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.
When you can answer all these questions, then I'll believe that the whole committee is a sham.
The committee that spent their work days drinking, surfing the web and designing custom-made Tiffany guns?
Sounds legit to me.
Keep on beating that dead horse or do whatever else gets you through the night.
I didn't and won't read your questions, so I have to pass on answering them.
Did you think it's OK for Hillary Clinton to hide her work from congressional oversight?
Do you think it's okay for a House committee to misuse their power and taxpayer money to target a political rival?
This committee has been proven to be a partisan, political farce. Even one of their own investigators admits they aren't doing any actual investigating and are focused solely on bringing Clinton down. This committee needs to be disbanded. They should not be allowed to investigate anything going forward now that their true objective has been revealed.
Why should I? The whole "investigation" is a sham. It deserves nothing more than to be shut down. If they want to investigate the emails, then form a new committee and do that.
But the Benghazi committee has proven that they are not objective, nor are they interested in the truth. In light of the revelations that have come out over the last week, it's obvious they cannot be trusted as an investigatory committee. Any conclusions they come to will be tainted by their proven duplicity. It's time to pull the plug on them.
If you COULD answer them, wouldn't you want to in order to exonerate Hillary?
If you COULD answer them, wouldn't you want to in order to exonerate Hillary?
I wouldn't trust this committee to tell the truth under any circumstances. They've already shown they're incapable of it. The entire premise of their being is a lie, and that makes everything they've said thus far suspect as well.
No, I believe in innocent until proven guilty. Someone isn't a bank robber unless you show that they robbed a bank. Russia donated money to the Clinton Foundation and presume that there was a quid pro quo, when that isn't proved with evidence. You throw all kinds of wild accusations around and presume guilt.
So if I rob a bank and no one is able to show that I did in fact rob this bank, then it didn`t happen?
So if I rob a bank and no one is able to show that I did in fact rob this bank, then it didn`t happen?
In this case, the hired investigator sought evidence that might have pointed to someone other than you robbing the bank but the people who hired you don't want to hear that.
Long story short: bank robbed, scapegoat found, done and dusted, then someone with impeccable credentials and in the know says "wait a minute".
The committee has now moved from "trying to find out the truth on Benghazi" to analyzing whether Clinton violated security protocol. They found some third party emails with private citizens and now that is their basis for opening up yet another hearing.
Read the report and tell me what they missed, this is nothing more than a diversion for political reasons.
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.
The committee that spent their work days drinking, surfing the web and designing custom-made Tiffany guns?
