10-08-2015, 05:26 PM
(10-08-2015, 05:02 PM)Jimbone Wrote: That you defend and accept her dishonesty is kind of puzzling.
I don't think you're puzzled, I think you're confused.
If you want to point out where I defended and accepted her proven dishonesty, I'll be glad to help clear things up.
Suggesting that the 9th investigation into the Benghazi incident should result in the disbanding of the costly 'special' committee (if it turns up nothing different than the other 8 investigations after she testifies) would mean there remains no proven dishonesty upon which to base punitive measures or file charges.
That's a rational stance, in my opinion. Then again, I didn't insist that she was guilty of a conspiracy or cover-up in the first place. Nor have I insisted that she wasn't and objected to the fact that she's been so heavily investigated to date.
The FBI investigation is not Benghazi-specific, as you just acknowledged. The FBI is not part of the Special House Committee on Benghazi. If the FBI finds something that merits punitive action or charges against Clinton during its own investigation into system security breaches, it will act upon it.
If it finds content that happens to relate to the Benghazi-specific investigation by the House, it can turn it over to the appropriate Congress persons to be addressed at that time, even if that were to happen after Oct. 22nd (without a special committee and staffers being funded, in the meantime, by taxpayers).