June 28, 2016

"House Benghazi Panel Finds No New Evidence of Wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton."

That's the headline in The NYT. Key word: new.
The 800-page report, however, included some new details about the night of the attacks, and the context in which it occurred, and it delivered a broad rebuke of government agencies like the Defense Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department — and the officials who led them — for failing to grasp the acute security risks in the Libyan city, and especially for maintaining outposts in Benghazi that they could not protect.

The committee, led by Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, also harshly criticized an internal State Department investigation that it said had allowed officials like Mrs. Clinton, then the secretary of state, to effectively choose who would investigate their actions. In addition, it reiterated Republicans’ complaints that the Obama administration had sought to thwart the investigation by withholding witnesses and evidence.

82 comments:

MayBee said...

It depends on what the meaning of "wrongdoing" is.

Why would Hillary Clinton be pushing Stevens to create a diplomatic post in Benghazi that she could actually visit in October?
All the other consulates had gotten out because of the bombings in the neighborhood. But Clinton wanted to visit. And so people are dead. How is that not a wrongdoing? It's not illegal, but it was a terrible, wrong choice.

David Begley said...

Dem playbook.

Distract and deflect. The video.

Delay. The 13 hour attack has been investigated for years.

Old news. That's an oxymoron. No one cares. Looks like an obsession by GOP.

Charge. It is all partisan. Unfair.

rehajm said...

It depends on what the meaning of "wrongdoing" is.

Also 'finds', 'evidence' and 'no'.

Perhaps 'Hillary Clinton', too.

The Drill SGT said...

What I read was:

1. they failed to secure the location even in the face of multiple requests.

2. When the first attack happened, the conference call was more about political excuses, and limitations on providing aid (e.g. wanting any response forces to not be in uniform)

3. I give Panetta credit for positioning forces in Sicily, but apparently the WH and State thought there was no need to send help. Just one F-16 doing a high speed low pass might have made all the difference.

PS: We owe it to the guys on the pointy end of the spear, be they green suited troops, State Dept Consular weenies, or CIA contractors, to know that when feces hits the blades, that the POTUS will dispatch aid.

PPS: Few operations fail because of too many troops being used, or too much explosives

wendybar said...

And some dummies will still vote for her, when they know how corrupt she and this administration is. Upside down world.

The Drill SGT said...

Fixed:

And MANY dummies will still vote for her

David Begley said...

Drill

Sonic boom flyovers would have scared the hell out of the terrorists. It would have meant no second attack.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Any explanation as to why Obama and Clinton lied to the American people for weeks regarding the reason for the attack?

I didn't think so.

Hagar said...

I repeat: Never mind the 4 who died; where are the 40 who lived and what are their stories?

David Begley said...

What is one of the classic American narratives? The calvary is coming.

The terrorists even know it. If jets fly over they think troops are coming. They don't know if it is a bluff. And Obama was supposedly a GREAT poker player with lobbyists in Springfield.

David Begley said...

Hagar

And who was the person who ordered the stand down?

Henry said...

The word "Wrongdoing" is interesting. "Wrongdoing" seems to indicate a bigger envelope than "deception" but never quite touches "poor judgement".

The Drill SGT said...

David Begley said...
What is one of the classic American narratives? The calvary is coming.


That's an Easter thing.

We Cavalry, spell it differently :)

David Begley said...

Drill

Autocorrect. Sorry.

TWW said...

I guess the old evidence of wrongdoing will have to do.

Michael said...

Benghazi video. Orlando gun. Brexit voters. That is the universe of the progs. Meanwhile in the real world:

Benghazi terrorists. Orlando terrorists. Brexit Brussels.

There is a certain passivity afoot is there not?

Unclebiffy said...

The most aggravating thing about this whole affair is how quickly the media jumped to the defense of the administration. Remember the morning following the attack Mitt Romney came out with a statement pointing out that the tragedy was a result of the feckless Obama Administration’s foreign policy and that the attack was not caused by a film but by radical Islamism. Immediately the news media circled the wagons and said that Romney was wrong and that he was playing politics during this tragedy. They went further to repeatedly point out that this was an embarrassment to him and that it would hurt his campaign.
Today we know that Mitt Romney was exactly right in his initial assessment and that it was the Obama administration that was lying, spinning and playing politics. The media has no intention of pointing out that fact. They would just prefer everyone move on.

Nonapod said...

So just general incompetence and hubris on the part of Hillary Clinton, nothing specifically illegal. Maybe the solution is to make incompetent, arrogant behavior on the part of high level apparatchiks generally illegal. Illegalize superciliousness, stupidity, and cupidity.


cubanbob said...

What possible reason would the SoS have in visiting a country as messed up as Libya is today and was then never mind going to the consulate in Benghazi ? At best (and that is being extremely charitable) the reason could be summed up as a combination of massive arrogance coupled with incomprehensible stupidity to believe it was necessary for the SoS to visit that consulate in October of that year. The events that occurred demonstrate not only the massive arrogance and stupidity at play but the criminality displayed in trying to deflect the blame and attempt to cover up the mess. The report justs adds to the fact that if being a criminal and a traitor isn't enough reason not to vote for her then her incompetence is for the voter's consideration.

~ Gordon Pasha said...

Read this transcript of Hugh Hewitt's interview with Rep. Pompeo:
http://www.hughhewitt.com/house-select-committee-benghazi-member-rep-mike-pompeo-release-benghazi-report-today/

holdfast said...

"And Obama was supposedly a GREAT poker player with lobbyists in Springfield."

Yeah, um, those are bribes disguised as poker losses.

narciso said...

Red queen and her two fellow witches powers and rice, pushed to relieve the rebels among them the February 17th martyrs, they sent Stevens as liaison to them. At some point, he interfered with their project, aiding the salamis I. Syria, si they left him to die.

Bob Boyd said...

"What possible reason would the SoS have in visiting a country as messed up as Libya is today...?"

She became an adrenaline junkie after dodging sniper fire in Bosnia.

Browndog said...

Listening to the press conference, I have only heard one legitimate question from the press.

The rest are attacks couched as questions designed to insulate Hillary.

It's really quite remarkable.

damikesc said...

Immediately the news media circled the wagons and said that Romney was wrong and that he was playing politics during this tragedy.

I'll never forget the overheard audio of several reporters plotting to make sure Romney has to answer awkward questions.

...because he was, you know, the President and able to do anything.

They were less interested in insuring Obama answers questions.

Drago said...

wendybar: "And some dummies will still vote for her, when they know how corrupt she and this administration is. Upside down world"

I don't think you have internalized precisely the attraction the left has for Hillary.

The left knows Hillary is guilty of crimes. The fact that Hillary will "get away with it" while everyone knows she is guilty is precisely why the left loves this so much.

Vaclev Havel explained best the leftist mentality at work here.
http://vaclavhavel.cz/showtrans.php?cat=eseje&val=2_aj_eseje.html&typ=HTML

David Begley said...

New facts from the report.

"Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]

With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “[i]f any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” [pg. 115]

The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. [pg. 107]

A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. [pg. 154]

None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. [pg. 150]

The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution. [pg. 144]"

eric said...

I've always thought that the best response to speech is more speech.

Yet, here we have the internet where all can speak and still the NYT is influential with its rediculous headlines clearly meant to cover for a political party.

Maybe Trump is right and it's time these liars are held to account.

AlbertAnonymous said...

The SOS wanted to visit because she wanted to do a victory lap as her precursor to the 2016 presidential election campaign.

But it wasn't a victory, it was a colossal failure.

What was it she said "we came was saw he died"? Or some such garbage...

Bob Boyd said...

No new evidence of wrong doing...is there any evidence Clinton did anything right that night?

Owen said...

Unclebiffy @ 9:31: "...Today we know that Mitt Romney was exactly right in his initial assessment and that it was the Obama administration that was lying, spinning and playing politics. The media has no intention of pointing out that fact. They would just prefer everyone move on…"

That cost Romney the election, right there. If he had held his ground, if he had doubled-down and gone on real offense (the way Trump always does, to a fault), he would have won. People would have had to listen. They would have seen some backbone and passion. They would have rallied to it.

It was a simple enough story. There were mortal stakes. There was a right, and a wrong. But he didn't do it. He just fell apart. Unbelievable.

coupe said...

The Ambassador and the State Department were idiots. We needed a U.S. Embassy in Libya, like we needed French Fries from France.

The fact that he had mercenaries "trying" to protect him, instead of Marines, shows the stupidity of the whole operation.

"When you stick a knife into an electrical outlet, there should be no expectation of survival" - General Võ Nguyên Giáp

The Drill SGT said...

coupe said...
The fact that he had mercenaries "trying" to protect him, instead of Marines, shows the stupidity of the whole operation.


While I agree with the sentiment, the Marines aren't there to guard the Ambassador. The overall Embassy security mission is the job of State's "Diplomatic Security Group".

The Marines are tasked with the specific job of protecting the communications/Crypto/Sigint vault and buying enough time for the Cryppies and the CIA to burn/smash all the equipment and files...If the best place to do that is the walls, fine, if it's by giving up the walls and holding the vault door, that's ok as well...

mockturtle said...

Interesting about the headline. They ran the exact same headline on CNN--for a few minutes. They changed it after the press conference began. No doubt the reporters will be too lazy to actually read the report, as they prefer to be spoon-fed.

narciso said...

the cover story was 'responsibility to protect' samantha power's pet project, however, the impetus came from here,

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/28/bombshell-911-huma-worked-hillary-saudi-charity-suspected-terror-funding/

now gowdy signed off on the operation to support the rebels, so squirrel,

EDH said...

Did anybody see this AP story? Seems to contradict everything else I've read about the report.

House GOP report faults military on Benghazi attacks

Associated Press Tuesday, June 28, 2016

The House Benghazi Committee, in a politically charged report, faulted the military on Tuesday for responding too slowly to send help to Benghazi, Libya, during the deadly 2012 attacks despite clear orders from President Barack Obama and the Pentagon...

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2016/06/house_gop_report_faults_military_on_benghazi_attacks

MayBee said...

Nothing funnier to me than the Democrat Benghazi report mentioning Trump several times.

n.n said...

David Begley:

The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport ... was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution. [pg. 144]"

That is a compelling story. After suffering a violent coup and losing their homeland, the Libyans had the humanity to aid their enemies. We, on the other hand, chose poorly. Gaddafi had made amends for his role in supporting terrorism and had reformed to the benefit of his people and the international community. His reward was a sodomy session and abortion rite backed by America, France, etc.

MayBee said...

They are trying the old "wait wait wait until you can call it 'old news'" method with reporting on this report.

JPS said...

Owen,

"If [Romney] had held his ground, if he had doubled-down and gone on real offense (the way Trump always does, to a fault), he would have won. People would have had to listen."

No, they wouldn't have. They preferred not to. He would have been countered by wall-to-wall, coordinated attacks by the media that he was overplaying his hand and desperately trying to politicize a tragedy of war for his own benefit. And ultimately, there were slightly more people who wanted to believe the administration than believe him.

Which isn't to say he didn't fold up awfully easily, just that I doubt it mattered as much as you think.

Gusty Winds said...

Do Democrats even care if anybody died in Libya?

Murph said...

Blogger Hagar said...
I repeat: Never mind the 4 who died; where are the 40 who lived and what are their stories?

It's amazing that none of these people has leaked info. What might they have been threatened with that has them so tight-lipped?

David Begley said...

Another point:

"Emails indicate senior State Department officials, including Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and Huma Abedin were preparing for a trip by the Secretary of State to Libya in October 2012. According to testimony, Chris Stevens wanted to have a “deliverable” for the Secretary for her trip to Libya, and that “deliverable” would be making the Mission in Benghazi a permanent Consulate. [pg. 96]"

Chuck said...

Kudos to Professor Althouse for this post. At this moment, CNN is running a sub-heading, GOP-LED PANEL FINDS NO EVIDENCE OF CLINTON WRONGDOING IN BENGHAZI INVESTIGATION.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began."

-- If true, someone's head needs to roll for not following an order that led to people dying.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
coupe said...

The Drill SGT said... ...the Marines aren't there to guard the Ambassador.

My thinking is that even with one Marine, his chain of command would not let anyone cancel the Semper Fidelis on him.

Embassy mercenaries? Screw em... Not my day to watch over them...

traditionalguy said...

But Hillary wanted to set ISIS free to slaughter the Muslim world. And she did a good job of it. As her intended result, the Muslims are all coming to Europe and the USA now to escape the ISIS slaughter.

grimson said...

". . .it delivered a broad rebuke of government agencies like the Defense Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department--and the officials who led them." Wouldn't that include Mrs. Clinton?

The Drill SGT said...

Matthew Sablan said...
"Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began."


yeah,

The story is tough to swallow. If the POTUS actually that(which I don't believe), then when he woke up in the morning before flying off to a fund raiser, any other POTUS in history would have fired both the SECDEF and CJCS.

Roughcoat said...

Embassy mercenaries? Screw em...

"Screw em"? That's a really shitty thing to say. Those mercenaries put up a helluva fight for American interests. They laid it all on the line and two of them paid the ultimate price. They could have opted out of the fight by simply refusing to join it. Instead they went to the sound of the guns. Hell, they ran to the sound. If the MOH (or Navy Cross, if you well) could be awarded to CIA operators the two men who were killed in battle would be on the top of the list.

"These, in the day when heaven was falling,
The hour when earth's foundations fled,
Followed their mercenary calling,
And took their wages, and are dead.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood, and earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned, these defended,
And saved the sum of things for pay."

Matthew Sablan said...

I almost don't believe it, just because, who WOULDN'T make that order?

On the other hand, why lie about it until now? Until today, we've been told no such order was ever given.

Owen said...

JPS @ 10:14: "No, they wouldn't have [listened to Romney.]…"

Crushed, I am. You're probably right. Certainly I agree that the MSM would have shelled him without mercy. How dare he make political capital out of this tragedy! Would he have done that to a WHITE rival? Etc etc etc.

We'll never know.

narciso said...

perhaps, but the buck ultimately stops with obama who was getting ready for his las vegas fundraiser, and it goes to panetta, and then the unit commanders

The Drill SGT said...

Roughcoat said...
Embassy mercenaries? Screw em...

"Screw em"? That's a really shitty thing to say. Those mercenaries put up a helluva fight for American interests


In all fairness, he might have been talking about the locals who were supposed be be guarding the compound, who cut and ran.

as for the two CIA contractors, I think they at least deserve

The Intelligence Star is a rare award given by the Central Intelligence Agency to its officers for "voluntary acts of courage performed under hazardous conditions or for outstanding achievements or services rendered with distinction under conditions of grave risk"

The Drill SGT said...

Matthew Sablan said...

The story at the time was something like: The President told Panetta to provide support to State, then went to bed, without either defining that aid or giving approval for an operation across the border.

narciso said...

I may have used 30 pages printed for these posts, and I didn't have access to government witnesses,

http://narcisoscorner.blogspot.com/2012/09/from-shore-of-benghazi-to-halls-of.html?view=mosaic

cubanbob said...

grimson said...
". . .it delivered a broad rebuke of government agencies like the Defense Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department--and the officials who led them." Wouldn't that include Mrs. Clinton?

6/28/16, 10:35 AM"

Who was Head Of State, Head Of Government and Commander In Chief at the time and why does that individual escape rebuke?

Matthew Sablan said...

I wouldn't define those as "clear orders" though. I'll need to read it myself at some point.

Hagar said...

@Coupe,
Whatever the State Dept. was doing in Benghazi, it was something they should not have been doing, and should not have been doing by U.S. laws and standards. The full panic reaction and solid stonewall resistance since are not because they are afraid of what any foreign power thinks. It is personal, which means it is us they are afraid of.

CWJ said...

"And Obama was supposedly a GREAT poker player with lobbyists in Springfield."

And clients always play their best against suppliers and salesmen.

exhelodrvr1 said...

SO they are saying that the military dropped the ball? Interesting.

M Jordan said...

Not to be off topic but I see Scott Adams is now predicting a Clinton win. He has his caveats, as usual. But he says the "crazy racits" label that Hillary's vast support army has smeared Trump with will win the day unless he finds a way to reject it.

Adams is a charlatan. How could he not have foreseen this? This is THE Democrat/progressive number one attack. It always works. It's why no one has done any comedy on Obama. They know what's coming: Racist, racist, racist.

I'm seriously depressed by our world. If it wasn't for Brexit I'd see no hope for us to avoid a modern version of the Soviet era ... here in the US of all places. I never thought it possible but it's happening. Conservatives are afraid to speak. They're afraid even to endorse their own candidate. A blue velvet curtain has been draped over us all and we are suffocating. Even commenting here has an element of risk.

The power of name-calling and shaming ... it works.

Todd said...

cubanbob said...

Who was Head Of State, Head Of Government and Commander In Chief at the time and why does that individual escape rebuke?

6/28/16, 10:55 AM


To quote the most qualified person to EVER run for the office of the President, "At this point, what difference does it make?"

shiloh said...

Benghazi By The Numbers ...

Watergate investigation = 406 days

Benghazi investigation = 773 days

>

"Do Democrats even care if anybody died in Libya?"

Do Reps even care how many innocent civilians died in Iraq? Rhetorical.

>

Dems releasing their "report" yesterday pretty much forced Reps er Gowdy and his merry conmen to release their "report" today.

Well played!

narciso said...

dogbert seems to be forgetting his own lesson, only when they use elbonian math does red queen prevail,

coupe said...

One of the great movie scenes in Paths to Glory was the execution of the innocent soldiers by the corrupt officers above them. Despicable governments feeding the fire.

Kirk Douglas hates them, he fought them, but he has to watch his men be shot for the greater cause. The next day he is ordered back to the trenches, to start all over. The enlisted men know if they fail, they will be shot as well. Better to die from the German bullet than your countries bullet.

Before they go, the get a song by a captured German girl...

After watching millions die, the Americans come in and "win". It's always easier to win, when the other sides are decimated. "Timing is everything." - General Pershing

I can't see Mrs. Clinton or Huma Weiner's singing doing much good...

shiloh said...

"but I see Scott Adams is now predicting a Clinton win"

Damn, Adams suckered Althouse every which way but loose er reeled her in hook, line and sinker!

On the bright side she probably won't be stealing er appropriating any more of his tedious gobbledygook nonsense.

cubanbob said...

Todd said...
cubanbob said...

Who was Head Of State, Head Of Government and Commander In Chief at the time and why does that individual escape rebuke?

6/28/16, 10:55 AM

To quote the most qualified person to EVER run for the office of the President, "At this point, what difference does it make?"

6/28/16, 11:14 AM"

Indeed for a large part of the electorate and possibly the majority that is true. They would rather believe Obama, Clinton and the Democrats instead of their lying eyes. But then again being junkies hooked on government they will believe anything the supplier tells them as long as they get their drug.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Was there old evidence? At least 2 if not all 4 of the Americans killed worked for the CIA. It's true that initially Hillary Clinton tried to obscure that fact. You can fault her for that, but it seems to me that in doing so you are taking the propaganda side of the enemy.

It also may be true that the local militia that was supposed to protect the consulate fled (they might say it was just a tactical retreat). Arab militias are going to do that as we have known for at least a hundred years (just watch Lawrence of Arabia). My advice to Americans working under that sort of protection is to arrange to flee with the militia. They leave and you stay is not a good plan.

As for not sending help, we did send help. One of the CIA contractors killed, Glen Doherty, was part of the help sent from Tripoli. We also arranged for the Libyan rescue team that got the survivors to the airport for evacuation.

As to whether we should have been in Benghazi, around 80% of the American presence was CIA. They were fighting the war against Islamic extremists.

hombre said...

Stupid Republicans. They have allowed Hillary's and the Administration's dissembling and culpability to be buried in bullshit.

The intelligence was faulty. The security was inadequate. The response to the attack was bungled. The Ambassador and others were murdered. The Administration lied about the identity of the perpetrators. Res ipsa loquitur.

Gowdy either got in too late or was a damned poor prosecutor. Republicans should have gathered the evidence outside the hearings, presented it and let Hillary and the Dems struggle to rebut it.

Stupid Republicans!

The Drill SGT said...

Left Bank of the Charles said...
As for not sending help, we did send help.


As I understand it, 2 SOF and 5 CIA guys, without orders, put a gun to the head of a pilot of small jet at the Tripoli airport, paid him 30,000 dollars and got a ride to benghazi.

help wasn't sent by Washington. Friends heard the call and rode to the sound of the guns...

If they could fly into Bengahzi from Tripoli, then a company of USAF Air Police could have flown from Sicily in the same time on a C-130. But of course they didn't, because there was no permission given.

The help from the compound to the consulate was against orders. The help from Tripoli to the compound was without orders.

hombre said...

@Left Bank: Your 11:59 post is talking point rationalizing.

At 12:22, I lay out 5 points. The first four are indisputable based on the outcome and evince either incompetence or gross negligence. Take your best shot at spinning them away.

mikee said...

I, for one, assert that a Hillary first term is going to happen, since she has the votes real and fraudulent lined up to win already, and that her first term will be judged a success if and only if there is not nuclear, biological or chemical attack on a US population center before January 2021.

And I do not expect her first term to be a success.

Why on earth do otherwise sensible people expect her entire life history of mendacity, malfeasance, enabling of corruption, personal profiteering, international incompetence and inability to compromise to lead to anything domestically and internationally other than total disaster? Giving her office is ensuring deaths of millions and long-term disaster with unlikely recovery, ever.

Glen Reynolds would note that we are in for a Heinlein-esque period of "bad luck."

The Godfather said...

They say there's "no smoking gun" in the report. What would constitute a "smoking gun" in this case? If the evidence in this report isn't enough to hold Clinton responsible for leaving the Benghazi outpost inadequately defended and then lying about what happened, what would it take? I think they're applying a "Perry Mason" standard, where nothing short of a confession in open court will suffice.




i







riddled no
O

Matthew Sablan said...

After just re-reading the top line things, and not the whole report. I think what they mean is, no "criminal wrong doing." The report and previous facts show that we were lied to, while Clinton told the truth in private correspondence to people she trusted, while promoting a different version to the public.

That's a doing that is morally wrong, but not legally wrong. So, no "wrong doing."

Matthew Sablan said...

Also, apparently, it wasn't until THIS investigation that they got 9 eye witnesses to testify.

That tells you how seriously the previous investigations were blocked. Not only that, thousands of new emails/documents were "found" for this investigation.

Harold said...

Nonew evidence while they've been saying for the last few years there's no evidence. And the readers of the NYT remain in blissful ignorance that anything untoward happened that day.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Well, I'm sure we can keep investigating it anyway. It's important that these things have a partisan conclusion.

Matthew Sablan said...

I think this is the first time we've learned that the administration had Marines change outfits while people were dying.

Drago said...

R&B's: "It's important that these things have a partisan conclusion."

The "smart set" knows that you can't have a Benghazi investigation report if it doesn't include dozens of references to Donald Trump, because #leftylogic.

damikesc said...

I, for one, assert that a Hillary first term is going to happen, since she has the votes real and fraudulent lined up to win already, and that her first term will be judged a success if and only if there is not nuclear, biological or chemical attack on a US population center before January 2021.

*fingers crossed*

Be NYC or Boston.

Funny, if terrorists attacked the WTC TODAY, my first reaction might be laughter, not outrage. If Obama was shot dead or Clinton shot dead live on TV, I wouldn't even remotely consider mourning them. Ditto half of our SCOTUS.

That's a doing that is morally wrong, but not legally wrong. So, no "wrong doing."

But ONLY if a Democrat is in trouble. If it was a Republican, this would need criminal investigation.

The "smart set" knows that you can't have a Benghazi investigation report if it doesn't include dozens of references to Donald Trump, because #leftylogic.

Also needs to spend 50 pages attacking the opposition.