Hillary Clinton's Scandalpalooza Vol I

And the angry white guy Hillary lovers will continue to keep her on life support as her likable and trustworthy poll numbers tank .

 

And new emails today showing how the Ambassadors from almost day one was asking for more security even joking at one point through his desperation perhaps he should ask another government because the state department, ie Hillary, was not paying attention.

So why wasn't it provided?

 

BUSTED!​

.

​

The "new and improved" Issa, Trey Gowdy, can snap at his GOP colleagues to "Shut up!" about the protracted vendetta, but he might want to follow his own advice.

His own misinformation leaks are as damning as his colleagues candid admissions.

He got nailed on this one:

So, the CIA had not classified, by Gowdy's own begrudging admission, information that he had falsely claimed was “some of the most protected information in our intelligence community”?


"Shut up!"

 

Whether they mark it or not makes no difference

Meanwhile we can see how seriously Hillary is taking this

[video=youtube;i2flqv2GWKA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2flqv2GWKA[/video]

AP Exclusive: Under Clinton, State's cybersecurity suffered

http://poststar.com/business/technology/ap-exclusive-under-clinton-state-s-cybersecurity-suffered/article_88067775-e4da-577b-92c5-333d56543cfc.html

 

Gowdy being caught leaking a blatant, self-serving falsehood in the wake of the public sdmissions by GOP congressmen and the Republican whistleblower does not serve his vendetta, and is all the more asinine for his reckless indictment of the CIA in claiming that it failed to classify “some of the most protected information in our intelligence community.”

The prolonged fatwa aimed at a Democratic presidential candidate that exploits a tragedy is bad enough without US intelligence agencies now becoming collateral damage in his collapsing smearkrieg.

 

The name of a CIA operative in a foreign country IS classified by it's very nature. Doesn't matter if it is marked classified.

You left out this part

"Three hours after Mr. Cummings released his letter, Mr. Gowdy responded, saying Mr. Cummings had mischaracterized what the C.I.A. told the committee. In response to Mr. Cummings’s claim that Mr. Gowdy had redacted the name on his own, Mr. Gowdy said in a letter that the redaction had been done by the Obama administration. And, he said, “the fact that the C.I.A. says it didn’t do it does not mean the material was not sensitive or classified.”

“As usual, I would ask you to completely and accurately relate the facts rather than attempt to create an impression that is misleading based on an incomplete and selective recitation of the facts,” Mr. Gowdy said."

 

A big +1 ….. Of course he left significance out. Otherwise, what would he have to post??

I think everything about Cummings can be summarized with the following in a letter Gowdy sent:

https://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/TG letter to EEC 10.7.15.pdf

In the nutshell, Gowdy lays the hammer down on Cummings for essentially being a weasel and undermining the legitimate business of the Benghazi committee. Our friend Natty would do well reading this letter and taking it to heart.

 

Ms. Clinton will be testifying before a congressional committee later this week. What more do you want? I am sure if there is any criminal malfeasance it will be exposed. The GOP has been investigating this crap for years now. Innuendo is not the same as conviction here in America. If there is evidence of criminal behavior then these investigators should charge her with a crime. If they do not they should just shut their big ignorant pie holes for good regarding these issues. So far all I have heard are a bunch of unsubstantiated loose talk which has admittedly been blabbed endlessly for purely political purposes.

 

How about the Democrats following the Watergate Republicans lead. How about Ms. Clinton telling the unslanted truth and not withholding information finally, FULL disclosure.

Yes because when the other side is doing everything it can to obstruct it usually takes longer. The fact is we are STILL learning new things and she has STILL not fully answer the subpoena's issued and we are having to wait until the FBI pulls all the evidence she attempted to destroy off the servers including the four they just now finally got form the State Department. So if you want to complain about it taking so long then write to Hillary and the State Department.

Who said it was.

Are you calling the IG's report and findings unsubstantiated loose talk or something?

 

We will know soon if these investigations have produced anything of real substance. My prediction is that Clinton will make these guys look like a bunch of petty nitpicking ********s. Then I predict that they will continue to beat this dead horse till their faces turn blue like spoiled children. We will just have to wait and see if they have some kind of smoking gun that hasn't been leaked out yet. If they charge her with any crimes and they have prima facae evidence THEN she will be likely to quit. If not, you GOP koolaiders will have to figure out how to beat her in a head up election instead of jerking each other off regarding these issues and hoping she will just go away.

 

And you think that is what she should do instead of in a professional manner answer all questions about this gross security failure truthfully and fully with not exceptions?

What is dead about it when we STILL don't know the facts and who ordered or failed to order what leading to these deaths in this attack?

 

If I they have spent over two years investigating this and still don't have the answers, they are not very effective. Sounds to me like the only thing that would satisfy you is if Hillary just told them what they want to hear and put handcuffs on herself and dropped out of the race for the Presidency. As I recall, she has already testified regarding this issue. Just because you don't like the answers you have gotten thus far doesn't mean they are not accurate. Again, I remember well when 400 US Marines were killed by terrorists in Lebanon under Reagan's regime. I do not remember the then Democratic controlled Congress engaging in a two year witch hunt on the Secretary of State, do you? In my opinion this tragedy has been used to vilify Ms. Clinton for purely political reasons and hopefully it will backfire on the GOP hucksters who have as much as admitted that this is the case. We all understand that those who have been indoctrinated by the blowhards on AM radio, the Drudge Report and Fox News hate Hillary Clinton and are scared to death of running against her with one of the weak candidates they will no doubt nominate next year. That is what has driven this inquisition from the start.

 

So does that include the FBI ? What makes you believe the lame stream media over the sources you just listed ?

 

Then you should also recall that her most notable answer was "At this point, what does it matter??". I don't like that answer. Anyone who cares about ensuring the safety of Americans abroad should not like that answer.

Then of course, there were the questions that were never answered. Why was a bogus video shoved down our throats as the reason for the attack?? What arm of the administration concocted this twisted story?? Are you satisfied that your government openly and brazenly lied to you without an explanation??

Sorry, I can't adopt your cavalier attitude about government accountability. If this was all an exercise in covering up gross incompetence, we need to know. The families of the dead need to know. Leaving a Consulate completely exposed without being able to protect it must never be allowed to happen again. Why those on the left bury their heads to what's happened is a mystery I'll never understand.

 

Gee I remember a veritable slew of witch hunts from that era. I remember one Reagan admin guy asking ''The question is, should this indictment have ever been brought? Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?" after being cleared by a jury following a politically motivated indictment.
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/26/n...-charges-by-jury-in-bronx.html?pagewanted=all

I remember indictments leading up to election season. Did you miss the attempted show trial of Lt. Col. Ollie North (which turned out to badly backfire on Congressional Democrats)?

As far as Hillary and Benghazi, I agree with what Jason Chaffetz (R, Utah) has said in the past, namely that Republicans should put the focus on the overarching foreign policy approach of Hillary, which led up to the Benghazi debacle. Hillary wanted active involvement of the State Dept. all over the world. She wanted state boots on the ground even in danger zones such as Benghazi. She had big plans for the outpost at Benghazi, which was why Stevens was there.

We already know that Hillary lied to the father of dead ex-Seal Tyrone Woods at the funeral service:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377040/hillarys-unconscionable-benghazi-lie-mona-charen

That's all I need to know about Benghazi and Hillary. I don't need any dog and pony show to find out which minor functionaries at state denied the requests for security, or even to get smoking gun evidence on who in the Obama admin cooked up the absurd diversion regarding the youtube film trailer.

 

Has the FBI asked the U.S. Attorney's office for an indictment against Ms. Clinton? If not, why? I don't pay any attention to the main stream media regarding their opinions. All I know is that there has been a constant chatter about the Benghazi tragedy and now this email scandal, but I have not seen any legal action taken against Clinton as of yet. Fortunately, the GOP controlled Congress will have an open shot at her starting on Friday. After two plus years of constant investigation, surely they will have some solid evidence of criminal behavior by Ms. Clinton if indeed there was any. So now it is time to put up or finally shut up.

 

If by veritable witch hunts you are referring to Iran-Contra, I disagree with your characterization. Several people, including Ollie North were convicted of crimes. He got off on a technicality but several others did not and were later pardoned by GHW Bush, who was the leader of that criminal gang.

Who gives a damn if someone attributed the attack to a YouTube video? That does not change the fact that four Americans were tragically killed in the service of their country. Are you suggesting that Clinton or Obama deliberately had these men killed?

 

Well, your heros will get their big chance later this week. At that point, I hope they either charge her with a crime, or shut their big mouths about this incident. Put up or shut up.

 

If Hillary finally answers the questions that created the Benghazi scandal in the first place, the investigation will all fade away. The irony is that this all would have been a non-starter if Hillary and Obama had voluntarily come clean in the first place.

My personal thoughts are that this is a giant episode of Democratic incompetence. Hillary and Obama were so focused on covering up their stupidity in handling Benghazi that they resorted to fictional videos and Academy level acting in the hopes it would all go away. True leadership is having the courage to own up to serious mistakes. Clearly they failed, which leads us to all the false indignation you're happy to share.

 

The last time I remember a politician owning up to a massive screwup was when JFK took full responsibility for the Bay of Pigs fiasco right on national TV. Then he fired Allen Dulles and the rest of the lying jackasses who duped him into getting involved in that idiotic incident and vowed to break the CIA into 1000 pieces. A little more than a year later Kennedy got his head blown off.

It is now SOP for politicians to cover their assets in the event of any kind of screwup. The fact that many of the same people who turned their backs and let GW Bush and his lying pack of so called national security team get away Scott free after 911 are squealing like castrated pigs about the incident in Benghazi is the height of hypocracy. They are all posturing for political gain because they are scared to death of running against Clinton. I wonder why?

 

You were doing good in the first paragraph. Nice analysis.

Unfortunately, you couldn't help yourself and play the "Bush card" to redirect attention. Why?? Benghazi stands on it's own for the gold standard in governing incompetence. Leaving a Consulate, Embassy or whatever foreign outhouse intentionally vulnerable to a coordinated attack is unconscionable. Hillary's latest rationalizations that dangerous foreign service is just part of the job is nothing more than a lame attempt to cover her azz.

I believe she'll survive the Behghazi hearing, but most likely won't survive her FBI investigation. She's knee deep in quicksand. Hillary has been artful in dodging the political Grim Reaper, but she's just about used up all of her "get out of jail free" cards. I hope you like Joe Biden.

 

Well, more on Hillary's e-mail scandal:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/business...mails-server/?intcmp=bigtopmarketfeaturesside

It looks like the DOJ believes it's very likely Hillary was hacked while conducting business overseas. I found the following from the article to be very illuminating:

"The Justice Department officials also used the words “reckless", “stunning,” and “unbelievable” in discussing the controversy swirling around Clinton’s use of a private, nongovernment email account"

This all compliments the FBI's consideration of "Gross Negligence" charges against Clinton. It's certainly another bullet Gowdy can use in his questioning of Hillary tomorrow.

 

Wow, what a freak that woman is. How does she not know how wildly inappropriate that laughter is regarding that subject?

 

This is like the attorneys of a death row convict spending years in endless appeals and having run out of excuses to delay the execution claiming that it has taken so long since the crime that their client has been denied due process. Democrats obstruct and stonewall these investigations then claiming that it has taken so long is about as sincere as a death row convict claiming it takes too long to carry out a death penalty case.

 

Or, list of reasons not to put the Clinton's back in the White House.

Just realizing that I don't have a complete list of scandals for this thread yet. If you see which ones I have missing, please add to the list.
Partial list of scandals:
1996 United States campaign finance controversy

• Yah Lin “Charlie” Trie
• Johnny Chung
• John Huang and James Riady
• Maria Hsia
• Ted Sioeng

9/11 Commission
A
Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory
B
Benghazi
Bill Clinton haircut controversy
Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies
Almon Glenn Braswell
Juanita Broaddrick
C
Campbell v. Clinton
Cattle futures
Henry Cisneros payments controversy

• Barrett Report

Clinton health care plan of 1993
Bill Clinton pardon controversy
Clinton Foundation

• Iranian fundraising

Clinton v. Jones
Roger Clinton, Jr.
Commercegate
Cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan (August 199
D
Defense of Marriage Act
Don't ask, don't tell
F
Gennifer Flowers
Vince Foster
G
Gala Hollywood Farewell Salute to President Clinton
Elián González affair
Elizabeth Gracen
Pincus Green
H
Hillary [laughs about] defending child rapist
Hollywood fundraiser controversy
Huma Abedin

• Peter Franklin Paul

Webster Hubbell
I
Impeachment and acquittal of Bill Clinton
Bombing of Iraq (199
L
Legitimacy of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia
Lewinsky scandal
N
Nannygate
P
Paul v. Clinton
Sally Perdue
Political scandals during the Clinton Administration
R
Marc Rich
Hugh Rodham
Tony Rodham
Rose Law Firm billing records
S
Sexual misconduct allegations against Bill Clinton
Starr report
Suicide of Vince Foster
T
Timeline of the Cox Report controversy
W
Waco siege
Wampumgate
White House FBI files controversy
White House Looting and vandalism
White House travel office controversy
Whitewater controversy