HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT

[Maggot]

For some reason I don't think they will cherish the book and try to sell it on E-bay as a signed copy by Hillary or whoever penned it.

I heard Bloomberg may join the party at some point in the future.

[Duchess]

After she and her record were criticized repeatedly again in the second Republican Primary Debate, Hillary Clinton felt that the participants should be educated on her actual record. She mailed each of the Republican candidates a copy of her 2014 book.

[HairOfTheDog]

Clinton Campaign Ad / The House Committee on Benghazi

Duchess wrote yesterday (in the 2016 Presidential Race thread): I wonder how many millions of dollars, man hours and other resources have been spent trying to wipe the Clintons off the map. It's a great deal.
--------------------------------

A new campaign ad released today (video below) addresses that question, while capitalizing on House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy's remark tying the creation of the House Committee on Benghazi's goal with a Republican effort to bring Hillary Clinton down.



The Democrats are also using McCarthy's admission to push for the disbanding of the partisan Committee.

Earlier this week, Boehner made a damage-control statement claiming that McCarthy was wrong and that the goal of the Committee is to get the truth.

Then, today, the leader of the Committee, Trey Gowdy, told MSNBC that McCarthy was wrong and that he "really screwed up".

McCarthy, who is predicted to replace Boehner as the next Speaker of the House, really handed Hillary Clinton a ticket and she's cashing in on it.

If the Committee isn't disbanded, she'll appear before it on Oct. 22^nd to answer questions, again, about the Benghazi incident.

[Jimbone]

Holy shit what a farce Hillary and her acolytes are. McCarthy's bungled statement aside, you'd think someone somewhere in the media would be intellectually honest.

The Benghazi Committee wasn't put together to take down Hillary. It was put together to find out why a sitting US Ambassador and three other Americans were killed in a terrorist attack. It was put together to find out why security at the compound wasn't better after official requests. It was put together to find out why the American people were lied to by the administration about the incident being caused by a video, when they knew immediately that it was a terrorist attack. Hell, they even put a guy in jail because of the untrue video story.

No one knew or cared about Hillary's emails until it was found out after the committee began its work. But once the private email server and missing emails came up, you can't expect the committee to not go whole hog on it. She's got no one to blame but herself at the end of the day.

In my opinion McCarthy disqualified himself from being Speaker. If he's this inarticulate, he doesn't deserve the post.

[Maggot]

She has a chance before it all goes to hell to turn over what she has. Remember that before she says she has complied. When something sticks to the wall she won't be able to say "who threw that!!!"

Bernie has a better chance I think. But we have a year yet.

[HairOfTheDog]

In my opinion McCarthy disqualified himself from being Speaker. If he's this inarticulate, he doesn't deserve the post.

What if he was simply telling the truth based on his interactions with others involved in the formation of the Committee.

Do you think that should disqualify him from the Speaker position?

He's a very articulate man.

[Jimbone]

He certainly was not articulate in his original statement. But to believe there was a cabal to form a committee for the sole purpose of damaging Hillary is laughable. A US Ambassador was killed in a terrorist attack. Any party in charge would form a committee and investigate it fully to get answers.

People think Hillary is dishonest and untrustworthy because she's done things to make people view her that way. The NY Times, not the Benghazi Committee, not Republican operatives, broke the story about her private email server.

She's taking advantage of McCarthy's fumble, that's politics 101. But she can't change what she did or the poor decisions she's made by claiming 'witch hunt' or 'vast right-wing conspiracy'. And that's why her trustworthiness and viability is in question.

[Duchess]

But to believe there was a cabal to form a committee for the sole purpose of damaging Hillary is laughable.

No, it's not and it wouldn't be the first time a group of people got together to attempt to bring her and/or Bill down. To believe there are those who wouldn't go to such lengths is laughable.

Not saying that's the case this time, simply saying it's been done before and until they are out of politics it will be done again.

If you need examples I'd be delighted to get them for you but it will have to wait until the weekend.

[pyropappy]

Reading is Fundamental...

After she and her record were criticized repeatedly again in the second Republican Primary Debate, Hillary Clinton felt that the participants should be educated on her actual record. She mailed each of the Republican candidates a copy of her 2014 book.

Along with each book, Clinton sent a personalized letter. "I understand that you and your fellow Republican candidates for president were questioning my record of accomplishment at your last debate, so I thought you might enjoy reading my book," the letter read.

Hard Choices was published in 2014, following Clinton's four-year term as secretary of state. Clinton's letter was addressed to each GOP hopeful's formal name:

John E. Bush
Benjamin S. Carson, Sr., M.D.
Christopher J. Christie
Rafael E. Cruz
Cara C. Fiorina
Lindsey O. Graham
Michael D. Huckabee
Piyush Jindal
John R. Kasich
George E. Pataki
Randal H. Paul, M.D.
Marco A. Rubio
Richard J. Santorum
Donald J. Trump

The Hellbitch didn't sell very many; I guess giving them away is her only way to get rid of them.

[Maggot]

But to believe there was a cabal to form a committee for the sole purpose of damaging Hillary is laughable.

No, it's not and it wouldn't be the first time a group of people got together to attempt to bring her and/or Bill down. To believe there are those who wouldn't go to such lengths is laughable.

Not saying that's the case this time, simply saying it's been done before and until they are out of politics it will be done again.

If you need examples I'd be delighted to get them for you but it will have to wait until the weekend.

The I.R.S. targeting certain groups a few months before an election comes to mind.

[HairOfTheDog]

A US Ambassador was killed in a terrorist attack. Any party in charge would form a committee and investigate it fully to get answers.

People think Hillary is dishonest and untrustworthy because she's done things to make people view her that way. The NY Times, not the Benghazi Committee, not Republican operatives, broke the story about her private email server.

She's taking advantage of McCarthy's fumble, that's politics 101. But she can't change what she did or the poor decisions she's made by claiming 'witch hunt' or 'vast right-wing conspiracy'. And that's why her trustworthiness and viability is in question.

I agree that an investigation would and should be standard after any such incident.

The way Clinton carried herself under questioning (and attack, by some) rubbed me the wrong way. She came across aloof and above-it-all. She brings some of the distrust of her upon herself, I agree there too.

However, it is not standard procedure to form and maintain a 'special' committee after the Armed Services Committee, Foreign Affairs Committee, Intelligence Committee, Oversight and Government Reform Committee and independent panels investigated and found no cause to take punitive action or file charges against anyone in the Administration, including Clinton.

All of those investigations separately confirmed that Stevens and others in Libya should have been better protected and that Rice's handling of the public communication immediately after the incident was for shit. Clinton implemented the recommended security enhancements expediently.

But, some Republicans couldn't close the case and wanted to keep a 'special' committee rolling at tax payer's expense. To suggest that has nothing to do with targeting Hillary Clinton politically strikes me as naive. Kevin McCarthy simply slipped up and told the truth in the midst of attempting to prove to Sean Hannity that he was conservative enough to please the far right if elected Speaker, in my opinion.

Clinton's stupid decision, innocent or not, in regards to her email and server systems just gave the special committee new wind. That special committee has now gone on longer than other such rare committees which investigated Watergate, the Kennedy assassination, etc.. Still, though they have recovered even the 'private' emails that she deleted (I believe), there is no sign of a smoking gun. Blumenthal has been questioned, and no smoking gun. Would he have kept emails between the two of them if they were in cahoots to destroy evidence? He seems smarter than that, to me.

Anyway, if the email ammunition Clinton inadvertently handed the special committee turns out to be something more than blanks and she is guilty of intentional policy violation or illegal activity, I want to see her held fully accountable.

But, if there's nothing incriminating found and her scheduled testimony on Oct. 22^nd again provides no evidence/cause to formally penalize or charge her, will you say it's time for the special committee members to move on? I will.

Even the New York Times says this horse is dead. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinio...ittee.html

[Jimbone]

I'm anything but naive HotD, but thanks for throwing shade.

And if the NY Times says it's a dead horse, then I guess it's settled.

[HairOfTheDog]

You didn't say that the special committee's on-going efforts weren't at least partly politically-motivated, did you?

If you are saying that, then yeah, that strikes me as naive, Slim Shady.

You mentioned the New York Times, which was first and all over the Benghazi/Clinton story for years. It even ran the false "Criminal Inquiry!" scoop.

I'm not suggesting that you should feel the same as the New York Times' editorial board does now.

I'm stating directly that if nothing new or incriminating is produced with the October 22^nd testimony, I will consider it time for the special committee to stop spending tax payer money and move on. And, even The New York Times says this horse is dead.

[Duchess]

People will never stop doggin' on the Clintons. On Whitewater alone six years and between 50-70 million dollars was spent trying to find evidence of criminal wrong doing and after 6 years their final answer was "insufficient evidence". There are a number of other examples of tax payer money being spent on finding evidence of wrong doing, all spent to no avail, millions and millions of dollars, tax payer dollars. Whatta bunch of moes in charge.

[Jimbone]

Someone - I guess the NY Times - better tell the FBI to close down their investigation too.

[HairOfTheDog]

Someone - I guess the NY Times - better tell the FBI to close down their investigation too.

Why?

The FBI has been tight-lipped about the details and progress of their investigation, understandably so.

But, its stated mission is to investigate possible security breaches/hacks related to Clinton's use of the private email and server during her tenure as Secretary of State.

Do you think that they're instead really conducting yet another non-Clinton specific investigation into the Obama Administration's handling of Benghazi for some reason?

[Maggot]

She has a chance before it all goes to hell to turn over what she has. Remember that before she says she has complied. When something sticks to the wall she won't be able to say "who threw that!!!"

Bernie has a better chance I think. But we have a year yet.

Yes Maggot they have asked "Is this ALL the e-mails Hillary" they are giving her a chance to come clean. The "lost" e-mail count is climbing. I don't believe they are hidden for any of the reasons stated though.
And the E-gate saga continues. She could just give them what they want and if she did no wrong she is fine right?

[HairOfTheDog]

According to everything I've read, the FBI was able to recover all of Clinton's emails off the "wiped" server in the process of investigating possible security hacks by foreign entities and others.

Those reports span all major news networks. While they don't name specific FBI sources, the reports are consistent and reportedly from intelligence sources.

That includes the deleted emails she deemed "personal" and all others.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/...on-server/

[crash]

She has a chance before it all goes to hell to turn over what she has. Remember that before she says she has complied. When something sticks to the wall she won't be able to say "who threw that!!!"

Bernie has a better chance I think. But we have a year yet.

Yes Maggot they have asked "Is this ALL the e-mails Hillary" they are giving her a chance to come clean. The "lost" e-mail count is climbing. I don't believe they are hidden for any of the reasons stated though.
And the E-gate saga continues. She could just give them what they want and if she did no wrong she is fine right?

Umm..

[Jimbone]

Why?

The FBI has been tight-lipped about the details and progress of their investigation, understandably so.

But, its stated mission is to investigate possible security breaches/hacks related to Clinton's use of the private email and server during her tenure as Secretary of State.

Do you think that they're instead really conducting yet another non-Clinton specific investigation into the Obama Administration's handling of Benghazi for some reason?

The FBI is investigating how top secret information ended up going through and getting on Hillary's private email server. That in and of itself is a pretty big deal. Their investigation was partly prompted by the committee you want to shut down.

The State Department is STILL looking for emails from Hillary that she hasn't handed over yet. They are looking for the emails to turn over to the committee you want to shut down.

But let's keep blaming Republicans for wasting everyones time and picking on poor little Hillary who hasn't done anything wrong.

She's a proven liar. That you defend and accept her dishonesty is kind of puzzling.