Trey Gowdy Destroys the Media in 3 Minutes

We already know he lies, and has lied for political purposes. They "ALL" do!

They already have all the evidence they need to impeach him, they just don't have the votes. Even if they have Obama on video watching the attack unfold, they don't have the votes. Come November they may or may not be able to impeach him then either. Sad but true.

They could have called for his 'daily diary' within days of the attack and gotten most or all the information they needed to know, except why hasn't anybody been held accountable for the attack. No secret there, the administration knows who lead the raid, who was involved, and are blocking access to the witnesses on the scene.

 

Indeed. There should be nothing but Pulitzers lining mantles from this alone.

 

you didn't answer my question. Are you suggesting we impeach Congress for not doing THEIR constitutional duty? What "constitutional duty" was not done by the executive branch?

 

You'll have to ask Mr Gowdy when he finally gets a chance to get ALL of the documents and the committee interviews ALL of the witnesses.

Grab your Orville Redenbacher and enjoy the show.

 

I enjoyed watching the Watergate and Iran-Contra/Arms for Hostages hearings -- couldn't really get into the Bill Clinton stuff at the time -- and I expect to find the Genghazi-gate hearings just as much fun as was Watergate and Iran-Contra.

 

Or if they lied about it or tried to cover it up. Clinton wasn't brought up on impeachment proceedings for sticking his dick in Monica's mouth. He was brought up for lying about it. Nixon wasn't impeached for the Watergate break-in. He was impeached for trying to cover it up.

I doubt this administration aided and abetted the attack in anything other than an oblique way.

 

Deflections noted.

 

Policy violation as in lying to the American people for political purposes and that transparency thing. I for one would be calling for his resignation wouldn't you? And yes it could be viewed as misdeamenor behavior as used in the Constitution although an impeachment would never get off the ground. Certainly Hillary should announce she would be withdrawing her name from contention and certainly you would not support her would you? Rice should also resign her position as she would no longer be trustworthy along with Carney resigning.

Pandering false information.

The Obama White House certainly thought so.

 

Did you not listen to Charlotte Lamb's testimony before the congressional committee. Funding or lack thereof had NOTHING to do with the security situation in Benghazi, nothing.

The OIC spent the money and came up with over 20 felony convictions including a sitting governor going to jail and a stinging report citing how both Clinton's refused to cooperate and give truthful answers with Bill ending up in contempt of court for perjury and obstruction of justice and having to plea bargain a criminal charge while paying a former employee whom he sexually molested a tidy sum in that settlement and being and remaining impeached. And it was Clinton himself who called for the special prosecutor and Reno who assigned the Lewinsky matter to Starr over his objections.

So now that your diversion has been rebuffed, back to the issue at hand.

 

And when FDR lied that we had broken the Enigma code that is one thing. When a President lies to people about national security matters in order to win an election, conspiring with his staff to do so that is another.

 

Congress is doing their duty, the Executive Branch isn't.

 

So..... still no answers to the Gowdy questions. I also noticed that ABC, NBC, and CBS did not cover his statement? Shame?

[video=youtube;A1jeJmeeMjs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1jeJmeeMjs[/video]

 

Clinton committed perjury in a court of law, and Nixon used his office and hired people to illegally break and enter/burglarize a political competitor, and also broke the law. He was pardoned before they could file criminal charges against him though.

Unless Obama can be implicated in a crime, lying or being dishonest, even as an elected official (even though it should be) isn't illegal.

I don't think they helped the terrorists either, they just did what any other politician would do or has done in the past. Lied, denied, and pointed blame for political gain.

 

I find what he and his colleges did was/is appalling, but for some odd reason (probably because politicians are also lawyers for the most part and create the law) it isn't illegal to do either.

 

“Republicans have been politicizing a tragedy.”

Let’s be clear: The politicization of a tragedy began with Democrats when the video story was offered instead of the truth, a truth which contradicted the Obama campaign’s re-election narrative in the fall of 2012 about Al-Qaeda being on the run.



“The investigation should be conducted in a bi-partisan manner.”

“Bipartisanship” to the Democrats means interfering with which documents or E Mails get released or which specific people are interviewed. Translation: “Only if the committee finds nothing new, will bipartisanship have occurred.”



“The only important thing is to make sure this kind of tragic taking of American lives never happens again.”

Everybody agrees that we don’t want it to happen again. That’s the understatement of all time. Who can name one Republican who disagrees? Part of that goal is to find out exactly how it happened in the first place. Why was our military so slow to act when we knew the American compound was under attack? Meanwhile, if we also want to hold our administration accountable for lying about the reason for the attack, that does not in any way, shape, or form hinder future protocols to prevent repeated attacks. This is not an either/or proposition.



“Countless documents about Benghazi have already been turned over by the State Department.”

It doesn’t matter how many documents have been turned over if the incriminating documents have been held back. The bottom line is that the White House was asked to turn over all documents. Incidentally, the recent smoking gun E Mails were finally turned over only after a request from Judicial Watch, not previous investigating committees.



“The American people are tired of this investigation. After all, it’s been going on now for almost two years.”

Most Americans have heard little if anything about this investigation because they’ve been relying on the main stream media for their news and in that forum, discussion about Benghazi has been fleeting. It’s difficult to be tired of something you seldom hear about.

Meanwhile, if the investigation has been moving at the pace of a snail, it’s only because the Obama administration has been even slower in its cooperation.



“Four Americans are dead. What difference does it make why it happened?”

This talking point traces its origin to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

“Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?”

As a matter of fact, it actually made a big difference to the former Secretary. Why else would she promise the parents of the victims that the director responsible for an anti-Islam video was being brought to justice when she already knew by that time that that this was a planned a terrorist attack?



“This investigation is a witch hunt.”

The term “witch hunt” suggests false accusation or the deliberate punishing of the innocent. Asking for information in an attempt to get to the bottom of a situation is not a witch hunt, especially when we already know that the video explanation was a false narrative and may therefore be the tip of a much bigger iceberg.

Speaking of the video, ironically, this is where the real witch hunt took place. Since when is it against the law in America to express your opinion in a movie about Mohammad, Islam or any other subject? Supposing Ambassador Stevens and the others had been murdered because of a video? Even if such were the case, it is the responsibility of our President to punish the blood thirsty killers, not the film director. How refreshing it might be to imagine a Commander-in-Chief who says to the world:

“Be on notice. In America, we do not arrest those who exercise freedom of speech. But here’s what we do to those who harm Americans overseas: When we find the perpetrators, they will be publicly hanged and their bodies will be left dangling on the ropes for a whole month as a warning to any future terrorists!”

But alas, that is not the kind of talking point Obama is noted for.

As for their real talking points, Democrats are never in short supply. For the sake of our country’s future, freedom and integrity, let’s hope these cheap detour attempts get rejected and placed out in the pasture where they belong.



This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.

Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/politic...-in-7-easy-lessons-17435/#9KvClezujYqpme8h.99

 

From the time that Woodward and Bernstein started asking questions, till Nixon resigned, it was less time that thes last 2 years of the GOP hoping they'll find something.

The GOP hasn't discovered any smoking guns, or evidence of wrong doing.

 

What do their nationalities have to do with their ideologies? Are they somehow mutually exclusive?

 

Nope. I'm not interested in what Snopes says about the issue. Not one bit concerned with their assessment or analogy or truth-detecting. It's not a legitimate source for truth. It's just a couple of idiots doing what any educated American can do for himself, research. Only they make sure to add a narrative that places a particular bend towards the progressive world view.

 

That is because they had a deep throat feeding them information.

 

With the amount of money that could be made by blowing a whistle on Benghazi, they surely would have cashed that currency in long ago...if somebody had such info.

It's entirely possible there was no wrong doing, just confusion.

It's also not completely unreasonable IMO to have considered the attack because of the video...because there were demonstrations about the video happening in other countries at the very time of the attack.........and absolutely no terrorist attacks on other US facilities at the time of the attack.

What I'm doing might seem strange, but it's called giving the benefit of the doubt......and if I want to avoid hipocrisy, I may need to refine my position.

 

Trey Gowdy, Trey Gowdy, Trey Gowdy -- the media's worst nightmare. Obama's worst nightmare. Hillary's worst nightmare. The democrats worst nightmare. Yet a possible hero to the American people.

 

That scrawney hairlipped redneck is limp.

Nothing will happen.

Benghazi is not a scandal

 

He does look like a hillbilly, does not he?

Keep telling yourself that

 

You could apply your description to a 5'5", 110 pound Texan -- Audie Murphy -- and you probably would.

 

You're dating yourself.....and I guess I am too if I know who that is....