Ex Benghazi investigator admits it was a fraud aimed at Hillary

[TexMichFan]

Never surprises me that people jump on anything they agree with as true and anything they don't as false.

What I want to know is did he complain about this before he was fired or just after. I admit to being a little skeptical of Podliska since he has filed a lawsuit over his termination.

 

[LuckyNed]

 

[naturalmwa]

She looks like a fun Grandma here. I think you got trolled.

 

[Vroom_C14]

What Clinton official?

Pick one that stands up for her and says bengahzi is a lie...

 

[Vroom_C14]

She looks like a fun Grandma here. I think you got trolled.

Like she did a line and someone is playing CCR type fun grandma?

 

[naturalmwa]

Like she did a line and someone is playing CCR type fun grandma?

Now you want to vote for her too, right? When your image is of a cold calculated bitch, this probably helps.

 

[lucas80]

Never surprises me that people jump on anything they agree with as true and anything they don't as false.

What I want to know is did he complain about this before he was fired or just after. I admit to being a little skeptical of Podliska since he has filed a lawsuit over his termination.

He did complain, and he says that is why he was fired.

 

[TexMichFan]

He did complain, and he says that is why he was fired.

"He says" is not prof.

Did he have any write ups or counseling? This is a government job so it would be hard to believe they just sat him down with no warning and terminated him on the spot. In my limited dealing in lawsuits and unemployment hearings there is not much the two sides agree on so written communications will go further in getting to the truth.

He might be completely right and then again he might not so I will wait until I see both sides before making a decision.

 

[Lone Clone]

And, why not? You can say he has an ax to grind, and that he is making speculative assertions, but he was right there in the middle of it all. I assumed people would immediately attack him for having personal motivations, but, since nobody has jumped in with that response I take it to mean the right knows the sham investigation has been exposed.

1. He is not the most credible of sources, having been fired and subsequently suing the people he is now "exposing."

2. His claims go counter to the record, in terms of who has been interviewed and how the committee has gone about its business.

3. Even if the most outlandish claims made by Hillary apologists about the motives of the Gowdy committee are true, it isn't relevant to the final outcome. If she is found to have committed crimes or major violations of policy, and lied to the public about it, it makes no difference whether she was exposed by politicians for partisan purposes or by high-minded public servants with the best of intentions and purist of motives. You DO understand that, don't you? What matters is what she did (or failed to do).

 

[Jan Itor]

22...the sad thing for you and your thought. is that Hilary doesn't have to win election in Congress...."we the people" still make that decision.
Becareful how and where you use the word "incompetence"...especially in a sentence with "Congress" in it.

The sad thing is there are still people that would vote for Hillary. Sanders would be a much better selection than her. Go down with the ship, I guess.

 

[Jan Itor]

He did complain, and he says that is why he was fired.

He says he complained.

 

[hawkssox1]

I suspect more people will feel emboldened to tell the truth now that McCarthy spilled the beans.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/10/polit...lary-clinton-brad-podliska-lawsuit/index.html

So your saying POLITICS are going on in DC..WOW just WOW.

 

[theiacowtipper]

1. He is not the most credible of sources, having been fired and subsequently suing the people he is now "exposing."

2. His claims go counter to the record, in terms of who has been interviewed and how the committee has gone about its business.

3. Even if the most outlandish claims made by Hillary apologists about the motives of the Gowdy committee are true, it isn't relevant to the final outcome. If she is found to have committed crimes or major violations of policy, and lied to the public about it, it makes no difference whether she was exposed by politicians for partisan purposes or by high-minded public servants with the best of intentions and purist of motives. You DO understand that, don't you? What matters is what she did (or failed to do).

As it pertains to Hillary Clinton, yes, that is correct. If this committee finds that Hillary did one of the things you listed, she is done. However, if the claims made by "Hillary apologists" are true, don't you have the slightest bit of unease about politicians using a publicly financed committee for political purposes? How about this. Is there a difference between a politically motivated congressional investigation and a President ordering audits of political opponents? Or a difference between this and the FBI being ordered to find something, anything on a candidate?

 

[Lone Clone]

As it pertains to Hillary Clinton, yes, that is correct. If this committee finds that Hillary did one of the things you listed, she is done. However, if the claims made by "Hillary apologists" are true, don't you have the slightest bit of unease about politicians using a publicly financed committee for political purposes? How about this. Is there a difference between a politically motivated congressional investigation and a President ordering audits of political opponents? Or a difference between this and the FBI being ordered to find something, anything on a candidate?

To answer your questions, of course there is a difference. It's a huge difference. I'd be amazed if you didn't recognize the difference.

 

[theiacowtipper]

To answer your questions, of course there is a difference. It's a huge difference. I'd be amazed if you didn't recognize the difference.

Enlighten me how there is a difference between the use of taxpayer funds for political tax purposes in these cases.

 

[Lone Clone]

Enlighten me how there is a difference between the use of taxpayer funds for political tax purposes in these cases.

It is not illegal for Congress to act in a partisan manner. It is illegal for the IRS and FBI to do so.

How's that for a difference?

 

[MitchL]

Regardless of any guilt or not on HRC's part... the thing that voters will remember is that this is/was nothing more than a political witchhunt. It just adds to the negative feelings Americans have toward the current GOP.

This is not about influencing the hardline Dems or Republicans, because they have already decided how they're voting. But where this really hurts the GOP is with the Independents who still have issues with both Parties.

 

[Lone Clone]

Another point worth considering.

According to the committee, the guy never mentioned Hillary when he was fighting his dismissal.

Moreover, he was reprimanded in June for ordering interns to prepare information about Hillary's whereabouts and activities.

It sounds like he was the guy obsessed with her, not the committee.

As far as what voters will remember.....if they are continually pounded with lies by the MSM about this being nothing but a witch hunt, you may be right. On the other hand, at some point -- if she is found to have committed violations -- all but the most densely partisan of them will have to admit that witch hunt or not, a witch was exposed.

Regardless of any guilt or not on HRC's part... the thing that voters will remember is that this is/was nothing more than a political witchhunt. It just adds to the negative feelings Americans have toward the current GOP.

This is not about influencing the hardline Dems or Republicans, because they have already decided how they're voting. But where this really hurts the GOP is with the Independents who still have issues with both Parties.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

my dog would be a much better choice than hillary

 

[YellowSnow51]

I suspect more people will feel emboldened to tell the truth now that McCarthy spilled the beans.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/10/polit...lary-clinton-brad-podliska-lawsuit/index.html

And naturally all of the Hillarians slurp it up...while claiming that Lois Lerner didn't really mean it when she apologized for targeting GOP groups. Awesome.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Regardless of any guilt or not on HRC's part... the thing that voters will remember is that this is/was nothing more than a political witchhunt. It just adds to the negative feelings Americans have toward the current GOP.

This is not about influencing the hardline Dems or Republicans, because they have already decided how they're voting. But where this really hurts the GOP is with the Independents who still have issues with both Parties.

that's right, that's all the voters will remember because the media wants it that way, never bring up four dead americans, no, not that....

 

[Vroom_C14]

Now you want to vote for her too, right? When your image is of a cold calculated bitch, this probably helps.

Glad you finally saw her for what she is.

 

[naturalmwa]

Glad you finally saw her for what she is.

I've known who she is for some time. She is a corporate Wall Street hawk with moderate poll tested social positions. Rs will be very well served, just as they were by her husband.

 

[Vroom_C14]

I've known who she is for some time. She is a corporate Wall Street neocon hawk with moderate poll tested social positions. Rs will be very well served, just as they were by her husband.

And by served you mean like Monica... gotcha.

 

[naturalmwa]

And by served you mean like Monica... gotcha.

Yes, I'm sure Rs will be lined up to receive Hillary's oral favors on tax, trade, environment, and labor issues many times. She will sell out her team and triangulate to break the back of the tea party and firm up the R establishment. If you liked the 90's you will enjoy Hillary.

 

[Vroom_C14]

Yes, I'm sure Rs will be lined up to receive Hillary's oral favors on tax, trade, environment, and labor issues many times. She will sell out her team and triangulate to break the back of the tea party and firm up the R establishment. If you liked the 90's you will enjoy Hillary.

I'd rather have oral from a bear trap.

So you mean the 90's behind Clinton AND Bush.

 

[Titanhawk2]

I doubt very much that any of the Republicans on this board will bother reading this article. Just imagine if there was testimony that an investigator for a democratic organization said that he was ordered by the White House to focus only on Republicans. In this case, since it is the opposite, a simple denial by the committee is sufficient. No reason to investigate.

Yet more evidence that the Benghazi committee is nothing but an illegal use of public funds for political purposes. Gowdy belongs in jail.

What exactly was revealed in this? It's an investigation, it's supposed to focus on something, otherwise you're not really investigating anything. It's an investigation into what the State Dept did or did not do, which WAS headed by Clinton, who just happens to be running for Pres. Too bad. So this guy thinks they should focus on something else? Should not have focused on one particular thing? So?

 

[naturalmwa]

I'd rather have oral from a bear trap.

So you mean the 90's behind Clinton AND Bush.

No I just mean the Clinton years.

 

[Vroom_C14]

No I just mean the Clinton years.

HAHA - I knew that, just razzin' ya.

 

[MitchL]

that's right, that's all the voters will remember because the media wants it that way, never bring up four dead americans, no, not that....

Not to sound crass, but people choose to work in foreign countries knowing the risks. They are likely well compensated, and with that... comes a high level of risk. Against a mob scenario, I would guess it's very hard to be well protected. Could America have done more... I don't know. Maybe it would have endangered even more American citizens to do so.

It's always easy to second guess. And that is where we are today.

 

[Rifler]

You know, the more I think about it, I think you guys are right. This whole thing is really nothing more than a witch hunt.....

An extremely successful witch hunt.

 

[MitchL]

You know, the more I think about it, I think you guys are right. This whole thing is really nothing more than a witch hunt.....

An extremely successful witch hunt.

We won't know how successful it is until we see who the Dems nominate. I think people underestimate the Clinton machine. And the revelations by looselipped McCarthy aren't exactly a plus for the GOP, would you agree?

 

[theiacowtipper]

It is not illegal for Congress to act in a partisan manner. It is illegal for the IRS and FBI to do so.

How's that for a difference?

But it does violate congressional ethics rules. You admitted in another post that, at least at some level, this is a partisan exercise. Certainly an ethics investigation is warranted?

 

[txhawk I]

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/wat...zi-panel-this-has-been-a-partisan-witch-hunt/
Democratic strategist Donna Brazile on Sunday lashed out at Republicans on CNN’s State of the Union for trying to defend Benghazi investigations even after they had been linked to partisan efforts to destroy Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

In an interview that aired on Sunday, Major Bradley Podliska told CNN’s Jake Tapper that Republicans on the House Select Committee on Benghazi fired him because he was more interested in getting to the truth behind the Benghazi attack than he was in using the committee to smear Clinton.

After former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli told a CNN panel that the Benghazi committee was important because “Americans have real questions,” Brazile interrupted.

“Let me stop you,” she said. “Because we’ve had eight investigative hearings. The State Department has spent $14 million responding to congressional requests. We know the defense department has spent an insurmountable amount of man and women hours. If Mr. [Trey] Gowdy and his Select Committee was interested in getting to the truth, they would have brought witnesses throughout the year to talk to intelligence, to talk to defense, to talk to the State Department.”

“This has been a partisan witch hunt,” Brazile continued. “What are they investigating now? Where are the public hearings? $4.6 million of taxpayers’ money.”

The Democratic strategist argued that Chairman Gowdy had not called former Defense Secretaries Robert Gates or Leon Panetta to testify “because he’s not interested in getting to the truth of what happened to four Americans. He wants to take down Hillary Clinton and that has been proven.”

Really, what is worse....Political witch hunt or 4 dead.

 

[Lone Clone]

But it does violate congressional ethics rules. You admitted in another post that, at least at some level, this is a partisan exercise. Certainly an ethics investigation is warranted?

What I "admitted" was that many Republicans, if not all Republicans, are hoping the investigation uncovers reprehensible behavior by Hillary. In some cases that's probably mostly partisanship; in others, it's a desire to see a wrongdoer exposed.

Ethics rules? Give me a freaking break. We're talking about LAWS in the case of the IRS and FBI, and not only laws but the most sacred type: Protecting the privacy of individual Americans from the power of the federal government. The kind of laws the American Revolution was fought to provide.

I am old enough to remember Watergate, and in fact, was a card-carrying Democrat and bona fide liberal at the time. Gave McGovern's campaign a week's salary. But I was never so wacko that I didn't realize there was a significant partisan component in the investigation.

 

[txhawk I]

What I "admitted" was that many Republicans, if not all Republicans, are hoping the investigation uncovers reprehensible behavior by Hillary. In some cases that's probably mostly partisanship; in others, it's a desire to see a wrongdoer exposed.

Ethics rules? Give me a freaking break. We're talking about LAWS in the case of the IRS and FBI, and not only laws but the most sacred type: Protecting the privacy of individual Americans from the power of the federal government. The kind of laws the American Revolution was fought to provide.

I am old enough to remember Watergate, and in fact, was a card-carrying Democrat and bona fide liberal at the time. Gave McGovern's campaign a week's salary. But I was never so wacko that I didn't realize there was a significant partisan component in the investigation.

Good for you Lone Clone. Reminds me of a great quote, "

"If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain".

Winston Churchill

 

[Chewback]

But it does violate congressional ethics rules. You admitted in another post that, at least at some level, this is a partisan exercise. Certainly an ethics investigation is warranted?

That shouldn't take long, Republicans have no ethics. Actually, it could take forever if they actually attempt to find a single, solitary ethic.

 

[cigaretteman]

Really, what is worse....Political witch hunt or 4 dead.

LOL The video criticism has to be the stupidest thing to get outraged over in the history of stupid political outrages. If the committee had truly been interested in finding out what went wrong in Benghazi and what steps to take to prevent future such incidents, this wouldn't have even been proposed as a criticism. It was and is pure grasping at straws and neither had or has any bearing on any serious investigation into the events of that day and night.

 

[txhawk I]

LOL The video criticism has to be the stupidest thing to get outraged over in the history of stupid political outrages. If the committee had truly been interested in finding out what went wrong in Benghazi and what steps to take to prevent future such incidents, this wouldn't have even been proposed as a criticism. It was and is pure grasping at straws and neither had or has any bearing on any serious investigation into the events of that day and night.

It all started with the video, Moby. Obozo was still pushing it 2 weeks later. Was it a lie?