Benghazi Hearing Final Score: Gowdy 0, Clinton Won

[maxparrish]

Actually one "stalwart". And so far, not a single poster has shown her to be being unfairly targeted REGARDLESS of motivation. You are welcome to try.

We needn't even try. Republicans have already set this committee is a Clinton lynch mob.

Ummmmm...you mean you can't show that Hillary was unfairly targeted, regardless of the motives of those doing the targeting? Just because an investigator may have political motives in pursuing Al Capone DOES NOT MEAN the actual investigation of the guy was unfair or unwarranted.

Even though you cannot meet my challenge, let's look at your evidence on motives.

1. McCarthy"

Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought.

NOt much in isolation until one notes it's the eighth committee on Benghazi. All the others found no Clinton culpability. So why this one and why the email server a part of it?

You are right, not much in isolation and even less in context. In a 4 minute back and forth exchange with Hannity McCarthy used the B. Committee as an example of a fight for conservative principles. The MSM breathless hooting and the predictable mangling of his comments by fevered Democrats is merely a harbinger of the coming stupid season...the year before elections when the normally dumb partisan 'gotchas' degenerate into shockingly stupid excitement and unusually dishonest points.

Yep, Mc. said that the American people would not know, what they do know, about Clinton's depth of dishonesty had it not been for the committee’s investigations. And why are her numbers falling, because the hearings showed her "untrustable". So yes, Hillary is not unbeatable.

All true...although I think the email scandal to be far more responsible for her prior falling numbers.

Still, only someone who has put their brain on ice thinks he/she heard "Shawn, the committee was a cynical attempt to find a phoney pretext to hurt Hillary in the polls so we can beat her. Those falling numbers prove our secret motives were to smear with lies, and it worked".

2. Benghazi hearing: The high-tech lynching of Hillary Clinton http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/opinions/nelson-benghazi-hillary-clinton/

I was a new attorney. I remember feeling then, as I do now, that certain factions of the Republican Party are obsessed with the Clintons, and in particular, Hillary Clinton. And I can state unequivocally... she has been treated unfairly. Unprofessionally. And frankly, disrespectfully.

I believe that like Justice Clarence Thomas before her, she has been publicly lynched in a way that we Americans only reserve for uppity black men and uppity professional women who don't know their place. She has been dragged through the media and partisan mud of Capital Hill politics and asked to answer questions that she has already answered. She has been attacked. Accused. And berated by members of Congress who should know better.

Who cares if Sophia Nelson, a GOP staffer on other committees has bought into the notorious identity group grievance meme, and that she thinks Hillary's treatment was sexist. Lots of people have been brainwashed (in college) to see race, gender, class, religion, etc as their prism of analysis...especially if they fit into one of the hyped grievance groups. Fact is, she stupidly sees both the Thomas and Clinton controversy through that prism.

Thomas was not lynched because he was "an uppity Black", he was lynched because he was a Republican black whose legal views and moral authority (being black) terrified Democrats. That the Borking reached a new low in judicial politics (debating about off-color jokes and a reputed hair on a coke can) was highly disrespectful and desperate, but it had nothing to do with him perceived as being uppity.

If you go through the inquisition you will find little respect shown for the former first lady, senator, and secretary of state. On the contrary, many questions weren't questions. Rather they were accusations. Accusations over material over which she'd previously been found innocent or worse, not even involved in the process. It was more about democrats getting republicans to defend their behavior for the eighth time.

If you don't think this was an attempted political lynching maybe you should just look at what Wolf Blitzer did to Lincoln Chafee just before he withdrew from the race. That type of inquisition, more or less, appears to be what Republicans tried to do when they accused rather than questioned Hilary. You probably see no problem with either given your standard of generalized information lite posts.

Except it was not the eighth time for Hillary. She has barely been questioned, the delays caused by the Administrations unwillingness to provide emails and Hillary's intentional harboring of records for years. You are quite right to note that Boehner (sp?) let different House chairman run off into duplicate investigations, of dubious quality. He should be rightly criticized for his poor management and delay in appointing a single special committee.

That said, you can't expect excessive respect when you are obstructing an investigation and hiding emails.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

We needn't even try. Republicans have already set this committee is a Clinton lynch mob.

Ummmmm...you mean you can't show that Hillary was unfairly targeted, regardless of the motives of those doing the targeting?

If the words of those who have admitted targeting Hillary aren't enough, I suppose nothing will convince you.

 

[fromderinside]

That said, you can't expect excessive respect when you are obstructing an investigation and hiding emails.

No presumptions there maxparrish. Just insert excessive for expected add obstructing and hiding without evidence, waving hands and pointing while spouting "see, see" to poison the well. Eyup. maxparrish still doing it far right information wrong, code word strong, water carrying all along.

'nuff sed.

 

[Ford]

Ummmmm...you mean you can't show that Hillary was unfairly targeted, regardless of the motives of those doing the targeting? Just because an investigator may have political motives in pursuing Al Capone DOES NOT MEAN the actual investigation of the guy was unfair or unwarranted.

You heard it here first, folks. Hillary Clinton is just as evil as Al Capone.


I see where you're going with this, though. You've convinced yourself that Clinton = Capone. That she's guilty of so many patently obvious crimes, but the system is so hopelessly corrupt that nobody can actually prosecute her, and we need a team of intrepid "untouchables" to finally nab her on some unexpected front that will finally put her behind bars. In this fantasy scenario, her deleted emails = Capone's accountant's ledger. Do I have this right so far? Who will be your Eliot Ness, Maxie?


Of course the big problem with this scenario is that Capone was actually a criminal. He actually did buy off cops and judges and elected officials in order to keep himself out of prison. He actually did commit crimes.

Hillary is only a criminal in the fevered imaginations of the right wing. They've decided that she broke a law, and all that remains is to investigate her until they find the one she really did break. So far, all the investigations - going back to the time she was First Lady - have turned up nothing. Not so much as an unpaid parking ticket.

This hearing was supposed to be the one where they finally stuck it to her. After years of investigations which turned up no wrongdoing on her part, this was the one that was going to uncover that ledger where she hid all her crimes, and she'd be if not hauled off in cuffs at least indicted or maybe humiliated and broken.


That clearly did not happen. If you feel otherwise (and you obviously do) then feel free to point to the indictments that are about to be handed down, or the "smoking gun" that was revealed in her testimony, or the triumphant "we finally got that witch" narrative that you seem to think is so sorely lacking in "the media." We get it...you're beside yourself with anger because she's once again not been charged with any crime, but you're gonna have to get used to that because (again) her criminal activities are all in your head.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Aren't the FBI a day or two away from arresting her for emails? I seem to remember they were about to do that.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I'm lazy. Could somebody photoshop Hillz pict onto Franklin and if you have time the GOP reps on the Privy Council?

 

[Ford]

I imagine it more like this:

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/CSe38dzJYkY?t=51[/YOUTUBE]


"Cardinal Gowdy...poke her with the soft cushions!!!"

 

[maxparrish]

Ummmmm...you mean you can't show that Hillary was unfairly targeted, regardless of the motives of those doing the targeting? Just because an investigator may have political motives in pursuing Al Capone DOES NOT MEAN the actual investigation of the guy was unfair or unwarranted.

You heard it here first, folks. Hillary Clinton is just as evil as Al Capone.

Is she? A good question but not one that presumed to answer. One of the dangers of your reading between the lines is that there is nothing there but blank space, filled in by your overly active imagination. But what holds for Al Capone holds for Hillary...just because an investigator may be politically motivated does not mean it must be unfair.

I see where you're going with this, though. You've convinced yourself that Clinton = Capone. That she's guilty of so many patently obvious crimes, but the system is so hopelessly corrupt that nobody can actually prosecute her, and we need a team of intrepid "untouchables" to finally nab her on some unexpected front that will finally put her behind bars. In this fantasy scenario, her deleted emails = Capone's accountant's ledger. Do I have this right so far? Who will be your Eliot Ness, Maxie?

And who said histrionics could not be creative? I regret that I did not think of it.

Of course the big problem with this scenario is that Capone was actually a criminal. He actually did buy off cops and judges and elected officials in order to keep himself out of prison. He actually did commit crimes.

Hillary is only a criminal in the fevered imaginations of the right wing. They've decided that she broke a law, and all that remains is to investigate her until they find the one she really did break. So far, all the investigations - going back to the time she was First Lady - have turned up nothing. Not so much as an unpaid parking ticket.

This hearing was supposed to be the one where they finally stuck it to her. After years of investigations which turned up no wrongdoing on her part, this was the one that was going to uncover that ledger where she hid all her crimes, and she'd be if not hauled off in cuffs at least indicted or maybe humiliated and broken.

It was? Most of us didn't get the memo. Might the aspiration be far more prosaic - to simply uncover how and why the Dept was AWOL and let four American staffers die...you know, after 600 requests for more security? But if you feel otherwise, I would appreciate a link to conservative sources that contemplated Hillary Clinton being led off in handcuffs over Libya.

That clearly did not happen. If you feel otherwise (and you obviously do) then feel free to point to the indictments that are about to be handed down, or the "smoking gun" that was revealed in her testimony, or the triumphant "we finally got that witch" narrative that you seem to think is so sorely lacking in "the media." We get it...you're beside yourself with anger because she's once again not been charged with any crime, but you're gonna have to get used to that because (again) her criminal activities are all in your head.

Given that your enraged imagination has erected a straw stuffed wicker man, an invention that allows you to burn the "monster", I am only a curious on-looker. Your whirling dervish rant over "criminals", "indictments", and resentment of a focus on Ms. Clinton's actions (or inactions) makes one wonder who is actually the one beside themselves, no?

But naw, Hillary Clinton is not Al Capone, other than perhaps metaphorically. But if one wanted a metaphor for Hillary, my thinking is Lucky Luciano. Like Luciano she has elevated her most trusted Clinton associates to high-level positions in what was now the Clinton crime family. She has Huma "Costello" Abedin as her consigliere, and had Cheryl "Genovese" Mills as her underboss. And of course, she has quite a few capos. As Blumenthal is a male, like Jewish Lansky, he cannot hold an official position in the female led crime family. But like Lansky, he can be a top advisor and trusted associate.

The only difference worth mentioning is the Luciano really didn't relish getting revenge on enemies as much as Hillary, and the body count of his former associates were not nearly as great as Hillary's. Other than that, a pretty good fit!

 

[maxparrish]

Aren't the FBI a day or two away from arresting her for emails? I seem to remember they were about to do that.

Nope, we won't know anything till mid January. That is the target date for the head of the FBI to decide if he is going to recommend charges to be filed. We will see if Obama's attempt to poison the well worked...and how corrupt the DOJ still is.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Ummmmm...you mean you can't show that Hillary was unfairly targeted, regardless of the motives of those doing the targeting?

If the words of those who have admitted targeting Hillary aren't enough, I suppose nothing will convince you.

Stop politicizing this tragedy! Stop with all the distractions! America deserves answers!!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Aren't the FBI a day or two away from arresting her for emails? I seem to remember they were about to do that.

Nope, we won't know anything till mid January. That is the target date for the head of the FBI to decide if he is going to recommend charges to be filed. We will see if Obama's attempt to poison the well worked...and how corrupt the DOJ still is.

Ya, I love the answer. It will either prove that she's a criminal or it will prove that the process is corrupt.

 

[maxparrish]

Nope, we won't know anything till mid January. That is the target date for the head of the FBI to decide if he is going to recommend charges to be filed. We will see if Obama's attempt to poison the well worked...and how corrupt the DOJ still is.

Ya, I love the answer. It will either prove that she's a criminal or it will prove that the process is corrupt.

I also love the answer, but only because it is true. After reviewing the relevant laws it is indisputable that she has violated several statutes . The only way the FBI/DOJ can retain a shred of integrity is to at least charge her with enough violations to warrant AT LEAST the same mild punishment as imposed on Sandy Berger and Gen. Petaurus. Had a Fitzgerald type special prosecutor been in charge, you would have seen much worse for Hillary and her aides.

As such, I imagine a hefty fine, disbarment, community service, and a suspended sentence would be satisfactory. However, it remains an unknown if the FBI or DOJ has the balls (or the will) to treat a Clinton as they would treat others - especially given Obama's interference.

 

[arkirk]

Ya, I love the answer. It will either prove that she's a criminal or it will prove that the process is corrupt.

I do too...because it is true. After reviewing the relevant laws it is undisputable that she violated several of them. The only way the FBI/DOJ can retain a shred of integrity is to at least charge her with violations sufficient to warrant AT LEAST the same punishment as Sandy Berger and Gen. Petaurus. Had a Fitzgerald type special prosecutor been in charge, you would have seen much worse for Hillary and her aides.

As such, I imagine a hefty fine, disbarment, community service, and a suspended sentence would be satisfactory. However, it remains an unknown if the FBI or DOJ has the balls (or the will) to treat a Clinton as they would treat others - especially given Obama's interference.

I do not want to see Clinton become president, but these attacks on her are all for the wrong reason and as such actually improve her chances of getting elected. She was and is a warhawk form of politician...the Repuglicans just throw the lady the raw meat she loves so well. Of course it helps her. You want to keep this shit alive. Are you a Republican? If so, that is not a smart move.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't recall the Republicans or max showing such curiosity about the events of 9/11 and who knew what when. Maybe they have learned their lessons or maybe this is just more pandering to the conservative loonisphere.

 

[Ford]

I don't recall the Republicans or max showing such curiosity about the events of 9/11 and who knew what when. Maybe they have learned their lessons or maybe this is just more pandering to the conservative loonisphere.

I don't recall hearing Maxie's legal resume' which qualifies him to proclaim Clinton's guilt without any reservation.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I don't recall hearing Maxie's legal resume' which qualifies him to proclaim Clinton's guilt without any reservation.

Well Max did proclaim that she has violated several statutes. We are still waiting to hear which ones these are, but my elawyering experience tells me that they will be found in somewhere in Salic Law, the Napoleonic Code or in a Soverun' Citizen tribunal in Duane's garage.

 

[Bronzeage]

I don't recall hearing Maxie's legal resume' which qualifies him to proclaim Clinton's guilt without any reservation.

Well Max did proclaim that she has violated several statutes. We are still waiting to hear which ones these are, but my elawyering experience tells me that they will be found in somewhere in Salic Law, the Napoleonic Code or in a Soverun' Citizen tribunal in Duane's garage.

You left out Original Sin.

 

[maxparrish]

By the way, one of the most important parts of the Q & A of Hillary is distilled below:

[youtube]<iframe width="660" height="370" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8OzrFDBMd0g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/youtube]

Not pretty.

 

[Ford]

Not pretty.

Yeah. Snot-nosed Congressman grandstands. Madam Secretary - at several points - looks at him thinking "you'd be shitting in your pants if you had to do my job that day."

Not pretty indeed. Also not indicative of any crimes.

 

[maxparrish]

Not pretty.

Yeah. Snot-nosed Congressman grandstands. Madam Secretary - at several points - looks at him thinking "you'd be shitting in your pants if you had to do my job that day."

Not pretty indeed. Also not indicative of any crimes.

Given the responses of pro-hillary media and the forum "liberals" giddyness over her testimony, one might think that a willingness to dodge, coverup, and brazenly lie is no longer a vice, but a timely virtue. Crowing that her evasion, dissembling, and bald-faced lies are not criminal tells us as much about the crows as it does Ms. Clinton.

But, so far, that seems to be her sole "virtue".