Thursday, October 01, 2015

In the wake of an admission by the presumptive new Speaker of the House that the Benghazi investigation was designed to destroy Hillary Clinton, Dems want it shut down.

Courtesy of The Hill: 

House Democrats are pouncing on Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) public acknowledgement of the political value in the Select Committee on Benghazi and calling for GOP leaders to shut the panel down. 

The Tuesday evening comments from McCarthy — the No. 2 House Republican and front-runner to be the next Speaker — confirmed long-held accusations that the panel has been little more than a political hit job for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, they say. 

Now, multiple members of the panel want the committee closed. 

“I believe it is time to end this investigation,” committee member Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.) said in a statement. 

She also called for McCarthy, committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to “apologize” for “abusing the memories” of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the three other Americans killed during the attack on a U.S. compound in the Libyan city in 2012. 

“The decent thing to do is to wrap up the committee’s work as soon as possible,” said Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), another member of the committee and a 2016 Senate candidate. “[T]he majority leader’s partisan disclosure breaks the promise we made to the victims’ families to make sure a tragedy of this magnitude never happens again.”

Okay so last night Rachel Maddow postulated the idea that perhaps Hillary should refuse to testify before the committee later this month.

First I thought, "Oh no that's a really bad idea because it will just pour more gasoline on the fire, and cause many on the Right to accuse Clinton of having something to hide."

But then I thought, "Who cares?" After all no matter how many times Hillary testifies those on the Right are NEVER going to believe her statements, as indicated by their response to her previous testimony during a Benghazi hearing.

They essentially just accused her of lying, and even though previous investigations have found absolutely NOTHING, they continue on this witch hunt.

Right now this investigation exists solely for the opportunity to catch Hillary Clinton in a lie, or to find some small amount of evidence which can be exaggerated to prove that she should not be our next Commander-in-Chief. And everybody now knows this to be true.

So tell me, WHY should Hillary Clinton continue to cooperate?

In my opinion every Democrat currently serving on the House Committee investigation of Benghazi should quit en masse, and Hillary should give a press conference stating that in light of the new admission that this investigation was designed to undermine her campaign she will now respectfully refuse to participate.

The FBI investigation into her e-mail account of course can proceed, and Hillary should cooperate with it, but since it is unlikely to produce the "smoking gun" the Republicans are looking for it will likely only serve as a temporary distraction.

So that is my opinion, anybody disagree?


  1. Anonymous2:08 PM

    Agree. Supposedly, the GOP is the fiscally responsible party. How much have they wasted on this?

  2. Anonymous2:09 PM

    Well, I disagree. How can we talk about this when there is trouble in paradise for Wasilla's golden couple? I can barely think of anything else! What if they divorce? Who gets child custody? Can she even support herself without him, really? I dont think so.

    1. Anonymous3:25 PM

      hi RAM

    2. Anonymous3:44 PM

      3:25, excuuuuse me, my name is PRINCESS!

  3. Anonymous2:11 PM

    She should tell them she will testify as soon as they investigate all the embassy bombings during the bush administrations and ask them why there wasn't any investigations into any of them.

    1. Anonymous2:30 PM

      That's an excellent point.

    2. Chris2:32 PM

      Which embassies were bombed during the Bush administration? I've looked online and I can't find any. And I'm glad for it. Embassies shouldn't be bombed.

    3. Anonymous3:00 PM

      You need someone to teach you how to google.

      Prior to Benghazi, were there 13 attacks on embassies and 60 deaths under President George W. Bush?

      As the U.S. House of Representatives was readying a new special committee to investigate the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, many Democrats were arguing that continuing to probe the Sept. 11, 2012, attack -- which killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens -- amounted to a political witch hunt.

      On May 5, 2014, Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., told MSNBC host Ed Schultz that there has already been exhaustive testimony and investigation of the incident.

      "This thing is just going on and on to boredom actually," Garamendi said. "The Armed Services Committee actually did a hearing and the result was there’s nothing here. That’s obviously a great tragedy, but Ed, during the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died. In Karachi, there was a death of one of our diplomats, and those were not investigated during that period of time because it was a tragedy."

      Readers asked us whether it’s true that under Bush, "there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world, (and) 60 people died."


    4. Anonymous3:01 PM

      Con't from..
      We turned to the Global Terrorism Database, a project headquartered at the University of Maryland. The database documents terrorist attacks around the world going back to the 1970s, and experts told us it is the best resource available for this fact-check.

      We searched the database for descriptions between January 2001 and January 2009 that included the term "U.S. embassy." We supplemented these with a few other attacks listed in a Huffington Post opinion piece that Garamendi’s staff said was their main source for the claim. The Huffington Post column Garamendi cited purposely didn't count any attacks in Baghdad. So we decided to construct our count from scratch.

      While Garamendi spoke of "embassies and consulates," we found several U.S. diplomatic targets killed in the line of duty outside official compounds -- such as in convoys or their homes -- and we included them in our count. Once we cross-referenced the attacks in the article and those in the database, we narrowed down the total to 39 attacks or attempted attacks on U.S. embassies and embassy personnel.

      Con't page 3

    5. Anonymous3:01 PM

      Con't from Page 2

      Of these 39 attacks, 20 resulted in at least one fatality. (Our complete list is here.) This is higher than Garamendi's claim, though if you only count attacks on embassy and consular property, there were 13.

      Garamendi also understated the number of deaths. In the 20 incidents with at least one fatality, the total death toll was 87 -- quite a few more than the 60 Garamendi cited. If you only count those at embassies and consulates proper, the number of deaths drops to 66.

      We should note that the vast majority of these deaths were not Americans. We counted 63 deaths that were either of non-Americans or of people whose nationality is unknown. Another three were U.S. civilians. Another 21 were workers at the U.S embassy or consulate, either of American or foreign nationality.

      So, using what we think is the most reasonable definition, Garamendi's numbers are a bit low.

      What about the implicit comparison he made between Benghazi and these previous attacks? That’s a little shakier.

      Generally, the experts we contacted agreed that Garamendi was making a reasonable point that there has been a steady, and comparatively overlooked, series of deadly attacks on U.S. embassies in recent years.

      Still, these experts also said there are valid reasons to treat Benghazi differently from the earlier attacks.

      "Is Benghazi different? Absolutely," said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and an adjunct assistant professor in Georgetown University’s security studies program.

      One reason, he said, is that an American ambassador died in the attack, which hadn’t happened since the 1970s. Another relevant question, Gartenstein-Ross said, "is whether what happened was put to the American people in an honest manner, not just with respect to the administration, but also with respect to the intelligence community."

      Gartenstein-Ross added that he wasn’t endorsing "how the Republicans go about" investigating this question. But he did say it’s a "real, legitimate question."

      "As always, what causes the problem is not so much what happens, but the response to it," said Theodore R. Bromund, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "‘If the administration had come out shortly after the attack and said, ‘Our consulate was attacked by organized Islamist forces, and we will pursue these terrorists and bring them to justice, one way or the other,’ I very much doubt there would be much juice in these hearings, if indeed they were being held at all."

      Lance Janda, a military historian at Cameron University, agreed that Benghazi brings up important issues.

      "We probably should have had more United States forces on site or at least nearby," he said. And the administration had a "muddled response in terms of releasing information," he added.

      Our ruling

      Garamendi said that "during the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died." There are actually different ways to count the number of attacks, especially when considering attacks on ambassadors and embassy personnel who were traveling to or from embassy property. Overall, we found Garamendi slightly understated the number of deadly attacks and total fatalities, even using a strict definition. Garamendi’s claim is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.

    6. Jim in Texas3:03 PM

      Really looked, did you Chris? I just ran a Bush + Embassy + Bombing search and got 162000 results. Here is the first one.

    7. Anonymous3:05 PM

  4. Anonymous2:39 PM

    Unfortunately, it really doesn't matter at all. Republicans are so afraid a Democratic President will win the next ejection, that they will lie about anything. The Republican base will still hate Hillary, believe she is dishonest, hate Planned Parent, and believe that PP is after Christian baby brains. They want to believe this crap, so they will. What makes me even more livid, are the democrats and progressives that also bad mouth Hillary. We need a strong united progressive front to counteract this nonsense. If I hear one more progressive say they don't trust Hillary, I'm going to scream. You've drank the Republican bile.

    1. Anonymous4:16 PM

      Or how about the ones who say, "I'll vote for her if she's nominated." Fuck you, if it's that hard for you to want the first woman Prez, a brilliant, tough, capable woman with more talent than any of the lot, then don't vote for her at all.

    2. Anonymous1:03 AM

      We must remain steadfast in electing a democrat to the WH 2016 and electing down ticket democrat.

      Hillary serves that purpose and she will have decent democrats around her. We must stop seeking 'perfect' democratic politicians.

      VOTE. Choose wisely, consider elect-ability, and don't use energy taking up the cause of ranting rwingers which are designed to distract us. Stay focused.

      Courage matters.


  5. Anonymous2:51 PM

    And, I'll give every Republican on that committee 'the finger' for her. She should not appear OR if she does, she should give them one huge dressing down for their bullshit and waste of taxpayer's money!.

    I can hardly wait to cast my vote for her as POTUS!

    1. Anonymous3:12 PM

      At this point it appears she will drop out long before you would be able to cast that vote.

    2. Anonymous4:13 PM

      Yeah, sure, 3:12.

    3. Anonymous5:04 PM

      Yeah that is right 4:13, pretty sure of it.

  6. Anonymous3:02 PM

    As top-ranked conservo-feminist Todd "what, me worry?" Aiken might say, "Shut that whole thing down!".

  7. I do agree with you G. Then I thought about the Republicans issuing Hillary a subpoena to force her to appear. So, perhaps Hillary should put her snark on and show up to the hearing and give them hell.

    1. Anonymous3:48 PM

      Is your last name Thomspon or Thompson? It's my hubbys mothers maiden name, which is why im curious.

  8. Anonymous3:23 PM

    They can't "catch her in a lie" because she's telling the truth.

    That's their big problem.

    1. Balzafiar3:59 AM

      As Gryphen said: " matter how many times Hillary testifies those on the Right are NEVER going to believe her statements..."

      Anytime someone says "I don't believe you are telling the truth" even though it is clear that you are, it is usually because what you are saying doesn't fit their agenda.

  9. Anonymous3:42 PM

    I think she should refuse to cooperate with the email investigation because that too is for the sole purpose of undermining her campaign. She should refuse until everyone who was or is running for national office and who has previously used an external email account (Palin, Jeb) or deleted all their emails before leaving office (Huckabee) is also investigated.

    1. Anonymous4:07 PM

      Your little fantasy holds no water.

      None of those people you listed were Sec of State. Federal.

      Palin isn't running for anything and never will.

      And Hillary cannot refuse.

    2. Anonymous6:21 PM

      Hold your snark. She can refuse. If Condi can refuse to testify on Iraq, Hilary can refuse on this.

    3. Anonymous8:38 PM

      Condi isn't running for president either. Politically, she cannot refuse, she has already sown plenty of misinformation and lies.

  10. Anonymous3:44 PM

  11. Anonymous3:57 PM

    Bristol Palin: Hillary Clinton Fears My Mom

    "The liberals like Hillary Clinton would have you believe all sorts of lies about my mother," she wrote. "But, behind closed doors, we find out all sorts of truths, including the fact that Hillary fears my mom’s power."
    -Barstool Palin

    Barstool what do you mean your mom has powers?
    Does your mom have the power to:

    Keep Barstool's leg closed and panties up.
    Keep her husband Todd from fucking prostitutes.
    Put her kids into college? 0 for 3.
    To become president.

    1. Anonymous4:09 PM

      Hillary Clinton hasn't wasted five minutes thinking about Sarah Palin in the past seven years. If someone mentioned this screed by Bristol, Clinton would just ask "Who?"

      Palin's ancient history, a toothless has-been who's universally derided as an uneducated harridan.
      Hillary Clinton, as well as just about every female politician, is better informed, smarter, more sophisticated, etc., etc., etc. than Sarah Palin ever knew existed.

      To see an effective governor who also happens to be a woman, look at the press conferences by Gov. Brown of Oregon today, following the mass shooting.

      The Palins are click-bait nowadays, and a way for
      the public to laugh silently, and shudder with amazement, that these uneducated backwater fools got anywhere near an elected office. Including mayor of Wasilla.

    2. Anonymous5:00 PM

      I stand corrected: Clinton did mention Palin in 2011, including her in an all-encompasing Fox/ Palin et. al.
      Palin, by that point, simply represented one of the shrill talking monkeys that popped up regularly on Fox.
      Palin's no longer one of the monkeys -- well, one of those paid by Fox and regularly put on national TV.
      If Hillary Clinton didn't want to bother with their noise back then, she certainly isn't worried about Palin's "power" nowadays. The half-wit's influence has shrunk since then to a tiny blip.
      No one in the Republican primaries has called on her to campaign for them. Trump hasn't invited her for pizza on a paper plate. She's reduced to having her daughter/paid ghostwriter post such silly, feeble, petulant whines.

    3. No one cares about Sarah Palin. They certainly don't fear her. She is irrelevant to everyone but late night comics looking for a punch line.

  12. Anonymous4:10 PM

    They need to look back.....Colin Powell did the same thing. In fact, why don't we look back at how George and the rest of his administration handled emails? Now there's an investigation.

    1. Anonymous5:03 PM

      Are any of those people running for President?

    2. Anonymous6:22 PM

      So what. It's just politics not legalities.

  13. Anonymous4:19 PM


    1. Big Big problem but hardly a Big Big surprise.

  14. I agree too.

    Enough is enough.

    Having testimony after testimony and hearing after hearing is not going to change this outcome and it is insanity to be wasting our tax payer dollars thinking that it will.


Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.