• 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!

Gowdy: Nunes memo does not discredit Mueller probe in any way

Lerxst said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "unhinged." If I or my agency were attacked for political expediency through cherry picking details and leaving out mitigating information - which is the claim - I'd surely be firing back at my accusers.

Everyone in the Trump camp believes the memo 100% truthful - which is the first problem. Those being accused are refuting the memo and everyone in the Trump camp believes they are liars - which is the second problem.

I seem to recall all of the backlash over Republicans clearing Clinton of any wrong doing or negligence in the Benghazi investigation - nobody in DC was to be trusted, Republicans were out to get Trump and under the sway of the Clinton political machine. But now, Republicans are to be completely trusted all of a sudden?

Come on, man.
Click to expand...

What I mean by unhinged is the plethora of unfounded claims brought about by the left from shifty Schiff to the outrageous claims of Pelosi to Obama's Brennan of the CIA before and after the memo was released. Many of the things they claimed this memo would do if released was BS.

I see the ratcheting up of attacks as a sign these folks didn't want this information made public not because of national security and a list of faux concerns they gave but rather to keep hidden the actions of the Obama administration upper echelon of agencies and departments. This first memo was like unto someone taking a swipe at a hornets nest. The hornets which are well aware this memo brings damning implications to them, several who have given testimony before Congress, is quite interesting to watch. From what I watched this past weekend, some seem to be getting tripped up over basic questions.

The one interview that stood out above all others was the former spokes person for Kerry's State Department. Her name is Nuland. She was asked about Christopher Steele and told that Steele was very close to the higher ups at the Obama State Department. Now for the two terms of the Obama presidency that would include Clinton and then Kerry. You see this Steele character seemed to be 'real close' in a lot Obama's agencies from FBI, DOJ and yes the State Department. She did verify that he shared the dossier with the "higher echelon" too.

Who knew an ex British spy hired by Fusion GPS by the DNC/Clinton campaign to dig up dirt on Trump, who used Russian sources tied to the Kremlin would have such clout! He was influencing the State Dept, the FBI and the DOJ. And that some of these agencies used that tripe that has not been verified to obtain FISA warrants!

It stinks and you know it. But let the games continue, the truth will come out.
 
JoeTrumps said:
every small piece of info that the investigation has found that hurts Trump has leaked out. They would have to have a smoking gun to pin down Trump. the odds they are able to keep that secret is zero to none. If it hasn't leaked by now they don't have it.
Click to expand...

This statement is inherently wrong considering the fact that all you know, of what they know, is what has been leaked. Ergo you have absolutely no idea what hasn't been leaked or their ability to keep such secrets.

also, you can see from the way the left now argues they have pretty much realized the collusion narrative isn't happening. They have put all their eggs into the obstruction basket now. Just read the posts on this website. They wouldn't be doing that if they thought Mueller had a collusion case on Trump. It's obvious what is going on.
Click to expand...

At this point it doesn't matter if he is guilty of collusion, obstruction, or both. That's for Mueller to decide. You haven't heard much about prospective collusion because there hasn't been any new investigatory findings released to the public recently.
 
vesper said:
What I mean by unhinged is the plethora of unfounded claims brought about by the left from shifty Schiff to the outrageous claims of Pelosi to Obama's Brennan of the CIA and several others before and after the memo was released. Many of the things they claimed this memo would do if released was BS.

I see the ratcheting up of attacks as a sign these folks didn't want this information made public not because of national security and a list of faux concerns they gave but rather to keep hidden the actions of the Obama administration upper echelon of agencies and departments.
Click to expand...

The problem with this claim, though, is that the democrats didn't actually try to prevent the memo from being released. They merely wanted the DOJ and FBI to vet it, and/or release a memo that they claimed put the facts of the Nunes memo into context. If they thought the memo was so damning to them, they wouldn't have been taking these steps.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
The problem with this claim, though, is that the democrats didn't actually try to prevent the memo from being released. They merely wanted the DOJ and FBI to vet it, and/or release a memo that they claimed put the facts of the Nunes memo into context. If they thought the memo was so damning to them, they wouldn't have been taking these steps.
Click to expand...

Baloney.
 
vesper said:
Baloney.
Click to expand...

What's baloney? They literally proposed all of this in HPSCI transcripts. It's all public knowledge.

Anyways, the main issue with the Nunes memo and it's allegations are that the DOJ OIG is the one in charge of investigating such alleged abuses, yet Nunes decided to make this information public instead of turning it over to the OIG. The only reason he would do that is that either the claims in the memo are inaccurate, or he thinks the OIG is a co-conspirator. So far I thought Michael Horowitz was considered by Trump supporters to be a "good guy" but I guess that'll have to change for their story to be consistent.
 
vesper said:
What I mean by unhinged is the plethora of unfounded claims brought about by the left from shifty Schiff to the outrageous claims of Pelosi to Obama's Brennan of the CIA before and after the memo was released. Many of the things they claimed this memo would do if released was BS.

I see the ratcheting up of attacks as a sign these folks didn't want this information made public not because of national security and a list of faux concerns they gave but rather to keep hidden the actions of the Obama administration upper echelon of agencies and departments. This first memo was like unto someone taking a swipe at a hornets nest. The hornets which are well aware this memo brings damning implications to them, several who have given testimony before Congress, is quite interesting to watch. From what I watched this past weekend, some seem to be getting tripped up over basic questions.

The one interview that stood out above all others was the former spokes person for Kerry's State Department. Her name is Nuland. She was asked about Christopher Steele and told that Steele was very close to the higher ups at the Obama State Department. Now for the two terms of the Obama presidency that would include Clinton and then Kerry. You see this Steele character seemed to be 'real close' in a lot Obama's agencies from FBI, DOJ and yes the State Department. She did verify that he shared the dossier with the "higher echelon" too.

Who knew an ex British spy hired by Fusion GPS by the DNC/Clinton campaign to dig up dirt on Trump, who used Russian sources tied to the Kremlin would have such clout! He was influencing the State Dept, the FBI and the DOJ. And that some of these agencies used that tripe that has not been verified to obtain FISA warrants!

It stinks and you know it. But let the games continue, the truth will come out.
Click to expand...

There is smoke, but nobody knows if there is an actual fire yet. It's just a memo, and nothing in it is surprising. I'm not saying the allegations are nothing, but they are just allegations. So bring on an objective special counsel and investigate. Let's see some actual evidence of wrongdoing.

I don't trust Nunes, or anyone else for that matter, in Congress or the White House.
 
Lerxst said:
Wrong. She was "in fact" cleared of any wrongdoing or dereliction of duty in her post as Secretary of State.

House Benghazi report faults military, not Clinton

House Benghazi Report Finds No New Evidence of Wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton

Republicans $7 Million Dollar Benghazi Report is Another Dud
Click to expand...

Nope -- thank you for posting articles that refute your point. For example, the New York Times article...

"The 800-page report delivered a broad rebuke of the Defense Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department — and the officials who led them — for failing to grasp the acute security risks in Benghazi, and especially for maintaining outposts there that they could not protect. The committee, led by Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, also harshly criticized an internal State Department investigation that it said had allowed officials like Mrs. Clinton, then the secretary of state, to effectively choose who would examine their actions. "

From Vanity Fair...

"The Washington Post reports that Hicks had a conversation with Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, one of the four Americans killed in the tragedy, which indicated that the “temporary U.S. mission to Benghazi would be made into a permanent U.S. diplomatic facility.” This reveal could be interpreted by Republicans as proof that in an effort to build her personal legacy by playing a key role in the U.S. government’s plot to oust Muammar Qaddafi, she ignored signs of instability and threats in Benghazi. According to the Post, Republican committee members Jim Jordan and Mike Pompeo wrote in the report, “No matter how important a presence was—to Secretary Clinton, to the State Department, to the United States—it should have become very clear that the risks of staying without more security outweighed any possible benefit.” "
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
Actually, I think he's probably stepping down because he doesn't believe he's electable in November. It's a boring explanation, but I think it's the most likely one.
Click to expand...

My understanding is his district is extremely Republican.
 
dcsports said:
Nope -- thank you for posting articles that refute your point. For example, the New York Times article...

"The 800-page report delivered a broad rebuke of the Defense Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department — and the officials who led them — for failing to grasp the acute security risks in Benghazi, and especially for maintaining outposts there that they could not protect. The committee, led by Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, also harshly criticized an internal State Department investigation that it said had allowed officials like Mrs. Clinton, then the secretary of state, to effectively choose who would examine their actions. "

From Vanity Fair...

"The Washington Post reports that Hicks had a conversation with Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, one of the four Americans killed in the tragedy, which indicated that the “temporary U.S. mission to Benghazi would be made into a permanent U.S. diplomatic facility.” This reveal could be interpreted by Republicans as proof that in an effort to build her personal legacy by playing a key role in the U.S. government’s plot to oust Muammar Qaddafi, she ignored signs of instability and threats in Benghazi. According to the Post, Republican committee members Jim Jordan and Mike Pompeo wrote in the report, “No matter how important a presence was—to Secretary Clinton, to the State Department, to the United States—it should have become very clear that the risks of staying without more security outweighed any possible benefit.” "
Click to expand...

Yes. Thank you for not paying attention to my first statement, which was that Clinton was cleared of wrong doing and negligence, or my second statement, which was that Clinton was cleared of wrong doing or dereliction of duty. Nothing here that you have quoted refutes my statement. I never said she was not criticized, I was very specific on what I said she was cleared of. Words matter here. The point was that Republicans wanted to crucify her, and they fell way short in that endeavor.

And let me draw attention to the fact that while the Republicans didn't like the State Department doing their own internal investigation (which almost every local, state, and federal organization does), the House report, like the State Departments own report, found no evidence to support Republican's assertions Clinton was in any way responsible for the deaths of the U.S. personnel in the Benghazi attack. She was also cleared in a civil lawsuit brought by the families of those killed in the attack.

Good talk.
 
Thorgasm said:
I can't understand why Nunes is pulling this dishonest crap. I wonder if he has been compromised by the Russians too.
Click to expand...

Hi Thor...What is dishonest about letting the public see what is happening?
 
Lerxst said:
Yes. Thank you for not paying attention to my first statement, which was that Clinton was cleared of wrong doing and negligence, or my second statement, which was that Clinton was cleared of wrong doing or dereliction of duty. Nothing here that you have quoted refutes my statement. I never said she was not criticized, I was very specific on what I said she was cleared of. Words matter here. The point was that Republicans wanted to crucify her, and they fell way short in that endeavor.

And let me draw attention to the fact that while the Republicans didn't like the State Department doing their own internal investigation (which almost every local, state, and federal organization does), the House report, like the State Departments own report, found no evidence to support Republican's assertions Clinton was in any way responsible for the deaths of the U.S. personnel in the Benghazi attack. She was also cleared in a civil lawsuit brought by the families of those killed in the attack.

Good talk.
Click to expand...

You are right -- words matter. I suppose my issue is with ("cleared" or "cleared of wrongdoing" which is absolutely false. There is a difference between not guilty of a crime, and innocence. Clinton wasn't charged with any crimes from this -- and that's not the function of a congressional committee. But she wasn't cleared of wrongdoing either. They found a boatload of incompetence and mismanagement in the state department on this issue, and that falls squarely on her shoulders. She may not have been directly responsible or liable for those deaths, but she certainly was responsible, and participated in the effort to minimize (hide/lie) about government failures following it.
 
dcsports said:
You are right -- words matter. I suppose my issue is with ("cleared" or "cleared of wrongdoing" which is absolutely false. There is a difference between not guilty of a crime, and innocence. Clinton wasn't charged with any crimes from this -- and that's not the function of a congressional committee. But she wasn't cleared of wrongdoing either. They found a boatload of incompetence and mismanagement in the state department on this issue, and that falls squarely on her shoulders. She may not have been directly responsible or liable for those deaths, but she certainly was responsible, and participated in the effort to minimize (hide/lie) about government failures following it.
Click to expand...

No,it is not absolutely false. Let me be clear of something, in my original comment I was not defending Clinton. I was calling out the hypocrisy of how people can embrace politicians when it is politically expedient, just as they can cast them down when it is not. The Benghazi investigation is a prime example. Your problem is with our differing interpretations of the report. But the definition of "wongdoing" is very specific, and Clinton was cleared of wrongdoing. You may not agree, but that is something you will have to reconcile by yourself. Was there incompetence? Sure. I never said she did a great job as Secretary of State. But there was as much, if not more, fault on the outcome of the Benghazi attack on the DOD, State Department (institutionally), and the CIA. Nobody got it right about the situation on the ground in Libya. But that is not "wrongdoing" nor is it a dereliction of duty, which is a specific criminal offense under U.S. Code.

Republicans tried to hang Clinton and accused her of both wrongdoing and dereliction of duty, at least verbally. And there were many people who believed the Republican investigation would prove that the State Department was covering for her in that regard. Bottom line is that it found no evidence of wrongdoing or dereliction of duty. Period. Incompetence? There is a case to be made there. Mismanagement? Certainly, but it is shared among a number of people, which was pointed out in the House report. Neither of these are criminal offenses. Whether she actually lied and tried to conceal government failures in the issues is a matter of interpretation. A State Department internal investigation is not an effort to lie or hide anything, it's an accepted institutional procedure that pre-dates Clinton's term of service as the Secretary of State. As far as downplaying the government failure, I have no issue in agreeing with you on that, they certainly did that.

You and I are simply going to disagree on some of this, which is fine. Back to original issue...there is a lot of hypocrisy playing out here. Nothing new.
 
Lerxst said:
No,it is not absolutely false. Let me be clear of something, in my original comment I was not defending Clinton. I was calling out the hypocrisy of how people can embrace politicians when it is politically expedient, just as they can cast them down when it is not. The Benghazi investigation is a prime example. Your problem is with our differing interpretations of the report. But the definition of "wongdoing" is very specific, and Clinton was cleared of wrongdoing. You may not agree, but that is something you will have to reconcile by yourself. Was there incompetence? Sure. I never said she did a great job as Secretary of State. But there was as much, if not more, fault on the outcome of the Benghazi attack on the DOD, State Department (institutionally), and the CIA. Nobody got it right about the situation on the ground in Libya. But that is not "wrongdoing" nor is it a dereliction of duty, which is a specific criminal offense under U.S. Code.

Republicans tried to hang Clinton and accused her of both wrongdoing and dereliction of duty, at least verbally. And there were many people who believed the Republican investigation would prove that the State Department was covering for her in that regard. Bottom line is that it found no evidence of wrongdoing or dereliction of duty. Period. Incompetence? There is a case to be made there. Mismanagement? Certainly, but it is shared among a number of people, which was pointed out in the House report. Neither of these are criminal offenses. Whether she actually lied and tried to conceal government failures in the issues is a matter of interpretation. A State Department internal investigation is not an effort to lie or hide anything, it's an accepted institutional procedure that pre-dates Clinton's term of service as the Secretary of State. As far as downplaying the government failure, I have no issue in agreeing with you on that, they certainly did that.

You and I are simply going to disagree on some of this, which is fine. Back to original issue...there is a lot of hypocrisy playing out here. Nothing new.
Click to expand...


I guess it's a matter of semantics, like what the meaning of the word "is" is. If you want to define a word in a special way, perhaps you should do so before trying to make your point. The congressional investigation was never about proving criminal activity. And, it really wasn't expected that the investigation would reveal it. She did a tragically incompetent job, and joined the administration in trying to sweep it aside. She wasn't 'cleared' of anything, and the report was about as bad as an audit of such a situation could be.

Did her deeds rise to the level of criminality? No. But when the praise of Clinton is that she avoided going to jail, you have to wonder how she ever became a candidate for the Democrat party.
 
dcsports said:
I guess it's a matter of semantics, like what the meaning of the word "is" is. If you want to define a word in a special way, perhaps you should do so before trying to make your point. The congressional investigation was never about proving criminal activity. And, it really wasn't expected that the investigation would reveal it. She did a tragically incompetent job, and joined the administration in trying to sweep it aside. She wasn't 'cleared' of anything, and the report was about as bad as an audit of such a situation could be.

Did her deeds rise to the level of criminality? No. But when the praise of Clinton is that she avoided going to jail, you have to wonder how she ever became a candidate for the Democrat party.
Click to expand...

I think she became the candidate for the Democratic party because she has an incredibly powerful and at times ruthless machine behind her. When Obama defeated her in the primary it was devastating. The DNC wasn't going to allow another candidate to beat her again. Sanders came very close, but there was too much against him from within the DNC and he would never win.

And I do think we are arguing semantics. I did not define "cleared" in a special way, nor did I define "wrongdoing" in a special way, you can verify using any one of the online dictionaries. Anyway, I think we both have differing opinions on the grand strategy of the Benghazi report and the way it was politicized. It was clearly used to attack Clinton's credibility because they knew she would be the front runner and the hardest to beat, regardless of who the Republican candidate for President was. And, in the overall strategy, it played a part (which it should have). I simply draw a distinction between incompetence and criminal action. She was accused of being a criminal, she was cleared of that charge when it was determined there wasn't enough evidence to make the case (I know, I know...you and others think there was).

I wonder how Donald Trump got to be the candidate of choice for the GOP. The guy had to settle a $25 million dollar lawsuit before inauguration. He ran on a campaign of fear and lies, yet he is the guy that most resonated with Republican voters. You'll have to understand why I question anyone who tries to criticize HRC on her conduct when they support Donald Trump. It's tragically ironic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom