ADVERTISEMENT

And the truth comes out...

theiacowtipper

theiacowtipper

HB Legend
Feb 17, 2004
16,617
17,381
113
It turns out what Democrats have said for over a year is the absolute truth. The Republican witch hunt (pun intended) that is the Benghazi investigation is simply a politically motivated set of attacks against the Democratic frontrunner for the nomination for president. From presumptive speaker McCarthy.

Allow me to cut and paste from the attached article:

What you’re going to see is a conservative speaker, that takes a conservative Congress, that puts a strategy to fight and win. And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?

But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen.

By admission of the presumptive Speaker of the House, third in line to the presidency, the intent of the Benghazi investigation was not to find the truth about Benghazi, it was to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Later in the article, it goes on to say that the committee came up with one "scandal", that of the email, we don't know yet the magnitude of that scandal. It is obvious that the committee needs to fess up to their true intentions, that of a wing of the Republican National Committee aimed at ginning up any possible issue that can pain Hillary Clinton in a bad light. Let's drop any pretense of truth finding or looking at issues related to the tragedy of Benghazi.

Edit to add link: http://www.vox.com/2015/9/30/9423339/kevin-mccarthy-benghazi
 
She's going to need a presidential pardon to avoid prison time. Let's just wait and see.
 
So despite that there is guilt, because it is also being used as political gain, we should all just ignore what she did? She most definitely is a liar. She is in fact a war-mongering, power hungry, immoral, member of the elite circles.

Go ahead and vote for her if you want, nothing will change.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WORTHYWISH, HallofFame and Tom Paris
That's some fine twisting, and you know it.

He is saying that since Hillary is indeed untrustworthy (and any self-respecting dem would admit to that), the world needs to be shown that - if they want to combat the left's attempt at rubber-stamping the entire election a year ahead of it actually occurring.

You're saying the entire public campaign is based on "nothing to see here" and it's all made up. He's saying that the subject (the email scandal, borne out of Benghazi) is not "nothing to see here" and needs to be told to everybody (voters) to fully understand what they're getting with Hillary.

It all goes to Hillary's untrustworthiness. That to me sounds like Politics 101 in today's world. Fiorina...the dems on this board like to talk about the GOP needs to be putting her in charge of PP so she can run it into the ground based on her HP experience. Your side is attacking her very readiness as a CiC because she is a threat to the dems keeping the WH. A wildly successful business woman is probably the last thing they want Hillary to have to run against.

Please explain to me how that is truly different?

Your side does it too...it really is the exact same thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SWIowahawks
Who thought this was just about getting to the truth. It's Washington it is never about just getting to the truth.
 
Hawkeyemc said:
She's going to need a presidential pardon to avoid prison time. Let's just wait and see.
Click to expand...
Only in your brainwashed wingnut fantasy world of Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Let's just wait and see. Despite years of witch hunting, she's yet to even be accused of a crime.
 
cigaretteman said:
Only in your brainwashed wingnut fantasy world of Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Let's just wait and see. Despite years of witch hunting, she's yet to even be accused of a crime.
Click to expand...
If she is indicted will you still defend her? In addition, I seem to remember Karl Rove was never charged with a crime but no admitted lib ever Let that little fact get in the way of all the accusations
 
Last edited:
aflachawk said:
If she is indicted will you still defend her? In addition, I seem to remember Karl Rove was never charged with a crime but no admitted lib ever Let that little fact get in the way of all the accusations
Click to expand...
I bet Ciggy believes ol' Bill "never had sexual relations with that woman" either.
 
thewop said:
What? Making public the worst in someone is politically motivated? In Washington DC?

Get outa here!
Click to expand...

So is it ok in your world for taxpayer funded witch hunts in order to get a political advantage? Is it ok for the IRS to target individual taxpayers with audits and increased scrutiny in order to gain a political advantage? Because that is exactly what the presumptive speaker is admitting. This committee was formed with the intent of bringing down Hillary Clinton's poll numbers. The wingnuts have consistently accused the Obama administration of exactly the same thing with the IRS "scandal", a taxpayer funded political assassination attempt.
 
thewop said:
What? Making public the worst in someone is politically motivated? In Washington DC?

Get outa here!
Click to expand...

So is it ok in your world for taxpayer funded witch hunts in order to get a political advantage? Is it ok for the IRS to target individual taxpayers with audits and increased scrutiny in order to gain a political advantage? Because that is exactly what the presumptive speaker is admitting. This committee was formed with the intent of bringing down Hillary Clinton's poll numbers. The wingnuts have consistently accused the Obama administration of exactly the same thing with the IRS "scandal", a taxpayer funded political assassination attempt.
 
theiacowtipper said:
So is it ok in your world for taxpayer funded witch hunts in order to get a political advantage? Is it ok for the IRS to target individual taxpayers with audits and increased scrutiny in order to gain a political advantage? Because that is exactly what the presumptive speaker is admitting. This committee was formed with the intent of bringing down Hillary Clinton's poll numbers. The wingnuts have consistently accused the Obama administration of exactly the same thing with the IRS "scandal", a taxpayer funded political assassination attempt.
Click to expand...
Neither is ok, yet both happened. In at least the HIllary case, it does seem she probably did some things that were illegal, and what other way would that have come to light? You do want to know when the head of the state department is breaking the law, right? Clearly it shouldn't happen through committees being formed, etc. etc. etc. The question, I guess, is who should have investigated from the beginning in order to expose the crime? The FBI? How do they get their orders to do so? I don't know the answers to all of these questions, but I'm pretty sure nobody honestly believes the whole thing should have just been kept quite and swept under the rug.
 
In at least the HIllary case, it does seem she probably did some things that were illegal.

And just what might those things be? Nothing has come out of the Benghazi witch hunts that even suggest she did anything remotely illegal.
 
thewop said:
What? Making public the worst in someone is politically motivated? In Washington DC?

Get outa here!
Click to expand...

So is it ok in your world for taxpayer funded witch hunts in order to get a political advantage? Is it ok for the IRS to target individual taxpayers with audits and increased scrutiny in order to gain a political advantage? Because that is exactly what the presumptive speaker is admitting. This committee was formed with the intent of bringing down Hillary Clinton's poll numbers. The wingnuts have consistently accused the Obama administration of exactly the same thing with the IRS "scandal", a taxpayer funded political assassination attempt.
thewop said:
Neither is ok, yet both happened. In at least the HIllary case, it does seem she probably did some things that were illegal, and what other way would that have come to light? You do want to know when the head of the state department is breaking the law, right? Clearly it shouldn't happen through committees being formed, etc. etc. etc. The question, I guess, is who should have investigated from the beginning in order to expose the crime? The FBI? How do they get their orders to do so? I don't know the answers to all of these questions, but I'm pretty sure nobody honestly believes the whole thing should have just been kept quite and swept under the rug.
Click to expand...

So again, is it ok to use a government agency to investigate a political candidate for office, simply in an attempt to find evidence that wrongdoing was committed, because that's what we have here. There was an investigation that seems to have been initiated in an attempt to bring down Hillary's poll numbers. Remember, this "scandal" had been repeatedly and thoroughly investigated by multiple committees. Countless democrats said that this was an example of investigation until you find something, anything, that you think you can make stick, at least in the court of public opinion.

If you are ok with this, how about we open an SEC investigation into Trump's stock trades? We might find something there. How about look into possible fraud by Carly at HP? Surely we can find something in those investigations.

No one is talking about sweeping anything under the rug. Let's call this investigation what it was, simply an attempt at political assassination. How many politicians could survive this level of inquiry? 10%?
 
cigaretteman said:
In at least the HIllary case, it does seem she probably did some things that were illegal.

And just what might those things be? Nothing has come out of the Benghazi witch hunts that even suggest she did anything remotely illegal.
Click to expand...


Will be hard to tell as none of her email was archived on a government server. Funny how that works.
 
cigaretteman said:
In at least the HIllary case, it does seem she probably did some things that were illegal.

And just what might those things be? Nothing has come out of the Benghazi witch hunts that even suggest she did anything remotely illegal.
Click to expand...


And that might actually be the truth here. We will probably never know.

I try to look at all this from a story vs investigation aspect. The investigations do appear like she will be "legally exonerated". The way it went down though smells bad.

The republicans would be doing a disservice to their party by not following everything through to a conclusion. And that's why the story about all this (which is what I believe that quote truly was about) is what republicans will continue to bang the drum about. My personal opinion is...the investigations aspect of Benghazi if they aren't shut down need to be. The email stuff needs to also find some sort of conclusion.

Hillary's entire political career...honestly...smells of smoke. Cons smell it, and are looking for the fire. If the tables were reversed party-affiliation-wise...the dems would be doing the exact same thing. Which their followers still do to this day ("Bush's fault"). The dems have completely whitewashed Obama's overall ineffectiveness by blaming the prior guy.
 
aflachawk said:
If she is indicted will you still defend her? In addition, I seem to remember Karl Rove was never charged with a crime but no admitted lib ever Let that little fact get in the way of all the accusations
Click to expand...
Did Rove go to jail? I think that's your answer.
 
Both sides waste a lot of money on this stuff. The key for the pubs is to win the White House and paybacks for the dems with the IRS and just start issuing executive orders.
 
$4.5 million wasted on the Benghazi investigation and the families of those who died have learned nothing, and the US State Department doesn't have a better idea how to protect it's embassies and consulates.
What McCarthy did was let the truth slip out. As a liberal I am excited by his ascension to Speaker of the House. He could be a tremendous gift for Hillary in 2016.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
cigaretteman said:
Only in your brainwashed wingnut fantasy world of Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Let's just wait and see. Despite years of witch hunting, she's yet to even be accused of a crime.
Click to expand...
She's practically a NeoCon, and even some liberal supporters have recognized that about her. She's been right there in line with the NeoCon philosophy on foreign policy. You're delusions are sad, because you for one, it's clear you are nothing more than a repeat of what pundits say, and two, you don't even realize you're asking for exactly what you think you stand against.

It's just a game for you, you don't really care, you just care about sticking up for the Dems. Very sad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
cigaretteman said:
In at least the HIllary case, it does seem she probably did some things that were illegal.

And just what might those things be? Nothing has come out of the Benghazi witch hunts that even suggest she did anything remotely illegal.
Click to expand...
Here's your girl, you easily led sheep. Spin this one. Tell us how all other politicians do the same thing. Then explain why that statement shouldn't be laughed at. I'll make sure everyone notices you ignoring this.
 


Here she is with a slip up, explaining how much the decision making within the CFR(very real and not a government agency btw), has a say in political matters.
 
HawktimusPrime said:
So despite that there is guilt, because it is also being used as political gain, we should all just ignore what she did? She most definitely is a liar. She is in fact a war-mongering, power hungry, immoral, member of the elite circles.

Go ahead and vote for her if you want, nothing will change.
Click to expand...

And how is she different than the multitudes of other POTUS candidates.......present and past? The cons are pissed at the Clinton's because back in the day, Bill made look more foolish than what they were.Its all about payback.
GOPers in general are still pissed That the Dems got the goods on Nixon and forced his resignation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
joelbc1 said:
And how is she different than the multitudes of other POTUS candidates.......present and past? The cons are pissed at the Clinton's because back in the day, Bill made look more foolish than what they were.Its all about payback.
GOPers in general are still pissed That the Dems got the goods on Nixon and forced his resignation.
Click to expand...
Doesn't make it right - I tell my kids that whenever they use the "well the other kids.." excuse.
 
Vroom_C14 said:
Doesn't make it right - I tell my kids that whenever they use the "well the other kids.." excuse.
Click to expand...
Doesn't make what right Vroom? I would agree it makes the stupidity of the GOP attackers look more rediculous every day. Is that what you meant?
For 7 years the GOP chased Bill Clinton and never...and I mean never had anything to hang their hat on until.they used his infedilty to coerce a perjury charge. They chased him for 7 years and looked foolish almost the entire time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
joelbc1 said:
Doesn't make what right Vroom? I would agree it makes the stupidity of the GOP attackers look more rediculous every day. Is that what you meant?
For 7 years the GOP chased Bill Clinton and never...and I mean never had anything to hang their hat on until.they used his infedilty to coerce a perjury charge. They chased him for 7 years and looked foolish almost the entire time.
Click to expand...
From your post "And how is she different than the multitudes of other POTUS candidates.......present and past?" Just because others have done it, doesn't make it right.
 
joelbc1 said:
And how is she different than the multitudes of other POTUS candidates.......present and past? The cons are pissed at the Clinton's because back in the day, Bill made look more foolish than what they were.Its all about payback.
GOPers in general are still pissed That the Dems got the goods on Nixon and forced his resignation.
Click to expand...
That's the point Joel, she's not different than any of the Presidential candidates, and as a matter of fact has a much more worrisome background and hand in foreign policy than most Presidential candidates have. No more excuses Joel, if you actually care to see things improve that is.
 
theiacowtipper said:
It turns out what Democrats have said for over a year is the absolute truth. The Republican witch hunt (pun intended) that is the Benghazi investigation is simply a politically motivated set of attacks against the Democratic frontrunner for the nomination for president. From presumptive speaker McCarthy.

Allow me to cut and paste from the attached article:

What you’re going to see is a conservative speaker, that takes a conservative Congress, that puts a strategy to fight and win. And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?

But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen.

By admission of the presumptive Speaker of the House, third in line to the presidency, the intent of the Benghazi investigation was not to find the truth about Benghazi, it was to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Later in the article, it goes on to say that the committee came up with one "scandal", that of the email, we don't know yet the magnitude of that scandal. It is obvious that the committee needs to fess up to their true intentions, that of a wing of the Republican National Committee aimed at ginning up any possible issue that can pain Hillary Clinton in a bad light. Let's drop any pretense of truth finding or looking at issues related to the tragedy of Benghazi.

Edit to add link: http://www.vox.com/2015/9/30/9423339/kevin-mccarthy-benghazi
Click to expand...
Auditioning for MSNBC?
 
So . . . the only thing that came out of the Benghazi investigation was that Clinton used a private email setup?

I think I'm with cowtipper on this one. Especially when you notice that the email discovery didn't actually emerge from the Congressional hearings but from a hacker - more than a YEAR BEFORE the Benghazi committee was set up.

Here's a pretty decent overview of the so-called scandal:

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/11/9309983/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-explained
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
tarheelbybirth said:
So the point is that we need to launch a comprehensive congressional investigation into every presidential candidate? If she's "not different" then that's what you should be calling for.
Click to expand...
There were just reports that Russians attempted to get into her server. It is completely against OPSEC to have Classified documents in anywhere outside and organizational unit, and
If she broke the law, she broke the law. Everyone seems to forget that it was the intelligence community and the state department that first pointed this out.
They also confirmed that classified information was within some of those emails.

Some of them were SCI level information which can be above top secret even, but either way is absolutely set to be handled by authorized systems and authorized systems only. The reason it is a big deal is because there could be matters that she's involved in that may have serious implications due to a possibility that the information wasn't authorized through any of the departments. How she got away with this so long is actually kind of surprising. Deleting over 32,000 emails certainly isn't helping her case, and jokes on her because, if they know she deleted those emails, it's because a tech trail led them to knowing that. Unless she wasn't smart enough to clear her deleted email box, but I'm not sure on those details.

As a member of the Federal Government, she is just as liable as anybody else, including military personnel, contractor, etc, to be held accountable for this. It's actually a very, very serious offense, and anyone without the clout she has, would be in SERIOUS trouble. You even make a mistake dealing with classified, SCI level information, and you can get into a lot of trouble, regardless of whether you knowingly did it or not. It's not something to play around with.

Keep crying all you want, but she got caught and that's why the investigations started in the first place.
 
Last edited:
tarheelbybirth said:
So now you're changing your original claim. Progress.
Click to expand...
In a way yes, always willing to try and see things. "None" was not accurate, it should have read "none of her email to outside entities" (non government emails). Had she been sending from the gov controlled server then "ALL" her email from her .gov account would have been archived and she wouldn't be in the pickle she knowingly has herself in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cigaretteman

Johnson aide advised against Hutchinson subpoena over concerns about lawmakers’ ‘sexual texts’

Replies
1
Views
200
Off Topic
lucas80
lucas80
Scott559

When was the last time you truly were an A-hole and don’t regret it

Replies
8
Views
331
Off Topic
millah_22
millah_22
cigaretteman

House Republicans Call for Liz Cheney to Be Investigated Over Jan. 6 Committee Role

Replies
63
Views
1K
Off Topic
What Would Jesus Do?
What Would Jesus Do?
cigaretteman

Trump endorses Mike Johnson for reelection as House speaker ahead of perilous vote

Replies
1
Views
166
Off Topic
MichaelKeller99
MichaelKeller99
cigaretteman

Will Matt Gaetz Try to Participate in the House Speaker Vote?

Replies
0
Views
275
Off Topic
cigaretteman
cigaretteman
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back