DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Hillary

It will be a cold day in hell before that witch gets elected.

Wait you mean Hillary is not a man could have fooled me lets check and see if HE has a adams apple.

I truly believe you are going to hear more about Benghazi. IMO she new it was coming and did nothing.

Senate Republicans investigated Benghazi for years, their report is on top. The GOP House has done 8 investigations since 2012. Their report is below.

FOX News should be talking about these reports. After years of accusations, they should discuss the facts and own up to their mistake.

----

Republican-led report debunks Benghazi theories and accusations

The final report, from Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, and ranking member Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Maryland, concludes there was no intelligence failure prior to the attack, no stand-down order to CIA operatives trying to go assist at the besieged consular building and found conflicting intelligence in the wake of the attack about the motive and cause, which were reflected in early public comments by the administration.

The declassified version of the report attempts to knock down other accusations about the Benghazi incident and aftermath, finding no evidence of CIA employees being intimidated from testifying and also no indication the CIA presence in Benghazi was partially to secretly ship arms from Libya to Syria.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/21/politics/benghazi-attack-report/index.html

House report

The CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, a Republican-controlled House committee has found. Its report asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration officials.

Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the two-year investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/benghazi-report-from-republican-led-house-panel-debunks-allegations/

Choose.

Gosh. Maybe if the government had actually released emails on this issue, it wouldn't have become such a problem. If you failed to notice, every time they did a new investigation, they found more data on the Benghazi debacle. Now if they can get hillary's emails (you know, the one's she deleted) they might get to a resolution.

The problem is e-mails. Not the attack or the terrorists. Not years of exploiting tragedy with FIRE ALERTS, 24/7 video loops & conspiracy accusations. The e-mails caused such a problem.

And the resolution? No, not justice on the attackers or changes based on years of investigation by both branches. Its e-mails. That's how we resolve it.

For the GOP, the problem was the 2012 election. Then after that was decided, the problem became Hillary.

Considering that Benghazi happened right before the 2012 election, and the first thing that came out of our administrations' mouths were lies, I can see where they might have had a problem with that. Seeing as she held out her emails, and has since deleted them, it makes me wonder why anyone would defend her. I guess you like being lied to by your government.

I'm not going to assume that you think Hillary is the only candidate who's lied.

Did all those committees that were not able to find a cover up of any kind lie?

Our government is full of liars, but it's always, "my liars are better than your liars".

my edit: I'm definitely not voting Hillary. Unless her lies are sweeter than the other choice.

-- a republican

Hillary is doing it right. She came out early and is allowing herself, as the only Democrat, to be the target of all the Republicans and all the media. Everyone is attacking her from every direction. All her baggage is laid out there and piece by piece she addresses it.

By the time the election gets here, this will all be old news and she will be able to say "Come now, we already covered that months ago."

I think you're right about this.

It won't help to make her any more attractive to me, but 'preemptive damage control" seems like the way to go.

Hillary lied...but Jeb Bush can match her lie for lie. But even if that weren't a problem, no one wants another Clinton-Bush election anyway.

Choose.

Some choice. Flip sides of the same coin...
the same old tired coin...


Just curious: what name(s) out there (from either side) would you consider better (or at least more interesting) choices? I'm truly not baiting you to begin debating you- I really am just casually curious.

The problem I see with the entire landscape is that it's such a shallow talent pool on both sides. I really do think that factor was what made people so excited about "the idea of Obama" in '08. They'd seen enough of folks like McCain & Clinton (year after year after year...). Dude captured lightning in a bottle with unbelievably fortuitous timing.

I don't see that happening again in this cycle for either side, but it would be a much more interesting campaign cycle if there was one in each race. I guess I just hate seeing these two being the presumptive favorites so early in the game. It's kind of boring- and depressing, you know?

[shrugs]

I'm still listening to see what the candidates say. I will say I like the talk about a flat tax (Cruz) along with some of the 'get America back to work/limit immigration' (Walker/Jindal) that I've heard so far.

Lightening in a bottle? Maybe a good bit of it, but I think his success had mostly to do with a complicit media looking to make history.

No, the popularity the current president had will not happen again. I don't think much of anyone, other than the democrats, want to see a clinton-bush competition for president. I might start looking for a job in Canada if that takes place, as this country will be screwed in my opinion. Right now, I want to see more of Jindal, Cruz, and more of Walker. I'm not too sure of Walker's positions other than what he's telling us right now, and I see him as a centrist. I know what clinton brings, and I don't like it.

As far as another Bush/Clinton tilt, I'm really in the "anyone else?" camp. I don't think it's healthy at all for these familial dynasties to be trading off the royal scepter for 30-40 years. Too much inbreeding leads to- well... you know the rest, I'm sure.

At this point, I want to see BOTH of them challenged- really challenged by competition during the primaries. My biggest fear is HRC will run virtually unopposed- which is awful for the country, whether you vote D or R (or 'none of the above).

________________

Cruz/Walker/Jindal. Heard you.

I know you lean right, but I've also read enough of your posts to know that you are pretty news- and politics-aware. Who on the D side of things would you like to hear more from... if only to give HRC something to deal with- and give the conversation some new life?

You gotta have at least a couple names....

Not even all of Tammy Fays makeup could make Her attractive

Yikes!!! That's downright scary...

I haven't decided which of the Republican candidates I like best as of yet. It is still too early to call. Someone will hit their stride down the road and they will be anything but shallow. I have always preferred Governors as Presidents because they have already run a State which is valuable experience.

I think a challenger to Hillary will show up eventually too.

Right now I think the Bush and Clinton Machines are unstoppable. I am waiting to see if that changes.

Right now, there is only one democrat candidate, and it almost looks like they're going to allow hillary to get the nomination unopposed. Is it me, or have o'malley and webb stopped talking about themselves? I haven't thought much of o'malley since I lived in MD, and his policies are the main reason that the western part of MD wants to secede from the rest of the state. Webb is a one term senator from VA that voted on a party line, even though he promised to always vote his conscious. I didn't think that much of him.

Bernie Sanders is talking about entering.

He's the replacement for Ralph Nader, IMO. Some good points to make, totally un-electable.

Would he run as a democrat or with the socialist party?

Yes and No. Many voters refuse to change their minds. Once they hate you, its over. Damage is done. You can't clear your name with some people.

Look at Benghazi. Many condemned her before the actual report. They made up their mind based on speculation and hypothetical discussions from cable news. They don't care what a Congressman puts in his official report after a 2 year investigation. They're sticking with what that same Congressman was speculating about in 2012.

That's why so much of the Partisan Media is speculation and hypotheticals. They just make up scenarios and people hate candidates based on it.

I'm not sure why all of those GOP Congressmen defended her. And to spend years of tax dollars just to defend Hillary. I'm not sure if they are lying in their official report, or when they were on Fox News. But there definitely is a contradiction.

That would be because the report is incomplete. I thought that would be obvious to you, as we were talking about her missing emails earlier. They can only file a report on the information at hand, and she had omitted or deleted key parts. Think Nixon and his missing 18 minutes of tape.

Do you really not see the issue with her missing emails and specifically in this regard?

E-mails have recipients. There's a chain-of-command. They can subpoena her subjects.

They made allegations. Surely they had support for them. If the only evidence is in e-mails they never saw, they have no basis for their allegations.

It is illegal for a government official to delete their official emails like that, and furthermore, not only her "local" emails disappear, so did those on the other end, and those that are supposed to be permanently archived on a secure government server as well.

To assume that there were things in those emails that she, or others in government, wanted to make sure were never seen again, is not exactly a major leap in logic.

Yea Don, people say I don't speak eloquently enough for these boards so I have been practicing my response to you...

Please kind sir, awaken and apply the faculty or power of perceiving odors or scents by means of the organs in the nose, the coffee already.

Why would she set up her own server? Why would she exclusively use that server? Why would she delete the e-mails only when it looked like an investigation was going to occur? Why, if those e-mails would've been in support of her - why didn't she show them? Why was it HER legal team that got to decide what was relative and what wasn't? Seems odd, at the least.

I'll give the Clintons this: They know how to cheat and not get caught. Laws apply to others, but not them.

Whitewater.
Benghazi.
Clinton Foundation - using public office to receive money in exchange for foreign policy favors.

The list goes on and on. Just read today that Hillary wants to "topple" the 1%........but I bet any action she thinks of would exclude her and Bill.

Good question. I didn't think about that, but I assumed a certain percentage of dems would go with him.

Assuming there is something in there is much different than assuming Benghazi Evidence is there.

I agree, there was something she didn't want the GOP House to see in her private e-mails. An affair with George Clooney? Chelsea kicking a baby? Strapping a dog to the car? Tax returns? Probably all sorts of stuff. We can only speculate. Again, I was talking Benghazi here.

I thought she turned over every official e-mail. I thought she sent them 30,000. If they think she's lying, that should be easy to prove. Find 1 official e-mail that wasn't included. Data Mine the Fed databases. Find some official e-mails she didn't turn over.

That would go well beyond Hillary's abilities, and would require additional help to accomplish, and removing all traces of those events would go well beyond that of your typical crony.

I doubt she set that up in 2009 to cover-up a 2012 Benghazi attack. Colin Powell did the same thing with his. It seems stupid to me, but doesn't mean anything about Benghazi.

Why didn't she show them? She wants all 30,000 made public. That needs clearance. I think they will be made public eventually. Aside of classified.

Why her legal team? Because we are talking private e-mails. The House/Senate never went to the courts to get a subpoena for her private e-mails.

She wouldn't have had to make them public - just make them available to investigators. My e-mails probably are, aren't they?

She made 30,000 available. What about the other 20 or 30,000? No one cares about e-mails concerning other things (Chelsea, Bill, what movie to watch, etc). Why did HER team get to decide what was relevant and what wasn't?

Federal law governing record retention requires that each federal employee individually decide what emails must be preserved.

Its correspondence. Does every Gov't official record every conversation? Every phone call? When they pass a note to an intern, should we make a huge library for that?

If - IF - that's what federal law is, it needs to be changed.

That's really no different than you being investigated for a crime, but YOU get to decide what evidence the prosecutor gets. If that were the case for you - no matter what you did, I bet you'd get off free and clear. Every time.

Its technically speech. Conversation. There are all sorts of conversations going on with public employees.

I'd love to hear closed-door arguments from the GOP Congress. Doesn't mean it all needs to be recorded/archived and available to the opposition on request.

Plus, we can all delete our e-mails. I'll do it now. We don't need a law preventing us from doing that. And Hillary isn't being investigated for a crime.


I'm not voting for her. I'm not a fan. I hate the idea of a family dynasty running our nation. I think her e-mail policy was bonehead and fishy. But I think she complied with the law and the GOP would press charges if she had not. FOX/GOP went way overboard on Benghazi.