Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The King isn't going to say anything substantive. Bill Clinton learned this lesson long ago when he told Americans that He Didn't Have Sexual Relations with that Woman.....
Hapless committee won't have a smoking gun to toss out.
King Hillary zealots won't believe anything that comes from it. Impossible to change their minds.
Vast majority of American's don't care, they already consider The King to be a liar and probably guilty.
Idiot GOP politicians already admitted this is a political stunt so most are not paying attention anyway.
So nothing accomplished by these hearings.
The King's real problems, if any problems are to come, will be if the FBI decides to bring charges related to the email server.
Instead of trying (and failing) to breathe life into the "Benghazi Scandal", Republicans and right-wingers should worry about the type of bacon they're going to eat with that egg that's all splashed all over their faces.
Pork? Turkey? Canadian?
Her own communications prove she lied and covered up.
The argument between Gowdy and Cummings right before the first break centered around releasing the Blumenthal transcript. Rep. Adam Schiff, one of the Democrats on the committee, spilled the beans for why the Republicans don't want it released. Here's a breakdown of the questions Republicans asked Blumenthal:
More than 270 questions on Blumenthal's alleged business activities in Libya.
More than 160 questions on Blumenthal's relationship with Clinton.
More than 50 questions on the Clinton Foundation.
More than 45 questions on David Brock/Media Matters.
Here's what they didn't care too much about:
Less than 20 questions on the Benghazi attacks.
Only 4 questions on security in Benghazi.
Zero questions on the U.S. presence in Benghazi.
Zero questions on Ambassador Stevens and other U.S. personnel in Benghazi.
Less than 24 questions out of more than 550 had anything whatsoever to do with Benghazi. Tell us again, Mr. Gowdy, how this "investigation" is really about Benghazi.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesjuke They knew it was not the video before they ever told us it was.
She told the Egyptian Prime Minister and the Libyan President that it was an “al-Qaeda-like group”, and Emailed her family within an hour the same.
Her emails revealed this.
Yet told us it was "the video". She knew.
This is certainly not the first time we have been given info that this was indeed the case.
Wake up already.
I had time to watch the entire hearing and Secretary Clinton mentioned 3 times that the leader of the terrorist group indeed said the video was his reason for attacking, and not a single republican claimed that was false, there argument as with your clip is that she changed her story, not that the story was inaccurate; because as you know, what she told the Prime Minister was actually false because the group who took credit actually recanted.
So yes, it was the video that did it, But people like you want to argue "terrorism" as the reason as if terrorism isnt inspired.
After watching much of this inquisition/interrogation i have a new respect for Hillary Clinton.
For 12 hours she answered all the questions,remained cool calm and collected her composure was nothing but class and dignity, all the while the no class GOP jackals tried their best to find some dent in her armor,they couldnt do it and brought nothing new to the game other than the obvious fact that this whole charade had very little to do with Benghazi and everything to do with the GOP trying to smear the character of their number one adversary in the up coming presidential election.
The one who really deserves sitting in that hot seat is GWB who initiated the whole destabilization of the middle east in the first place.
A recent email was released showing Hillary knew the attacks in Benghazi was not based on a silly YouTube video and was actually an al Qaeda lead attack, proof she and the Obama administration directly lied to the American people about the attacks to expedite obama's re-election.
How long will many Hillary supporters continue to support a habitual liar who deceives the American people for political expediency?
Ill say it again, 3 times CLinton talked about the intelligence that the ringleader of the Benghazi terrorist used the video to recruit attackers and not a single person on the panel disagreed with Clinton.
To argue that the video wasnt involved is to claim that Terrorism in and of itself is only defined by the end result and not what led to it.
Can a Democrat please explain to me what she did right? I'm not being sarcastic here. Just help me see the clear picture.
Thursdays hearings were appalling on both sides. Her smugness and The committees sarcastic unnecessary jabs about reading her notes.
What was really accomplished? Not a fkng thing. Both sides stuck to their guns, and we watched in anger.
She answered every single one of the Panel's questions.
After watching much of this inquisition/interrogation i have a new respect for Hillary Clinton.
For 12 hours she answered all the questions,remained cool calm and collected her composure was nothing but class and dignity, all the while the no class GOP jackals tried their best to find some ***** in her armor,they couldnt do it and brought nothing new to the game other than the obvious fact that this whole charade had very little to do with Benghazi and everything to do with the GOP trying to smear the character of their number one adversary in the up coming presidential election.
Agreed!
You could tell the GOP was getting tired and cranky when they literally started yelling at her, flailing arms and all.
The committee merely had to jump in every few "rounds." But SHE was the one who did most of the talking for 11 hours straight and never lost her composure! Very impressive!
Ill say it again, 3 times CLinton talked about the intelligence that the ringleader of the Benghazi terrorist used the video to recruit attackers and not a single person on the panel disagreed with Clinton.
To argue that the video wasnt involved is to claim that Terrorism in and of itself is only defined by the end result and not what led to it.
Why does Chelsea Clinton know almost immediately this was led by Al Qaeda affiliated group while the US population is being fed a narrative focusing on this video for more than a week?
She feels the need to mention it as the caskets but no mention of Al Qaeda affiliated group?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
