Patterico's Pontifications

10/22/2015

The Appalling Hillary Clinton And Her Damning Emails

Filed under: General — Dana @ 5:22 pm



[guest post by Dana]

Hillary Clinton is a stone-cold liar and all-around appalling person. I can’t think of anything else to say about her. This woman, who delusionally believes herself worthy to be our president, was fine with telling foreign leaders and her family the truth about Benghazi, but chose to lie to the American people. This woman does not deserve to be the president, and is not even worthy to place flowers on the graves of the four Americans who died in Benghazi.

Now let’s take a look back when the bodies of those four Americans killed in the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya arrived back home, when Clinton, giving a speech, claimed:

We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with.

(At the 1:03 mark)

Unfortunately, this is not going to bring any peace to Sean Smith’s mother who just wants to know what really happened in Benghazi when her son was killed, in spite of Clinton blaming the video.

And let’s remember another parent, Charles Woods, whose Navy Seal son, Tyrone Woods, was also killed in the attacks, who said something similar:

Clinton told him directly, at the memorial service, that the filmmaker was responsible.

“She said we’re going to have the person responsible for that video arrested. I knew she was lying. Her body language, the look in her eyes…I could tell she wasn’t telling the truth.”

Sadly, there is no consolation or relief for these parents tonight.

–Dana

88 Responses to “The Appalling Hillary Clinton And Her Damning Emails”

  1. Outraged.

    Dana (86e864)

  2. Remarkable she claims she does all her business in meetings or over the phone, yet generated some 95,000 emails during the time in question. Further no other cabinet level officer has ever had their own private server separate and apart from the federal system. John Deutsch and David Petraeus pled guilty to crimes for much less. If she simply kept her email account at the office we’re not even discussing this at all. No indication she cleared this with anyone, simply did it. Jim Jordan made a strong point; the Security Service agent at the back door in Chappaqua is not a federal IT guy, so bringing that ups complete nonsense. . Simply a stunning level of brazen indifference to any rules at all.

    Bugg (fa64ec)

  3. Hillary! may be a stone-cold liar but she’s also a very obvious liar. When she lies, and by that I mean every time she speaks, everybody knows she’s lying. Her supporters know it, and cheer her on, and her enemies (to use her word) know it.

    I wish I can say I don’t understand why everyone isn’t appalled by this vile woman. But I do know, as liberals who aren’t have explained it to me.

    Steve57 (9b30eb)

  4. And the best part? So many folks on the Right are going to work so very hard to make sure she is President.

    Blumenthal is laughing.

    Simon Jester (301325)

  5. Simon Jester, I wouldn’t say they’re on the right. There are many folks in the GOP who are trying to make her President, though.

    Steve57 (9b30eb)

  6. Honest broker.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  7. Sadly for a good many CoC/cuckservative/GOPe DC establishment Clinton II would be better for business than any prospective GOP candidate. Or at least they think so. Much easier to scare the yokels with the awfulness of Hillary! (and it would be bad ) than deal with a president of their party shocking the system and shaking things up.

    Bugg (fa64ec)

  8. is the Jordan video the smoking gun? Will it turn the hearing?

    Dana (86e864)

  9. I would think dana, it’s as close to a code red moment.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  10. My vote is the telegraph video (At the 1:03 mark).

    Directly contradicting Hilary’s testimony in minute detail.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  11. That is BS, Simon.

    JD (3b5483)

  12. Well Hanna and mccarthy, there will likely be others.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  13. I dunno, JD. We have people here ready to bite off their noses to spite their faces.

    It’s a little like when Gomer took Christina (that’s a cat he found and he called her Christina on account that was his cat’s Christina’s name back in Mayberry) on board on ship and Sgt. Carter threatened to throw her overboard bu then a CPO tried to pull rank and he threatened to throw Chiristina overboard and Carter got his dander up and was like “You and what Army, sailor boy? Nobody’s touching this cat”, but then it turned out that Christina was going to have kittens and everybody was like “Aww!” and everything turned out okay, by golly.

    nk (dbc370)

  14. Her body language said it all. Evil monster.

    Joe (078f44)

  15. And the best part? So many folks on the Right are going to work so very hard to make sure she is President.

    Could you be more specific?

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  16. When the Military lied about Pat Tillman, scandal. When Hillary and Obola lie about Benghazi ……

    Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d)

  17. narcisso, very true. But this administration and Hillary! need to worry about some of those others.

    observer.com/2015/10/hillarys-email-troubles-are-far-from-over/

    …It will be weeks, even months, before the FBI’s investigation concludes and the Department of Justice has to decide whether any of the events surrounding EmailGate reach the threshold of prosecution. Many in the FBI and the Intelligence Community suspect the fix is already inside the West Wing to prevent that from happening, but it’s still early in this investigation.

    It can be expected that if the White House blocks Hillary’s prosecution during the election campaign, leaks will commence with a vengeance. “Is there another Mark Felt out there, waiting?” asked a retired senior FBI official. “There usually is,” he added with a wry smile, citing the top Bureau official who, frustrated by the antics of the Nixon White House, became the notorious “Deep Throat” who leaked the dirty backstory to Watergate to the Washington, DC, media.

    Mr. Obama and the Clinton camp should be advised to be careful about who they throw under the bus in this town.

    Liberals like the Obamas and Clintons believe they are above the law. But laws are for the little people, and they use the law enforcement apparatus to bludgeon the little people into submission.

    So they can’t afford to make the little people in the FBI, and the IC, their enemies. Which is exactly what they’ll be doing if Obama chooses not to prosecute Hillary! when too many people in the FBI and the IC know that she’s guilty as sin. These are the people who know the secrets, and the people who investigate the leaks. They will cause the Obamas and Clintons all kinds of trouble if Obama pisses them off and they become the leakers.

    Steve57 (9b30eb)

  18. and yet, anyone willing to bet a months rent/mortgage against her winning?
    The MSM is still a Huge force and they will be all out for H!C.

    seeRpea (9e22e8)

  19. Pat, my response to your question would be two-fold. If Trump is the nominee the party “purists” stay home and Cankles is in. If the establishment succeeds in ousting Trump and props up Jeb the other side of the party stays home and Shrillary! gets in. So long as she isn’t in the hoosegow at that point.

    Gazzer (3323f3)

  20. Steve-

    I would really like to believe that. But I’ve seen the Famous But Incompetent at work when politics comes into play, and it’s not pretty. DoJ can pick and choose what laws do or do not get enforced and what defendants do or do not get prosecuted. US Attorneys may be excellent attorneys, but they don’t get their jobs by virtue of toiling in a friary. Loretta Lynch someday has to go back to NYC into private practice to make some big bucks. With all the Clinton connections on Wall Street,white shoe law firms and the MFM, have a very hard time seeing her going hard against Hillary. The idea that some “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” or Perry Mason moment is sadly a fantasy. Hillary! is never going to have some Captain Quegg/Colonel Jessup moment.There were some really awful exchanges by her today with Jordan and Roskam, but really she will be the Dem nominee.

    The only real check on Hillary is doing our damnedest to see she does not get 269 Electoral votes in about 1 year and a couple of weeks.

    Bugg (fa64ec)

  21. I’m not a “purist”, but I’d vote for Trump over a Democrat any day of the week. I think he’s an absolute asshole, but that’s still a vast improvement over any Democrat I can think of.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  22. Was that CNN video from today? My goodness, are they finally telling the truth about Hillary?

    Patricia (5fc097)

  23. The video was from yesterday, Patricia.

    Dana (86e864)

  24. Colonel, me too. I have no idea how good the Donald would be as preezy, but I know exactly how bad Shrillary! would be. But many, even here, would vow to stay home rather than vote for Trump. Christ I even voted Juan McCain…

    Gazzer (3323f3)

  25. Yep, me too, Gazzer. More of the same is not the answer and that is just what sitting home will virtually guarantee.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  26. I’d vote for Trump, too, but consider it a loss. Hell, I voted for McCain and still wish he’s won, even though he was terrible on half the issues (but Obama is terrible on all).

    But oh my god the lost opportunities.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  27. At this point I can not see how or why I would not vote for a major candidate against H!C

    She has become just awful and I don’t want Bill in the WH an additional 8 years.

    seeRpea (9e22e8)

  28. Did anyone ask her “Secretary Clinton, you’ve details how you told your daughter and those foreign leaders the truth about Benghazi. Why did you lie to the American people about it time and again?”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  29. I would vote for Jeb, I would vote for (ghm) Kasich, I would even vote for Rick Santorum. But I’d have to take several showers after.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  30. But I send money to Fiorina.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  31. I would give my smallest toe on my left foot for the exhibits Jim Jordan had, and the opportunity to cross-examine Hillary Clinton on those exact topics. He did fine, by Washington speech-making standards. But it was a complete waste of time, as far as having her under oath. The same ground he covered, if done by someone who has a clue about cross-examination, could have been about a thousand percent more effective. But for some reason, even very accomplished trial lawyers, upon election to Congress, seem to forget 98% of everything they ever knew about the art.

    I’m still only skimming clips, I haven’t watched the whole thing. I wonder if Gowdy did better, just in terms of his tactical ability as a questioner? I hope so.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  32. Stop for a minute and ask yourself: How much better off would America be if Mitt Romney had been president the last 3 years?

    Would he have been perfect? No. But I do not have the time today or tomorrow to list the things that would be better, even without better congressional leadership.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  33. Hint: None of these questioners has the least clue about witness control. They don’t even seem to be aware that there is such a topic, such a skill — much less how to do it.

    They just can’t help hearing themselves talking and hoping the folks back home will think, “Rar-rar! My guy made a good speech!”

    Their exact vulnerability plays directly into Clinton’s greatest strength, the ability to filibuster and quasi-babble.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  34. Here’s another hint, just a tiny, insignificant one, that can make all the difference in the world in terms of controlling the witness and focusing the audience’s attention.

    You have a document that’s attributed to the witness — say, an email which attaches the transcribed notes of a State Department aide (whose job, in a tradition going back to the dawn of time, is to take such notes) regarding Hillary’s conversation with the President of Egypt. The email is incredibly significant, because it shows that on the same day of the attack, on 9/11/12, Clinton knew the video had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack. You want to highlight the time the email was sent. You want to compare that, dramatically, to the whole timeline. You want to make the very best possible use of Hillary’s own words, to make her eat those words, to make those words ring as loudly as you can make them so that you can contrast them to her and Obama’s public statements about the video.

    Jordan made all his points. He made them by saying, “Look here, see this document? It says this. Now look here, see? It says that. Now look at that. Now what’dya say to that?”

    How much more effective if he’d broken that up into about 30 tight, short, yes/no questions that make her tell the audience what’s in the document? That highlight that these are her words? That highlight that these times are exact, this transcript is reliable.

    When you’ve got the witness hemmed in with a key document which they have to acknowledge is authentic, then you methodically pull every single admission you can out of the witness’ own mouth — in little bitty tiny bites. You make her agree with you. You make her read things in her own voice: Not, “Doesn’t this say it was sent at 8:42pm,” but “Tell the committee please, what time the email was sent, as reflected on it.” Make her say the numbers. “How long was that after the attack ended?” Make her do the math, make her say the numbers. Repeat the good ones, just: “It was eight hours? I see.”

    The witness can’t make speeches without it being hyperobvious that she’s making speeches. You’re using your power to control the next question to completely control the agenda.

    Instead, these guys make speeches, which invite speeches, which waste their chance to ask questions — whether to find things out, or whether to simply structure the cross-examination effectively.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  35. Missed a close-italics tag up there, sorry. The first set ought to have stopped with “tiny bites.” The phrase “without it being hyperobvious” is also intended to be italicized.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  36. Beldar – What do you think about the protected witnesses and what they could reveal.

    mg (31009b)

  37. ?

    mg (31009b)

  38. Bugg @20, I wasn’t speaking about the Loretta Lynch’s of the DoJ. I’ve been saying I don’t see the FBI playing politics with this investigation. Apparently many current and former agents are royally P.O.d about the Preezy’s actions and comments. Since they don’t want to appear to be Prom Queen’s lap dogs, the best course of action to proving they are not is to be to go the extra mile and build an air tight case against Clinton. And frankly I don’t see how the case can be anything but air tight given what we already know. And it would be a felony case.

    Then it would be up to the Preezy’s lap dogs at the DoJ to play politics with the case. And I don’t doubt they would. But then the FBI agents can play politics, too, by leaking the facts of the case. And who is going to investigate their leaks? They’re the investigators.

    Prom Queen and his lackey AGs have already prosecuted some of the very same “little people” they have to rely on to make their system work. Which is why I see the little people causing the DoJ, Obama, and Hillary! all kinds of problems if they give Queen Hillary! a pass.

    Steve57 (a0050a)

  39. Stop for a minute and ask yourself: How much better off would America be if Mitt Romney had been president the last 3 years?

    As far as I’m concerned, the election in 2012 pretty much sealed America’s fate. That moment — along with opinion polls of Barack and Hillary, etc, since 2009 — was when I knew this society had truly succumbed to the illness of modern-day liberalism. A condition that is really a variation of old-time Argentina Disease or decades-long Eurosclerosis.

    Based on other nations, I don’t believe there is a cure as much as a long-term prognosis of interminable withering, a situation that conservatives, staunch moderates or common-sense-oriented people in general in places like Mexico have to experience every day of their life.

    That a crumb-bum like Hillary has rated so highly in various surveys going back years, cited by far too many Americans as someone they respect and admire, is a manifestation of the theory that liberalism is a form of mental illness.

    Finally, it goes without saying that in 2016 I will vote for any candidate but a Democrat/liberal.

    Mark (f713e4)

  40. 33. Hint: None of these questioners has the least clue about witness control. They don’t even seem to be aware that there is such a topic, such a skill — much less how to do it…

    Beldar (fa637a) — 10/22/2015 @ 9:40 pm

    I don’t see how they couldn’t know if some of them are former prosecutors.

    Jim Jordan in particular went out of his way to agree the Cairo protest was about the video. Not even the Cairo violence was about the video.

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/10/jihadis-threaten-to-burn-u-s-embassy-in-cairo/

    September 10, 2012 – 4:20 pm

    “The group, which consists of many members from al-Qaeda, called [especially] for the quick release of the jihadi [mujahid] sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman [the “Blind Sheikh”], whom they described as a scholar and jihadi who sacrificed his life for the Egyptian Umma, who was ignored by the Mubarak regime, and [President] Morsi is refusing to intervene on his behalf and release him, despite promising that he would. The Islamic Group has threatened to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo with those in it, and taking hostage those who remain [alive], unless the Blind Sheikh is immediately released.”

    These protests are never spontaneous. It is simply impossible to get these kind of crowds together without advertising on social media, flyers, word of mouth in mosques, and as you see above press releases to the local media. Essentially a manifesto. So we know what the Cairo rioters were enraged about, and it wasn’t s video.

    CNN’s Nic Robertson interviewed the brother of the Abdel Rahman as well as Muhammad al Zawahiri, the brother of Al Qaeda emir Ayman al Zawahiri. He repeats through an interpreter what the protest is going to be about, and he never mentions a video. Just like their press releases and social media didn’t mention the video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPszLCEyu-I

    CNN’s Nic Robertson Interviews Brother of Blind Sheik

    I can’t see why Jim Jordan would have let Hillary! off the hook for lying about Cairo as well as Benghazi.

    Steve57 (a0050a)

  41. What I’m getting from Beldar is that, unless this is a formal investigation, with counsel asking the questions rather than a gaggle of blovating politicians in love with their own voice, there’s not much point. The only one who is focused is the witness, half the questioners are there to help her, or at least muddle whatever they can muddle, and no one knows or cares about how to hold her feet to the fire.

    This will take a hard-core GOP President who does know these things (e.g. Cruz) who is willing to drag these miscreants before a judge and jury. But we’ll probably get Trump, who aspires to blovating, or Carson, who just wants to give everyone a hug.

    Maybe we should just stop all this distraction and just elect someone who isn’t Hillary.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  42. I , have been watching legislative hearings since Army/McCarthy and agree that politicians, even those who had been prosecutors, make terrible questioners. The skills of a good cross-examiner are completely absent. The reason is that the goal of a politician is re-election not the truth.

    Michael Keohane (74cef6)

  43. “She has become just awShe has become just awful and I don’t want Bill in the WH an additional 8 years.”

    seeRpea (9e22e8) — 10/22/2015 @ 9:

    Same as she ever was…

    Colonel Haiku (bb3c31)

  44. The GOP questioners did a pretty good job given the highly partisan environment of this congressional committee. Not perfect, self-serving at times, but overall they succeeded in exposing Hillary Clinton as a bald-faced liar and a witting accomplice to what amounts to the high crime of participation in a coordinated White House program to deceive the American people on a matter of national security on the eve of a presidential election.

    The fact we’ve known it all along, now confirmed by new information of Hillary’s duplicity, is not to be taken lightly.

    ropelight (6354c4)

  45. frustrated by the antics of the Nixon White House, became the notorious “Deep Throat” who leaked the dirty backstory to Watergate to the Washington, DC, media.

    The rehabilitation of Mark Felt is well along. Felt was angry that Nixon appointed an outsider, the squeaky clean L Patrick Gray, as FBI Director instead of Felt who was dirty and who was later pardoned by Nixon who had no idea he was behind the Watergate coup d’etat.

    with counsel asking the questions rather than a gaggle of blovating politicians in love with their own voice, there’s not much point. The only one who is focused is the witness, half the questioners are there to help her, or at least muddle whatever they can muddle, and no one knows or cares about how to hold her feet to the fire.

    Yup, she got away scott-free as far as the average LIV is concerned. McCarthy set the tone and they all fell in line. You’d think it was a setup or something.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  46. And you may find yourself living in a strange country
    And you may find yourself in a place you don’t recognize
    And you may find yourself behind the wheel of a Prius automobile
    And you may find yourself in a subsidized house, with a Kardashian fan wife
    And you may ask yourself
    Well…How did I get here?

    Letting the lies go by
    Let the gubmint hold me down
    Watching the lies go down
    Pressure building underground
    Into the Blue State again
    After the money’s gone
    Lies for a lifetime
    Pressure building underground

    And you may ask yourself
    How do I change this?
    And you may ask yourself
    Why’d i buy that automobile?
    And you may tell yourself
    We can do better than this house
    And you may tell yourself
    This is not my brain-dead wife

    Letting the lies go by
    Let the gubmint hold me down
    Watching the lies go down
    Pressure building underground
    Into the Blue State again
    After the money’s gone
    Lies for a lifetime
    Pressure building underground

    Same as it ever was…
    Same as it ever was…
    Same as it ever was…
    Same as it ever was…
    Same as it ever was…
    Same as it ever was…
    Same as it ever was…
    Same as it ever was…

    Colonel Haiku (bb3c31)

  47. yes, Felt had been coordinating ‘black bag’ operations against the likes of Ayers, and others in the Weather Underground, the irony is his ‘speaking truth’ to Woodward, was what helped uncover Bureau shortcoming, and brought him this close to jail.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  48. so steve raises a question, why did the committee avoid the smoldering mammoth carcass in the room, that this was an al queda operation from start to finish, much like the proxy parlee in syria, with volodya, in fact this was the beginning of that story,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  49. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with.

    She was not talking abouyt Benghazi, which, after all, was NOT an embassy, or even a consulate.

    You know what one of the dogs that didn’t bark here isL

    SHE’S NOT CORRECTING THAT

    Not clearly.

    She wants Republicans to bark on the wrong tree.

    And another BIG LIE: he was a friend of Ambassador Christopher Stevens. The more that gets repeated, the more Democrats claim to know that out of their opwn personal knowledge the more I think this is a lie – and probably an outrageous one..

    Sammy Finkelman (6c2cdd)

  50. Republicans have forgotten that numerous demonstrations aaginst the video were made all over the Islamic world in the days after Benghazi

    AND HILLARY CLINTON IS NOT REMINDING THEM!!

    Sammy Finkelman (6c2cdd)

  51. At aloss how no one called her on her “I take fulls responsibility”, The phrase was completely meaningless, much like how a 2 year old at first thinks saying “I’m sorry” covers anything. And there was no followup. What ever did she mean by saying that? Nobody lost their job, there was no change in procedures.And in the case of her off site unauthorized server no change at all. Give credit to Roskam and Jordan, who at least tried.

    Must say among and between the stupidity of Boehner, McCarthy(may he burn in hell) and Ryan et al, I am genuinely disgusted. Gowdy, who is a sharp guy, did not ride herd on the committee Republicans.There was no coordination at all, redundant questions, meandering speeches, happytalk nonsense abounded. We didn’t need showboats and nonsense, we AGAIN needed someone who could put together a few pointed sharp questions and then cross and follow up. We know every word the Dems said yesterday was scripted. Spare Jordan, Roskam and Gowdy himself, we had a mess of very lazy Congressmen who didn’t seem to appreciate the opportunity they had. And that laziness allowed things to drone on for 11+hours and then that harridan to play the sympathy card.

    Bugg (db3a97)

  52. Here’s my smoldering mammoth:

    During the Arab Spring, in early 2011 Hillary saw an opportunity to help the newly formed Transitional National Council (TNC) depose Muammar Gaddafi and sought ways to arm and encourage Libyan opposition forces.

    She and Chris Stevens met with senior TNC leader, Mustafa Jibril in Paris on March 14th 2011 to discuss ways to deliver American arms to Libyan fighters. Then she met Egypt’s Foreign Minister, Nabile Elarabi in Cairo the next day to discuss secure transportation arrangements across Egypt to Libya. She was even photographed taking a victory lap in Tahrir Square with Huma Abedin.

    (The TNC formed in early February 2011 in Benghazi and quickly became the de facto opposition to Gaddafi in Libya, it became the official opposition government on the 5th of March 2011.)

    The plan was to openly ship US weapons to Qatar and the UAE (for surreptitious transshipment across Egypt for delivery to Libyan rebels, Ansar al Sharia, closely affiliated with al Qaeda in the Maghreb). The circuitous route was intended to keep US fingerprints off weapons shipments to forces openly hostile to US interests.

    However, the ever greedy and heedlessly aggressive Hillary saw an opportunity to carve out a profitable niche for herself. She diverted half the weapons paid for by Ansar al Sharia to Syrian rebels opposing Bashar al-Assad, got paid twice for the same guns, stiffed the Libyans, and looked the other way while Ansar al Sharia took revenge on the easy US target she’d stripped of security and set up to take the fall in Benghazi.

    Incidentally, those Syrian rebels used Hillary’s weapons to became ISIS.

    ropelight (6354c4)

  53. 42. I , have been watching legislative hearings since Army/McCarthy and agree that politicians, even those who had been prosecutors, make terrible questioners. The skills of a good cross-examiner are completely absent. The reason is that the goal of a politician is re-election not the truth.

    Michael Keohane (74cef6) — 10/23/2015 @ 3:49 am

    It’s almost as if the goal of the GOPe is to put on a show so they can tell us, “Gee, we tried.”

    Because I agree with many observers, some of whom who commented here. If they were at all serious at getting at the truth the GOP questioners would have prepared, and would have had a strategy. Yet, they didn’t.

    There were so many obvious openings. For instance the Obama administration had one story for American public consumption, another for foreign governments. Now Hillary! invokes the fog of war; they had so much conflicting information coming in they did the best they could.

    So why didn’t Hillary! say anything to the families of those killed about all that conflicting information that was just oh! So confusing AT THE TIME?

    If the “fog of war” excuse is to be taken seriously (and I can’t take it seriously as there were too many eye and ear witnesses to the events for the lie about a protest to remain plausible within a day of the planned assault; the assault took place in a very public place in Benghazi) then why did she tell the families that the administration was going to track down the film maker who was responsible?

    Why didn’t she mention the conflicting information? Why didn’t she tell the whole truth?

    This is called lying by omission. I think any competent interrogator let alone a former prosecutor would have seized on the obvious conflict. That her many stories can not all be true, including the “fog of war” story. Which is laughable. But giving Hillary! credit for a doubt that doesn’t exist, she and the rest of the Obama administration lied by omission by concealing the fact that there were other t
    Aside; I would have loved to have seen someone trap her on that if she claimed she couldn’t share that conflicting information with the families because it was classified. Because then she’d have to explain why she could give classified information to Chelsea. Why she could put classified information on her unclas, unsecured homebrew server. hreads of information that indicated the assault had nothing to do with any video. Multiple other, far more credible threads of information. Which she along with her cronies deliberately withheld. Which couldn’t have been classified since she shared that information with Chelsea.

    Any attempted explanation I could have used as rope to hang her with.

    Yet despite the hanging, slow pitches right over the plate that any decent hitter could have turned into a moonshot, none of the Republicans even attempted to swing at them.

    Like someone else said, it seems like the fix was in.

    Steve57 (a0050a)

  54. * But giving Hillary! credit for a doubt that doesn’t exist, she and the rest of the Obama administration lied by omission by concealing the fact that there were other threads of information that strongly indicated the attack had nothing to do with any video. As she told the Egyptian PM originally.

    Steve57 (a0050a)

  55. Now that’s a very plausible scenario, the only wrinkle is bel hadj who ran the Tripoli military committee was training rebels to high in syria east of benghazi.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  56. There’s also the problem of the bastion being under attack in afghanistan, and the attack on the school in tunis, I dubbed this the shawwal offensive.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  57. @ Kevin M (#41), who wrote:

    What I’m getting from Beldar is that, unless this is a formal investigation, with counsel asking the questions rather than a gaggle of blovating politicians in love with their own voice, there’s not much point. The only one who is focused is the witness, half the questioners are there to help her, or at least muddle whatever they can muddle, and no one knows or cares about how to hold her feet to the fire.

    Pretty much, yes.

    The forum is inherently more chaotic than a courtroom because the committee chair doesn’t have the same practical ability to control things. (Having a uniformed bailiff with a sidearm who answers instantly and only to you does wonders for a judge’s practical authority, and Trey Gowdy couldn’t order Hillary cuffed and taken to a cell if she refused to answer.)

    And yes, it’s a given in these hearings — as it also is in courtrooms — that the other side will use its time to bloviate, distract, and prop up the witness.

    But I think there were real opportunities to educate and persuade, as well as real opportunities to develop new leads and evidence, that these guys are missing. Using my example above: How valuable would it be to the eventual GOP nominee for the next calendar year would it have been to simply force Hillary to read aloud in her own voice her own words from the email on the night of the attack? Six months from now, no one will pay a whit of attention to Jordan’s own argumentative assessment of the evidence. But what wouldn’t we give for a good 30-second sound-bite of Hillary having to read aloud the date and key sentences from that email in her own voice, acknowledging before and after that, yes, this email is genuine and the notes in it correctly reflect what she actually said to the foreign officials (or Chelsea) on that day?

    I’ve since watched some other cross-examinations, and some members of the committee did a better job than Jordan at actually asking questions. I don’t think any of them were particularly inspired, but they were, technically, worthy of passing grades.

    Big picture: They had months to plan for the day. I think they blew it. That’s not to say that the committee hasn’t accomplished anything important, nor is it to say they won’t accomplish more. But this was a big chance, and scored most optimistically (by political geeks) it was a essentially a draw; strategically that translates into a win for Clinton.

    @ mg (#36): I don’t know enough about the protected witness issues to venture much by way of opinion, sorry.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  58. if you were a Benghazi fanboy it was probably super interesting but if you’re a normal person you were probably watching the star wars trailer

    if you’re from iowa you probably dvr’d it but fast-forwarded to see what Mr. Dr. Ben Carson had to say about it

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  59. You are grabbing the wrong end of the stick.
    It does not really matter if she lied about the reason for the attack.
    Besides, riots can start for more than one reason. AQ plans an attack, stirs up a mob with the video story to cover over and confuse.
    But the important thing is not what happened after the attack, but what happened (or more precisely what did not happen) before. Glorious Leader and Glorious Secretary of State allowed an American facility to be attacked, did not defend it properly, allowed four Americans to die.
    The crime was comitted before, by not doing their job. If the committee does not make that clear and certain, than it is all useless posturing.

    kishnevi (9cb6b5)

  60. Kevin McCarthy should resign as Majority Leader I think

    how can he possibly be effective going forward

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  61. kishnevi, there was no riot in Benghazi.

    Even if you’re right that riots can start for more than one reason, that is irrelevant when there was no riot. And there was no riot in Benghazi. No protest, nothing. Just a planned assault.

    So Hillary!’s lies can’t be excused by this line of what you might call reasoning. The lack of any protest or riot whatsoever renders your point that riots or protests can start for multiple reasons entirely null and void.

    I do agree that one of the major unanswered questions is that this administration, Hillary!’s State Department, had done to protect the lives of those serving at the diplomatic facility in Benghazi. In addition to the fact that the volume of threat reporting had been steadily increasing, it was the anniversary of 9/11. The WH issued a press release saying that the Obama administration had taken all possible steps to protect US lives and facilities at home and abroad.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/10/readout-president-s-meeting-senior-administration-officials-our-prepared

    The next day the Benghazi DipFac was overrun, on the date of the very anniversary the Obama administration had crowed about preparing for.

    If it were possible, given a reasonably fast car with a good cooling system and the absence of law enforcement, I could drive the equivalent of from Sigonella to Benghazi in just over 4 hours. A C-130 could make it in about an hour and a half.

    We are told on 10 September 2012 via the WH press office that:

    …Over the past month, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan has convened numerous meetings to review security measures in place. During the briefing today, the President and the Principals discussed specific measures we are taking in the Homeland to prevent 9/11 related attacks as well as the steps taken to protect U.S. persons and facilities abroad, as well as force protection…

    Yet the fact that this administration could not respond to a contingency in North Africa just a short distance south of major NATO bases in a region that is a hotspot means that despite the claim that they had prepared for “[o]ver the past month” nobody had prepared for a damn thing. And I have never heard a good excuse for this. In fact, I have never heard of anyone one in the LHMFM express any curiousity into the obvious lies this administration told about taking the anniversary of 9/11 seriously.

    I’d like to get answers to my questions.

    Steve57 (a0050a)

  62. Talking Heads – Burning Down The House Lyrics
    Watch out you might get what you’re after
    Cool baby strange but not a stranger
    I’m an ordinary guy
    Burning down the house

    Hold tight wait till the party’s over
    Hold tight we’re in for nasty weather
    There has got to be a way
    Burning down the house

    Here’s your ticket pack your bag: time for jumpin’ overboard
    Transportation is here
    Close enough but not too far,
    Maybe you know where you are
    Fightin’ fire with fire

    All wet hey you might need a raincoat
    Shakedown dreams walking in broad daylight
    Three hun-dred six-ty five de-grees
    Burning down the house

    It was once upon a place sometimes I listen to myself
    Gonna come in first place
    People on their way to work baby what did you expect
    Gonna burst into flame
    Burning down the house

    My house’s out of the ordinary
    That’s might don’t want to hurt nobody
    Some things sure can sweep me off my feet
    Burning down the house n

    No visible means of support and you have not seen nuthin’ yet
    Everything’s stuck together
    I don’t know what you expect staring into the TV set
    Fighting fire with fire

    Danube River Guide (76b104)

  63. …given a reasonably fast car with a good cooling system and the absence of law enforcement, I could drive the equivalent of from Sigonella to Benghazi in just over 4 hours…

    Obviously I’d need a large enough fuel tank, too. Stopping for gas would add time.

    Steve57 (a0050a)

  64. it’s not the fire what gets you it’s the smoke

    i learned that from benghazi on fox and friends

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  65. Probably a lot of answers to certain questions are –sensitive.

    Not sure after all the security risks that Hillary has opened us up to–that on top of that we have to advertise just how bad and incompetent this administration is. Of course that hampers the Republicans that try to get at the answers, it’s a difficult balance.

    We have a lot of sudden strategist that like to talk tough on the internet and radio and about a burn it all down strategy–who are either knowingly or unknowingly creating a bigger power vacuum for L’ Hillary.

    Danube River Guide (76b104)

  66. I do agree that one of the major unanswered questions is that this administration, Hillary!’s State Department, had done to protect the lives of those serving at the diplomatic facility in Benghazi

    I think it is the only important facet of the case. Focusing on the lies uttered afterward is a distraction. At best, it provides evidence that the WH and Hillary were trying to escape blame. It is a subordinate facet of the case.

    The only thing that matters about Benghazi is that Hillary let Americans get killed. Anything that shifts attention off that is bad.

    kishnevi (28fa9f)

  67. Campaign slogan for 2016
    Hillary lied, people died, Hillary lied

    To reflect the fact that she lied before and after.

    kishnevi (31ba4e)

  68. It’s an enormous advantage when one party cares about classified information, and then the other party does not.

    This allows the Liberal media to take advantage of what civilians do not know, and demagogue about why the Republicans didn’t do x,y, or z.

    Danube River Guide (76b104)

  69. Here’s another thing that should be apparent to lawyers, and politicians, if you scatter shot all around are you going to get co-operation from other actors–or are they going to circle the wagons?

    Secondly I know the Glenn Beck thing has a certain appeal, could even damn well be true–but you wouldn’t be getting at that stuff at a hearing broadcast the world,–round.

    Danube River Guide (76b104)

  70. There was green alligators
    And long-necked geese
    Some humpy-backed camels
    And some chimpanzees
    Some cats and rats and elephants
    But sure as you’re born
    A Clinton telling the truth
    Is like teh unicorn

    Colonel Haiku (bb3c31)

  71. 65. …I think it is the only important facet of the case. Focusing on the lies uttered afterward is a distraction. At best, it provides evidence that the WH and Hillary were trying to escape blame. It is a subordinate facet of the case.

    The only thing that matters about Benghazi is that Hillary let Americans get killed. Anything that shifts attention off that is bad.

    kishnevi (28fa9f) — 10/23/2015 @ 2:31 pm

    The lies afterward go to show how these despicable people have no regard for these lives. They threw these people to the wolves, knowing they could lie their way out of taking any blame.

    I see the lies later and part and parcel of the same unforgivable crime. They let Americans die because the little people’s lives don’t matter. And the lies later were just added emphasis that the little people’s lives don’t matter.

    We, the little people, are no more than stage props. Stage props can be killed with impunity. And the stage props who form the families of those stage props they get killed are still non-persons, undeserving of the truth.

    It’s not inconsequential. The later lies are the exclamation point on the original “F**k you, you nobody.”

    Steve57 (a0050a)

  72. Don’t talk of dust and roses
    We should be holding our noses
    Clinton’s an endless caper
    In a cage built of steel
    She should be put there for real

    Colonel Haiku (bb3c31)

  73. I ask you kishnevi, if Obama and Hillary! wanted to drive home the point that they let Americans die because they just don’t give a crap, how better than to later lie to their family’s faces and give self-serving speeches that were also complete lies about who was responsible for killing them?

    Steve57 (a0050a)

  74. Talking Heads 1984 Stop Making Sense Tour at Red Rocks.
    Best show I’ve seen.

    mg (31009b)

  75. It’s also important to keep in mind the Obama Administration moved quickly to bring the heavy hand of government force to intimidate, scatter, and coerce into silence all those Americans who survived the Benghazi attack only because brave men like Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty saved their lives at the cost of their own.

    That’s a crime of such major proportions as to render Obama, Hillary, et al candidates for the gallows.

    ropelight (6354c4)

  76. In that part of the world, potential civilian rioters have ready access too, and not infrequently open-carry, AK47s. But spontaneous civilian rioters don’t carry mortars, nor travel in the spotting-and-fire teams necessary to use them effectively against a single compound.

    Kish, I agree with you that the story of this year is Clinton’s failure to respond to the pleas for security and the consequent but entirely predictable (and predicted) tragedy. That Clinton also helped Obama defraud the American public — by making this into something other than a terrorist attack on the brink of the election — ought to have mattered a great deal in 2012, since only morons and the willfully self-deceived could have ever lined up behind the “riot” story line.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  77. My points about the GOP cross-examining questioners’ style — and its lack of effectiveness — could also apply to their questions about the background to the attack, and using the documents relating to that effectively.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  78. Red Rocks would’ve been cool, mg. we saw them same tour, when it began in Summer of ’83 and then one of the Pantages theater shows in December they filmed for the movie.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  79. The emails are like Nixon’s tapes, benghazi is the original crime, carried out by figures who were connected to govt policy, supplying the rebels in north Africa and the levant, for unaltruisic reasons.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  80. Beldar (or anyone else)
    Am I correct in thinking that an official can be impeached for acts done while in office, even if that official has left office?

    I seem to remember discussion of that point a while back.
    If so, Congress could hold Clinton accountable without depending on Obama’s mignons in the DOJ…not so much Benghazi (even if we are discussing that at the moment) as I am thinking of the private server and crimes associated with that.

    kishnevi (28fa9f)

  81. In England and in some of the original states, late impeachment was the rule. (Ex-governor) Thomas Jefferson was almost subject to it. There are no precedents for federal officers under the Constitution, though.

    nk (dbc370)

  82. Beldar

    Hillary demanded a public appearance. A public appearance narrows the hearing significantly, she did that by design knowing ahead of time that the public would not understand that fact. She probably also made other demands. Supposedly they agreed to swear her under oath in private.

    What background documents would you have utilized? Her answer yesterday to many questions was that certain things never reached her.

    Danube River Guide (76b104)

  83. Far-left activist wit a byline Philip Bump is at it again…

    http://drudgereport.com/now.htm

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  84. Best live music movie i have seen, Col. Must have been great to be there.

    mg (31009b)

  85. Well,
    I don’t know if it should be any consolation,
    but come closer to election time I hope/think we should see some ads by some PAC like the swift boat ads against Kerry,
    show video of Clinton and Obama talking to the parents of those killed,
    and then those parents saying how they had been lied to,
    should be pretty compelling.

    Though I don’t know how people who are supposed to be serious end up being so feckless (as a whole).

    I never got away with that kind of fecklessness,
    nor would I want to.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  86. I’m not a lawyer but I really want to use the term–narrowed the scope.

    Hillary demanding a public hearing narrowed the scope of questioning, and also probably limited the materials that could be used.

    Right now there is an ongoing investigation involving Cheryl Mills, the independence of the ARB, and “serious” allegations about employees at the State Department “producing” documents. If Democrats were investigating a Republican this would be making headlines with much conjecture all over the media outlets.

    Danube River Guide (76b104)

  87. Criticizing Republicans is always the easier thing, defense is a harder position. Then add to that the wealth of resources to attack Republicans with provided to the public by the Liberal press, and the Conservative press that wants to give the appearance of being even handed (but in reality they just want to be part of the in crowd).

    Danube River Guide (76b104)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4811 secs.