|
|
Both presidential front runners potentially facing major legal battles. Scrap the whole pool of candidates and start over. I can find dozens of people in Ruston more fit to be president than any person who has already withdrawn or is still in the race. We have become such a shallow, weak minded country with absolutely no logical or moral compass.
Hillary is in DEEP DOO DOO!!!!!
She pooped herself.Originally Posted by 70TECHGRAD
The Democrats on the Select Committee on Benghazi have had enough of Rep. Trey Gowdy’s (R-S.C.) bullsh*t investigation into the attacks that took place nearly four years ago. In a letter to Rep. Gowdy, Democrats outlined just what a farce the repeated investigations have been, and cited that key witnesses have already debunked the Republicans’ narrative of what happened that night — including the Republican’s Chief Counsel. That’s right, Gowdy’s own lawyers aren’t even buying what he’s trying to sell.Democrats lead by Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) wrote (emphasis mine):Unfortunately, your letter failed to include any statements from your own former Republican Chief Counsel—a retired three-star general with more than 33 years of service in the United States Army who repeatedly commended the military’s actions on the night of the attacks during closed interviews with Defense Department officials.For example, on January 8, 2016, the Select Committee conducted a transcribed interview with former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. During that interview, your former Chief Counsel stated:‘I think you ordered exactly the right forces to move out and to head toward a position where they could reinforce what was occurring in Benghazi or in Tripoli or elsewhere in the region. And, sir, I don’t disagree with the actions you took, the recommendations you made, and the decisions you directed.’Your former Chief Counsel acknowledged that it is clear from the time and distances involved that none of the military forces could have gotten to Benghazi in time to save lives. He stated:‘And, again, sir, I don’t mean to suggest that anything could have been done differently to affect the outcome in Benghazi, and I think you would agree with that.’In addition, on January 13, 2016, the Select Committee conducted a transcribed interview with the Defense Department’s former Chief of Staff, Jeremy Bash. During that interview, your former Republican Chief Counsel stated:‘I would posit that from my perspective, having looked at all the materials over the last 18 months, we could not have affected the response to what occurred by 5: 15 in the morning on the 12th of September if Benghazi, Libya. So let me start with that positing or that stipulation.’Your former Chief Counsel also stated:‘I don’t see any way to influence what occurred there. But what I am worried about is we’re caught by surprise On 9/11, we’ve got nothing postured to respond in a timely manner—and you can debate what’s timely, what’s untimely, but nothing could have affected what occurred in Benghazi.’The conclusions of your former Republican Chief Counsel match almost exactly the findings—from more than two years ago—of the House Committee on Armed Services, which conducted its own investigation into the attacks in Benghazi. Rep. Buck McKeon, the Republican Chairman of the Committee who led that investigation, concluded at the time, ‘I think I’ve pretty well been satisfied that given where the troops were, how quickly the thing all happened and how quickly it dissipated, we probably couldn’t have done more than we did.’ “BOOM! Democrats used the Republicans’ own lawyer against them to prove they were searching for something other than the truth. There was no stand down order. The military could not have responded any faster than they did. All these elements to the Republicans conspiracy theory are so unequivocally false, Republicans can’t even convince their own counsel of them.House Democrats also pointed out the insanity of House Republicans in calling certain witnesses such as “John from Iowa” who claimed on Sean Hannity’s radio talk show to have manned a drone and watched the entire Benghazi scene unfold — no such witness can be found.The Democrats also pointed out that Republicans had called a witness who claimed in a Facebook post to have been a mechanic at an air base stationed in Europe who could have sent his planes to help in the Benghazi attack and used the hashtag #ifyouvoteforhillaryyouarebeyondstupid. Apparently, this is what passes for damning evidence with Republicans.The letter also points out that even conservatives agree the Benghazi hearings are ridiculous, calling them a “carnival road show” “overkill” and a “PR disaster for the GOP.” Donald Trump also joined that chorus calling Gowdy “Benghazi loser Gowdy.”Democrats also cited Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren who saidragging the investigation into 2016 looks political — and worse, reports are that the Committee’s reports will be released right before the 2016 election. That looks awful.”And Republicans already admitted that the investigation is largely political. For example, when House Speaker to be Rep. Kevin McCarthy admitted on Sean Hannity’s show that Republicans strategized to use the Benghazi hearings to chip away at Clinton’s favorability.McCarthy said:Everyone thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? We put together a Benghazi Select Committee. What are her numbers today?”That comment cost McCarthy the Speakership.The letter ends with Democrats telling Gowdy, “your actions have damaged the credibility of the Select Committee beyond repair.”Republicans thought Benghazi would be their big trump card in the 2016 election, but all they have is Trump.http://winningdemocrats.com/benghazi...ns-witch-hunt/
Then...The Democrats on the Select Committee on Benghazi have had enough of Rep. Trey Gowdy’s (R-S.C.) bullsh*t investigation into the attacks that took place nearly four years ago. In a letter to Rep. Gowdy, Democrats outlined just what a farce the repeated investigations have been, and cited that key witnesses have already debunked the Republicans’ narrative of what happened that night — including the Republican’s Chief Counsel. That’s right, Gowdy’s own lawyers aren’t even buying what he’s trying to sell.Democrats lead by Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) wrote (emphasis mine):Unfortunately, your letter failed to include any statements from your own former Republican Chief Counsel—a retired three-star general with more than 33 years of service in the United States Army who repeatedly commended the military’s actions on the night of the attacks during closed interviews with Defense Department officials.For example, on January 8, 2016, the Select Committee conducted a transcribed interview with former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. During that interview, your former Chief Counsel stated:‘I think you ordered exactly the right forces to move out and to head toward a position where they could reinforce what was occurring in Benghazi or in Tripoli or elsewhere in the region. And, sir, I don’t disagree with the actions you took, the recommendations you made, and the decisions you directed.’Your former Chief Counsel acknowledged that it is clear from the time and distances involved that none of the military forces could have gotten to Benghazi in time to save lives. He stated:‘And, again, sir, I don’t mean to suggest that anything could have been done differently to affect the outcome in Benghazi, and I think you would agree with that.’In addition, on January 13, 2016, the Select Committee conducted a transcribed interview with the Defense Department’s former Chief of Staff, Jeremy Bash. During that interview, your former Republican Chief Counsel stated:‘I would posit that from my perspective, having looked at all the materials over the last 18 months, we could not have affected the response to what occurred by 5: 15 in the morning on the 12th of September if Benghazi, Libya. So let me start with that positing or that stipulation.’Your former Chief Counsel also stated:‘I don’t see any way to influence what occurred there. But what I am worried about is we’re caught by surprise On 9/11, we’ve got nothing postured to respond in a timely manner—and you can debate what’s timely, what’s untimely, but nothing could have affected what occurred in Benghazi.’The conclusions of your former Republican Chief Counsel match almost exactly the findings—from more than two years ago—of the House Committee on Armed Services, which conducted its own investigation into the attacks in Benghazi. Rep. Buck McKeon, the Republican Chairman of the Committee who led that investigation, concluded at the time, ‘I think I’ve pretty well been satisfied that given where the troops were, how quickly the thing all happened and how quickly it dissipated, we probably couldn’t have done more than we did.’ “BOOM! Democrats used the Republicans’ own lawyer against them to prove they were searching for something other than the truth. There was no stand down order. The military could not have responded any faster than they did. All these elements to the Republicans conspiracy theory are so unequivocally false, Republicans can’t even convince their own counsel of them.House Democrats also pointed out the insanity of House Republicans in calling certain witnesses such as “John from Iowa” who claimed on Sean Hannity’s radio talk show to have manned a drone and watched the entire Benghazi scene unfold — no such witness can be found.The Democrats also pointed out that Republicans had called a witness who claimed in a Facebook post to have been a mechanic at an air base stationed in Europe who could have sent his planes to help in the Benghazi attack and used the hashtag #ifyouvoteforhillaryyouarebeyondstupid. Apparently, this is what passes for damning evidence with Republicans.The letter also points out that even conservatives agree the Benghazi hearings are ridiculous, calling them a “carnival road show” “overkill” and a “PR disaster for the GOP.” Donald Trump also joined that chorus calling Gowdy “Benghazi loser Gowdy.”Democrats also cited Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren who said
1) why do the men who were there keep saying they were told to stand down?
2) why weren't their more security forces in place?
3) why has it been so difficult to get info and testimony from the administration?
4) why did they go on national television and lie to me about it a bunch of times?
WWDog
La Tech
Region and hyphen free since 1894!
Flagship of the University of Louisiana System
Breaking news! Surely we all will be singing soon, "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" as far as her Presidential run is concerned!!
HILLARYHUMA STONEWALLED STATE INVESTIGATION
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...l-worry-223559
FAILED TO REPORT HACK ATTACKS
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-hacking-atte/
'GUCCIFER' MAKES A DEAL
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...with-feds.html
Here's an interesting article about Hillary's muslim sidekick, Huma Abedin. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/18/the-truth-about-huma-abedin-that-media-matters-doesnt-want-america-to-see/
Read the whole thing. Nowhere is there a point to the article. It is about as intellectually driven as saying Abedin is the true head of al-Qaeda and has been holding Clinton hostage as a Manchurian Candidate.
The latest per the liar married to Slick.
ORIGIN OF KEY CLINTON EMAILS FROM REPORT A MYSTERY...
WASH POST: Inexcusable, willful disregard for the rules...
The Klinton's are as corrupt as the day is long.
Obama Admin Fights Hillary JUDICIAL WATCH Deposition...
Sworn testimony: She doesn't know how to use a computer...
Clinton Mum on GOLDMAN CEO Investment with Son-in-Law...
WEEKEND: Dems Sweat Another Convention Blowup...
Die-Hard Bernie Backers See FBI as Answer to Prayers...
Did you read the depositions? I found them engrossing. I think it definitely fits under the double standard thread.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
