append the truthful statement with some sleight-of-hand allusion to some conspiratorial narrative they wish to spin for their & their party's political expediency. Then, they go on with the suppositional narrative (as if fact) in great detail for many lines & paragraphs if in print, or words & minutes on-air, until the viewer has lost sight of the original mostly accurate & true statement, and is only left with the overriding impression of the false narrative.

They then beat on the false narrative all day (same as their party's congressional inquisatory panels), including bringing on 'guests' and 'experts' from their party who further hammer-down their spun narrative.

And that, ladies & gentleman, is how 1/3 of the GOP faithful (including Mr. Trump) have come to believe President Obama is a Muslim from Kenya, along with the rest of the myriad of lies they espouse - and God only knows what else they & their party will cook-up for the rest of the election season!



Mornin Chomsky. :2wave: Also from the linked article. ;)




One of those emails to Clinton linked several Media Matters posts on Benghazi, essentially defending the State Department.

FoxNews.com is told one of them read: "Got all this done, complete refutation on Libya smear." The email said, "Philippe can circulate these links." Philippe Reines was a senior adviser to Clinton......snip~

hmmm.gif
 
Good morning!

Actually, I was going after the source.

But fair enough.

I'll respect the topic, irrespective of the source.

And, I'll go further to say that while the source exonerates Sec'y Clinton & Mr. Blumenthal by stating there was no conflict of interest, we're all free to draw our own conclusions, no matter how right or wrong they may be!
My concern is the shoddy intelligence she was probably using, when she has access to much better.
 
....er, no. It states there is no apparent conflict of interest with him taking money as a political consultant while also officially working as a messaging consultant to a charity while unofficially working as a policy consultant to SECSTATE. I would tend to disagree with that, but regardless, this doesn't mean that Blumenthal had no conflict of interest when advising SECSTATE about Libya while also representing Libyan business interests, which is where his conflict of interest comes from.


The implication of the headline is that 'responsible' Americans will gain an understanding about the biases of Hillary Clinton in regards to the safety of Americans in conflict areas. Of course, those 'responsible' Americans will think this way owing to the near-daily attacks on Media Matters and its head, David Brock.

A few facts about Blumenthal's testimony have come out but for some reason, Rep. Trey Gowdy is once again refusing to release a transcript of the full testimony. The five Dem. reps on the committee have written a letter requesting such a release and also voicing their complaints about the manner in which Blumenthal was forced to appear before the committee.

from The Hill, 06/17/15
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) . . . chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi said the author of the memos was Tyler Drumheller, a former CIA official, who was mentioned in some media reports following Blumenthal’s roughly nine-hour deposition. Gowdy initially refused to name Drumheller.

“Not only was he providing unvetted, uncorroborated, unsubstantiated intelligence to our top diplomat, he was just simply forwarding on intelligence that somebody by the name Tyler Drumheller was sending him,” Gowdy said of Blumenthal Tuesday night during an interview on Fox News’s “The Kelly File.”

passages from the Dems letter to Gowdy
“The fact of the matter is that you are treating Mr. Blumenthal differently. You are the one who ordered Marshals to go to his home – without any debate or vote by the Committee – to serve the subpoena compelling his testimony at yesterday’s deposition without even contacting him first,”

They chastised the chairman for only offering to make public the latest cache of documents, but not the transcript that could put the emails in proper context.

"Given your own words on this topic warning against the selective release of information from the Committee’s investigation, it has become impossible to understand your revolving policy on when the Select Committee will release information and when it will not,” (my emphasis)
 
I see where you're going with this, and fair-enough in that regard.

But individuals with business (foreign or otherwise) interests are drawn upon for their input all the time.

I don't see what makes this instance different than others, except for the playing politics by her political enemies.

This is fairly significant, both because of the language used, and because of the use to which Blumenthal was put. Hillary was ordered not to have him on board, and so she used her charity instead as a laundering device, to bring him on board anyway. He then started putting sensitive information onto unclassified networks in order to communicate with her, since the Charity lacked access to the classified networks. Blumenthals' advice was taken and used by Hillary as policy analysis, when in fact he had a serious conflict of interest due to his highly-paid work on behalf of Libyan business interests.

:shrug: the entire Foundation is one massive conflict of interest, as it pertains to her time as SECSTATE. This is just a particularly egregious example.
 
This is fairly significant, both because of the language used, and because of the use to which Blumenthal was put. Hillary was ordered not to have him on board, and so she used her charity instead as a laundering device, to bring him on board anyway. He then started putting sensitive information onto unclassified networks in order to communicate with her, since the Charity lacked access to the classified networks. Blumenthals' advice was taken and used by Hillary as policy analysis, when in fact he had a serious conflict of interest due to his highly-paid work on behalf of Libyan business interests.

:shrug: the entire Foundation is one massive conflict of interest, as it pertains to her time as SECSTATE. This is just a particularly egregious example.
I've got to admit, you make a cohesive & cognizant argument for your point of view.

I'm not sure how to accurately ascertain the extent of Mr. Blumnenthal's biased personal influence upon Sec'y Clinton's or the State Department's policy, if any (as differentiated from his influence within the confines of the charity) - but you do make a good argument for the possibility of conflict-of-interest that's difficult to rebuff.

But, possibilities and possible motivations are not the stuff of fact.

I suppose this is the way it goes with un-ascertained potential conflict: those that want to see it will, and those that don't, wont - until factual evidence resolves the disparity (if evidence ever even becomes available).
 
I've got to admit, you make a cohesive & cognizant argument for your point of view.

I'm not sure how to accurately ascertain the extent of Mr. Blumnenthal's biased personal influence upon Sec'y Clinton's or the State Department's policy, if any (as differentiated from his influence within the confines of the charity) - but you do make a good argument for the possibility of conflict-of-interest that's difficult to rebuff.

But, possibilities and possible motivations are not the stuff of fact.

I suppose this is the way it goes with un-ascertained potential conflict: those that want to see it will, and those that don't, wont - until factual evidence resolves the disparity (if evidence ever even becomes available).

:shrug: we have the evidence - we have the emails, and the accounts of how Hillary used them.
 
The implication of the headline is that 'responsible' Americans will gain an understanding about the biases of Hillary Clinton in regards to the safety of Americans in conflict areas. Of course, those 'responsible' Americans will think this way owing to the near-daily attacks on Media Matters and its head, David Brock.

A few facts about Blumenthal's testimony have come out but for some reason, Rep. Trey Gowdy is once again refusing to release a transcript of the full testimony. The five Dem. reps on the committee have written a letter requesting such a release and also voicing their complaints about the manner in which Blumenthal was forced to appear before the committee.

from The Hill, 06/17/15

passages from the Dems letter to Gowdy


Cummings is known for that play of tit-for tat. Nothing new there and really. He should re-read the wording of what THIS Select Committee is looking into. This isn't the first 4 or 5 Benghazi Committees wherein the Admin, the State Dept and Clinton weren't so forth coming with their records.




New emails belonging to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were discovered just ahead of testimony today on Capitol Hill from longtime Clinton confidant and adviser Sid Blumenthal. Blumenthal, who was banned by President Obama from working inside his administration, will testify behind closed doors about underground intelligence analysis he gave Clinton on Libya while she was working under the administration. Blumenthal was being paid by the Clinton Foundation when he emailed Clinton with information about the 9/11/2012 terror attack in Benghazi. He will testify in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi behind closed doors. More from POLITICO:

House GOP Benghazi investigators have discovered 60 new Libya communications between Sidney Blumenthal and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a congressional source told POLITICO on Monday — suggesting that either the State Department or the 2016 Democratic presidential contender withheld correspondence the panel had requested.

“These emails were not previously produced to the Committee or released to the public, and they will help inform tomorrow’s deposition,” panel Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said in a statement late Monday evening. “We are prepared to release these emails.” Panel Republicans are pushing to release the emails as early as Tuesday but need Democrats to agree to do so under committee rules that require the minority to be given a five-day warning before release.....snip~

Surprise: Dozens of Clinton Libya Emails Were Kept From Benghazi Select Committee - Katie Pavlich

The Demos did always have trouble understanding what it means by.....ALL Records.

cb061815dAPC20150619124619.jpg
 
Last edited:
From the linked article:

+++

"While the payments to Sidney Blumenthal may not reflect any apparent conflict of interest, his work with Brock's liberal advocacy and media groups was a focus of his high-profile deposition on Tuesday before the House Benghazi committee. "

*bolding mine

+++

And that says it all, for anyone that doubts this is a political witch-hunt.

This is how Fox operates - they state a harmless fact such as the above, where they clearly state there is no conflict of interest, which ordinarily would be the end of the story. But they append the truthful statement with some sleight-of-hand allusion to some conspiratorial narrative they wish to spin for their & their party's political expediency. Then, they go on with the suppositional narrative (as if fact) in great detail for many lines & paragraphs if in print, or words & minutes on-air, until the viewer has lost sight of the original mostly accurate & true statement, and is only left with the overriding impression of the false narrative.

They then beat on the false narrative all day (same as their party's congressional inquisatory panels), including bringing on 'guests' and 'experts' from their party who further hammer-down their spun narrative.

And that, ladies & gentleman, is how 1/3 of the GOP faithful (including Mr. Trump) have come to believe President Obama is a Muslim from Kenya, along with the rest of the myriad of lies they espouse - and God only knows what else they & their party will cook-up for the rest of the election season!

I'm sorry, I missed the misinformation in your quote. Could you please point it out?
 
Cummings is known for that play of tit-for tat. Nothing new there and really. He should re-read the wording of what THIS Select Committee is looking into. This isn't the first 4 or 5 Benghazi Committees wherein the Admin, the State Dept and Clinton weren't so forth coming with their records.




New emails belonging to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were discovered just ahead of testimony today on Capitol Hill from longtime Clinton confidant and adviser Sid Blumenthal. Blumenthal, who was banned by President Obama from working inside his administration, will testify behind closed doors about underground intelligence analysis he gave Clinton on Libya while she was working under the administration. Blumenthal was being paid by the Clinton Foundation when he emailed Clinton with information about the 9/11/2012 terror attack in Benghazi. He will testify in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi behind closed doors. More from POLITICO:

House GOP Benghazi investigators have discovered 60 new Libya communications between Sidney Blumenthal and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a congressional source told POLITICO on Monday — suggesting that either the State Department or the 2016 Democratic presidential contender withheld correspondence the panel had requested.

“These emails were not previously produced to the Committee or released to the public, and they will help inform tomorrow’s deposition,” panel Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said in a statement late Monday evening. “We are prepared to release these emails.” Panel Republicans are pushing to release the emails as early as Tuesday but need Democrats to agree to do so under committee rules that require the minority to be given a five-day warning before release.....snip~

Surprise: Dozens of Clinton Libya Emails Were Kept From Benghazi Select Committee - Katie Pavlich

The Demos did always have trouble understanding what it means by.....ALL Records.

cb061815dAPC20150619124619.jpg

The Clintons are corrupt pieces of ****.
 
The Clintons are corrupt pieces of ****.

Indeed they are American. :2wave: That will never change. They just need to be reminded of that fact.....daily, 24/7!

I promise.....I do my part, and they or their people will get the message.
 
Back
Top Bottom