October 18, 2015

Hillary before the Benghazi committee is "going to be less a showdown than a show trial. The verdict is already in. The Republicans are guilty."

"It’s not that Hillary has gotten so much more trustable. It’s just that the Republicans are so much less credible."

Maureen Dowd conveys the talking point. Whatever Hillary is, look at the Republicans: They're worse.

Dowd's NYT readers, it should be noted, tend to think she's not pro-Hillary enough. A top-rated comment is:
Typical Doud [sic] performance. Dismiss the comm for the farce that it is, but attack Clinton anyway and keep the nonsense and lies about Benghazi and emails going. It doesn't matter that other secretaries of State had their own private email servers? It only matters that Clinton had one? Doesn't matter that the messages she is said to have sent or received were not classified at the time? Doesn't matter that no one, NO ONE, has discovered any email sent or received over this private server that went astray or would have made the slightest difference if it had? At least Doud understands the basic political purpose of the comm and its "investigation" -- get Clinton. Too bad she can't recognize that she does the same thing, repeatedly.

95 comments:

rhhardin said...

The narrative is that the narrative is true.

What a fertile source of error every half-truth is! Lautreamont said that somewhere.

The true part is that the Republicans believe the narrative too. You can't oppose the narrative, they believe.

rhhardin said...

If only soap opera women would tune out. Then the MSM would go out of business, and the narrative would die.

Crimso said...

One of the top-rated comments? And thus do we reap the harvest sown by having so many buildings decades ago full of lead-based paint.

Hagar said...

If there is nothing in those e-mails, why has it been so difficult to get to see them?
Why all the lying, changing stories, and stonewalling?

Tank said...

Naturally, I think there is "plenty" to these two stories (Libya and EMails). I AM curious to see how the hearing goes. I know there will be as much BS cover from the Dems for Hillary as they can manage. But on the other side, Trey Gowdy has been working on this for an awful long time. I want to see if he has actual questions that can nail down some actual answers, or if it will be the usual Republican nothing burger. At this point, he should have actual FACTS they've "discovered" through all of whatever they've been doing all this time. If not, he will deserve to be pilloried in the press.

Based upon past hearings, my expectations are: we (the right, Republicans, conservatives, honest people of all ages) are going to get a shitburger.

Abdul Abulbul Amir said...

Other secs of state had their own private email servers for official business??? Is that so?

sinz52 said...

The Dems do have a point.

This Congressional investigation should have been wrapped up by now.

How can an investigation of a Presidential candidate that takes place during the candidate's campaign not be seen as political?

The committee should just issue its report and let the FBI continue the investigation.

David Begley said...

Hillary will evade, filibuster, dodge and lie. Also memory lapses. Will assert that it is all political.

Gowdy might get to her but he needs more than five minutes.

The thing about these show hearings is that there is no judge present and HRC won't be jailed for contempt. Therefore tough to get anywhere unless documents are great.

campy said...

"Other secs of state had their own private email servers for official business??? Is that so?"

Sure. At least as far back as John Quincy Adams.

I thought everyone knew that.

SayAahh said...

Misstatement, lies and obfuscation don't make a "top-rated" comment.
Political polarization and confirmation bias rules the day.
We live in the age of pundocrity.

Roger Sweeny said...

Of course, the purpose of the hearing is to "get Clinton." The purpose of the Watergate hearing was to "get Nixon." The only question is whether they can discover enough facts to do that.

holdfast said...

"It doesn't matter that other secretaries of State had their own private email servers?

That is demonstrably untrue. Other SecStates did use private email from time to time, though that is less helpful to Hillary than she might wish, since in those earlier times the Federal record keeping rules were not as clear. Hillary is the only senior government official to gave commissioned a personal homebrew server for the purpose of hiding her correspondence.

virgil xenophon said...

Dowd is the kind that swims out to meet troop-ships...how long must we endure and suffer her tortured prose?

Skipper said...

I guess Benghazi was because of the YouTube video.

Gahrie said...

This Congressional investigation should have been wrapped up by now.

It probably would have been, if Hillary had cooperated.

Xmas said...

Abdul,

Powell had a private email account that he used for personal correspondence. He admitted that there may have been some work related things in that account, but he primarily used his State Dept. email address. Powell was asked to recover emails from that account and turn them over to the State Dept. He maintains that he had a second computer on his desk that was for secure information. He also claims that his entire staff used State Dept. accounts, so any accidental emails sent to or from his personal account should be captured in his staff's accounts.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

If a GOP candidate had ever been caught setting and executing up a scheme to hide and cover up official public records it would have been the end of that candidacy and career. Setting up the personnel, private email system IS the smoking gun. It is impossible to imagine Democrats not screaming for prison time for a Republican if this situation were reversed. A Republican would have been charged and on trial by now.

Also, why aren't all those government officials who communicated via Clinton's obviously non government email address under investigation??

Paul said...

Hillary will just say, "I don't recall", "not to my knowledge", "I don't know", "it's,all a right wing conspiracy".....

We do know that some of the stuff on her server(s) was top secret BEFORE it somehow walked out of CIA buildings and emailed itself to her.

We do know she and Obama flat lied that a video caused the attack at Benghazi.

We do know the staff at Benghazi pleaded with Hillary for more protection and got none.

We do know Hillary and Obama sat there and watched on tv the embassy burn and the staff MURDERED and did nothing.

Xmas said...

The big problems for Hillary are that some of her staff had email accounts on the same server and that summaries and images of secure information jumped the "air gap" from the secure network into emails that wound up on her server. The former means that Clinton has literally hidden official correspondence. The latter is gross incompetence in handling classified information.

Her minor problem, and the one the Benghazi committee should investigate, is how much Hillary relied on information supplied by Sidney Blumenthal in evaluating the situation in Libya. Hillary needs to answer questions on how her policy on Libya looks like it was aimed at helping her friend's private company. She purposefully did not turn over emails between her and Blumenthal to the State Dept. even though she would copy the email bodies and forward them to other officials without indicating the source.

SGT Ted said...

The top rated comment is partisan bullshit. Probably posted by Sidney Blumenthal.

Scott said...

There are LOTS of people in Federal prison for doing the exact same things that Hillary Clinton has done. Yet she remains free. And people who ought to know better are defending her. I feel nothing but disgust for Democrats and their apologists. What contemptible rotten smelly whores you are, every single last one of you.

Clyde said...

Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were not available for comment.

Original Mike said...

"Doesn't matter that the messages she is said to have sent or received were not classified at the time?"

Apparently, this person thinks there's some independent Dept. of Classification that everything goes through before it goes to the Secretary of State. How, exactly, would that work?

JSD said...

Roger Sweeney - Of course, the purpose of the hearing is to "get Clinton." The purpose of the Watergate hearing was to "get Nixon." The only question is whether they can discover enough facts to do that.

Watergate Committee took 13 months. Benghazi has been kicked around for two years by five committees; Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, Oversight Government Reforms and finally the House Select Committee. Hillary and the Democrats ran out the clock. It’s time for Republicans to claim victory and move on. Nobody likes a sputtering crybaby (see Jim Harbaugh).

dbp said...

When you read comments at the NYT you are forced to realize that there are people who are just unreachable. It doesn't matter how many times their guy or gal is caught brazenly lying. There is always a rationale.

Hillary! could be on tape admitting that she knew it was illegal, did it anyway--mostly because she thought she would get away with it, and they would still vote for her. Because, reasons and the Republicans are just as bad, bla-bla-bla.

Jeremiah Bourque said...

Regarding "Also, why aren't all those government officials who communicated via Clinton's obviously non government email address under investigation??"

Best we know, they are under investigation by the FBI. The FBI wants to find out how Hillary got national defense information onto her personal server. It's seized four State Department servers to further that investigation. But while the public has reports that Gowdy has done closed door interviews for about four dozen people, the Democrats have only pushed for the release of testimony by Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin. (They never claimed there was any national security info that needed scrubbing so I'm not sure there would be any if the Democrats leaked it as threatened.) Gowdy isn't interviewing people because he has the power to prosecute, but the FBI can put a thorny case together and hand it to the DoJ... with every reason to think it wants to know *who* violated the air gap from secure systems to non-secure (Hillary).

pm317 said...

Ah Benghazi, Hillary should tell us where Obama was that night and what he did. That is all.

Original Mike said...

"Watergate Committee took 13 months. Benghazi has been kicked around for two years by five committees; Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, Oversight Government Reforms and finally the House Select Committee. Hillary and the Democrats ran out the clock. It’s time for Republicans to claim victory and move on. Nobody likes a sputtering crybaby (see Jim Harbaugh)."

I support the House Select Committee's investigation even if it's detrimental to Republicans because I want to know what happened. The previous committees didn't even realize they didn't have Clinton's emails, for Christ's sake (or they didn't care, not sure which is worse). I heard this morning that Chris Stevens' emails just became available this last week! You're right the Dems have a strategy to run out the clock and it has primarily been successful, but I want a real investigation, politics be damned.

(Have to look up Harbaugh's reaction to yesterday. Should be delicious.)

MadisonMan said...

Now the narrative will include Hillary saying I went before the Republican-controlled Committee and answered all their questions.

SayAahh said...

Ah Benghazi, Hilary should tell us where she and Obama were that night and what, if anything, they did. That is all.

FIFY

Michael K said...

When you read comments at the NYT you are forced to realize that there are people who are just unreachable.

Yes, and if you want to see more, look at HuffPo. It is just amazing to see the willful blindness. Hillary will be the nominee and the FBI Director will resign in protest.

traditionalguy said...

The gangs of New York redux.

Birches said...

It doesn't matter that other secretaries of State had their own private email servers?

No. They didn't. Powell might have had a gmail account, but he never set up a SEPARATE, private system that FOIA requests couldn't get to. These people are idiots.

David said...

Truth is, the clock has already been run out. Most people will think this is a replay.

Hilary is going to be the nominee and stands a good chance of being President. Deal with it. You get what you (collectively) deserve in a democracy. As a nation we deserve her.

This election may also prove that Old Media still trumps New Media where "the narrative" is concerned. Hilary has the Old Media in her pocket(book) and is not going to let go.

I also expect her to perform well at the hearings, even though they are replays.

What's the real issue? Our foreign policy collapsed on her watch. Benghazi is a poor proxy for this.

mtrobertslaw said...

What the f...difference does it make what Hillary said or did. The point is she's someone who's finally going to take guns away from all those troglodytes who are destroying this country and give the rest of us all the stuff we want for free.

madAsHell said...

I'm confident that there will be no resolution, no go-to-jail outcome, but Hillary will have another outburst like "What difference does it make?".....and that is the best we can achieve.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

The focus should have been on the government lies about the video. This hearing just allows Hillary to play victim for her fans in media.

*cackle, cackle

Anonymous said...

Tell that to the parents that Hillary and Barack lied right to their faces. Maureen Dowd is an ass.

Original Mike said...

"Now the narrative will include Hillary saying I went before the Republican-controlled Committee and answered all their questions."

That's already the narrative so it's of no consequence. What matters is if Goudy has actually found anything or if Hillary as good at covering up as she thinks she is (I'd bet she but you've got to test it). I also think it will be instructive if we get a lot of "I don't recall"s.

Anonymous said...

Blogger sinz52 said...
The Dems do have a point.

This Congressional investigation should have been wrapped up by now.


Maybe if they hadn't been lying, and hiding E-mails...it would have been wrapped up....but when you are hiding stuff, people want to know why!!!

Original Mike said...

And I don't think it should be forgotten that the committee has already uncovered Hillary's email server.

Big Mike said...

When Hillary had her "what difference does it make" outburst, if only some Republican on the panel had had the quickness of wit to respond by saying "we're trying to find out whether you are capable of learning from your mistakes, and I'll take your remarks as a negative."

It would have been game over, right there.

And that's the whole point of hearings -- how did we get into this jam, and how can we assure that we won't ever get into another one like it.

As for Elijah Cummings and the rest of the Democrats, J. Christopher Stephens died for your sins.

JAORE said...

"This Congressional investigation should have been wrapped up by now."

Sure, if totally transparent Hillary had testified when first asked, if she had not hidden her e-mails and NOT provided them, if the Dems on the panel had not fought any search for truth, if, if, if...

I recall when the news broke about Bill and the intern. The word was, if true he must resign. Trial balloons like oral sex isn't sex were deflated. But the spin continued. Many months passed with Clintonian denials. Pretty soon it became, hey, it was just sex. Didn't matter he lied under oath, didn't matter he denied Ms. Jones her fair trial, it was just sex.

They are masters at this game.

William said...

The record shows that Ken Starr suffered far more opprobium for his questions than Bill Clinton did for his lies. There's a good chance something similar will happen here......The security arrangements were slipshod, and the ambassador had asked for them to be upgraded. The murder of the Americans at BenGhazi had nothing to do with a you tube video. Hillary Clinton sent and received classified info on her private e mail server. These undeniable facts can lead to only one conclusion: Trey Gowdy is a threat to the civil liberties of every right thinking American, and, plus, he looks like Gumby.

SteveR said...

This is typical lefty speak, especially east coast elites. Yeah she's bad but we are smart, and oh yes they really are, and HRC is better than any republican. That's an answer that's already been decided.

machine said...

remember when they had these 2 year long show-trial committee investigations during the Bush Benghazis?



Yeah, me neither.

AprilApple said...

Sad to see there are people who buy Hillary's lies. She is and was the ONLY Sec of State to set up a private server in order to stuff Clinton Foundation Coffers.

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department

As Colombian Oil Money Flowed To Clintons, State Department Took No Action To Prevent Labor Violations

Clintons And Foundation Raked In Cash From Banks That Admitted Wrongdoing

chuck said...

Dowd should get her GED and move on. There is a whole, big world after high school.

Chuck said...

I didn't realize that anybody still read Maureen Dowd. In the last quarter-century of her life, did anybody read Helen Thomas? I thought that the only time Helen Thomas actually entered the national conversation was when she said or did something personally that was offensive and/or outrageous. I see Maureen Dowd as a future Helen Thomas.

Coupe said...

Bottom line, no one want to be an Ambassador to a country the US and NATO bombed to hell anymore.

Bruce Hayden said...

The thing that is the scariest to me is that she could still be the front runner for being the next President. Right now, it looks like she committed hundreds, if not thousands, of felonies. From day one as Sec of State she had no intention of providing any transparency whatsoever. We all know why she didn't use the required State Dept email systems, and that was to avoid FOIA and Congressional requests to see what she did as Sec of State. And, to me, that is evidence that she knew, when taking the job, that she wouldn't serve honestly and honorably , but instead knew that she would cross the line on a routine basis. And, yes, the more emails we see, the more her term in office stinks. Obama wouldn't let her hire Blumenthal? No problem, her foundation could, and then other parties trying to benefit from her mess in Lybia could. Her top advisor's husband had to resign his seat in Congress because he was texting photos of his private parts to strangers? No problem, Hillary could just authorize to her double dip, collecting her State Dept salary, and consulting fees representing clients who had businss affected by that department. Her husband's VP getting richer after leaving office than her family? No problem - she could just authorize her husband to give very lucrative speeches to countries and parties that her dept was dealing with. And why was US policy so disasterous while she was in charge of our foreign policy? Partially, because it was for sale, and partially because some of the people she surrounded herself wth had different priorities. We had Blumenthal benefitting from the mess in Lybia, and the daughter of Muslim Brotherhood leaders (Huma again) helping give control of Egypt to that organization.

In short - it is hard to envision someone running the State Dept more corruptly (and less transparently) than it was run by Hillary!

Michael K said...

"remember when they had these 2 year long show-trial committee investigations during the Bush Benghazis? "

Says the shameless Hillary voter.

Brando said...

Oh please--Hillary still has yet to provide a valid reason for the private server, and that's because she has none. That comment couldn't have been better written by a Clinton flunky--the "everyone else is doing it" defense, the "this is no big deal" defense, and the "this is just Republican partisan attacks" defense. The unholy trifecta!

Dowd is right in that the GOP hamfisting this investigation will be what saves Hillary. They're going to preen, overplay their hand, and serve her narrative that it's a partisan witch hunt because the GOP is sadly incompetent. If they really care about this issue, they'll put the investigation in the hands of committee lawyers, gather their evidence, and release their findings promptly. If you don't want people to think its a partisan farce, then stop treating it like one.

When the GOP flubs its third straight presidential election, as they surely will, it'll be time to duppies and and create a new party. These people suck at politics.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Trey Gowdy is a highly efficient, logical, and methodical prosecutor. Partisan, too, but who isn't? He will scrupulously avoid the theoretical and the ad hominem. He will have his facts strictly in order, and Hillary will tap dance and filibuster. Regardless of Hillary's dishonesty and obfuscation, Gowdy will be portrayed as a big meany. This is the world my generation has made.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Achilles said...

Boring.

Hillary already proposed gun confiscation. You people should be cheering for her to win the nomination. She will lose 40 states.

It has been going for 2 years. The people who are still willing to support Clinton have outed themselves. The time for outrage is over. Now is the time for resolve.

Unknown said...

There was a recent movie that illustrates this. “The Imitation Game” was about the Herculean effort to read German (Hitler’s) emails. (Back then they were called signals). There is no doubt that the Allies’ ability to read German code was key to winning the war. Knowing your enemies' intentions and abilities in advance means loss and catastrophe for them and victory for you. It has since history began.

The processes to protect our information are centuries old. Warriors have died to protect important secrets. Google USS Indianapolis. Decades ago I was an military officer and custodian of Secret Documents. Had I not locked a safe, left papers on my desk or taken them home, I would have spent time in Federal prison and faced massive fines. ((By the way, the operational status of our unit was classified information before it was put on paper. It is the information that is classified,)

Who died because the Secretary of State did not observe the same efforts to protect information that a junior officer has to do? What geostrategic advantage have we lost because the Chinese and the Russians know how our Secretary of State thinks, what is important to him or her? What intelligence do our former allies stop sharing with us because they know that the Russians and Chines will read it before the Secretary of State does?

Did Chris Stevens and the special forces guys die because Al Queda was reading the emails? Because they were developing the knowledge that security at that was deficient? Did they know there coulnd’t be a rapid military response?

Why did Petraeus get prosecuted for much more trivial violations? Why did we have months of investigations 'outed' Valerie Plame investigations for a Langley desk jockey who not covert? And whitewash 'investigations' of "Hillary!” ?

This is serious sh*t. And politicians of both parties who screw around with it have blood on their hands and may have more. Gaming this life and death c(&& is a huge part of why the cabal in Washington needs to have its (*** kicked. Will it take losing a city?

Unknown said...

----And, to me, that is evidence that she knew, when taking the job, that she wouldn't serve honestly and honorably , but instead knew that she would cross the line on a routine basis.

The State Department misplaced and lost some $6 billion due to the improper filing of contracts during the past six years, mainly during the tenure of former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, according to a newly released Inspector General report.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/state-department-misplaced-6b-under-hillary-clinton/

Anonymous said...

The verdict might be in for Leftist consideration, but that's irrelevant. The fact that she's being forced to answer for her actions & the fact that the Right is in charge of the questioning will undoubtedly do damage to her & her campaign. Over-estimation of the Left's power is also a weakness.

Terry said...

For what it's worth, here is what Politifact says about the "everyone did it" defense of Hillary's private server:
So to recap: The State Department reached out to four former secretaries asking about personal email accounts. Two have said they rarely used email, the third used personal email but had no records to turn over and the fourth was Clinton.
Only Hillary had a private server.
The Democrats, including Dowd and the readers of the New York Times, are not serious people.

Anonymous said...

To paraphrase Cato the Elder, "Hillary (and the democrats) must be destroyed," for the good of the country and when we're done with that the republicans are next.

Fen said...

These are the same people who said sexual harassment and sexual assault in the workplace are "just about sex, MoveOn.org"

We need a good culling.

btw, I'm assuming this time around, Althouse is not going to sign a cover letter without reading the abstract. She was one of the "100 constitutional law professors" who got snookered into saying perjury and obstruction of justice did not rise to the level blah blah blah

Sammy Finkelman said...

Hillary will not be too clear in her answers, where she has good answers, because she doesn't want better questions. She'd rather have Republicans attacking her in the wrong way.

Michael K said...

" Will it take losing a city?"

I think so. New York is closer to Iran and seems the logical target for the muzzles. Los Angeles is also coastal. DC is on the river and bit further. On the other hand Netanyahu has commented that "Iran does not need ICBMs to hit Israel."

Hmmm.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Hillary has cleared her schedule for most of Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday to prepare for the hearings. She probably will not get asked most or even all of the questions she is afraid of, but she's going to be prepared.

If some Republican on the committee is on the wrong track, she will endeavor not to answer in such a way as to get him off it, by not mentioning something she will pretend that he knows or realizes, that, if the Republican knew, the answer would make sense, but if he doesn't know, the answer will not make sense to him.

This serves two or three purposes:

1) It leaves attacks in the air that have good answers (for example, that she blamed the attack on a video - she never did, and she did have a reason for speaking about the video, because, as part of the cover-up by the terrorists and their supporters, new demonstrations were being planned specifically about the video, all over the Islamic world)

2) The truth, if properly understood, would then lead to good follow-up questions that she would have trouble answering in a way that's good for her and

3) It keeps Republicans away from more dangerous territory.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Unknown said...10/18/15, 11:49 AM

Who died because the Secretary of State did not observe the same efforts to protect information that a junior officer has to do?

Probably nobody, because it probably was not intercepted. People get punished for the possibility and it may even be an over-reaction. Like they used to worry about the blackout being broken during World War II. Which was nonsense. Loose lips did not sink ships either.

What geostrategic advantage have we lost because the Chinese and the Russians know how our Secretary of State thinks, what is important to him or her?

Could be a lot, but that would have been because of what she told Sidney Blumenthal or others. Her e-mails to him, and the contents of her telephone conversations, are not known, and I don't think qualified as GOVERNMENT RECORDS.

Telephone conversations are never recorded anyway, and Hillary knew that. And her e-mails to Blumenthal, were, of course, personal, since he was not a State Department employee. Right?

Sammy Finkelman said...

What intelligence do our former allies stop sharing with us because they know that the Russians and Chines will read it before the Secretary of State does?

The bigger question is, did any kind of ally lie to the United States? Like about the people doing the security.

Did Chris Stevens and the special forces guys die because Al Queda was reading the emails?

No, they were probably getting information from our "intelligence partners" in Libya.

Because they were developing the knowledge that security at that was deficient?

That didn't show up in Hillary's inbox. Trey Gowdy wants to know why, but instead she was bothering Chris Stevens - or Jake Sullivan was - to respond and comment on Sidney Blumenthal's "drivel" (Trey Gowdy's word)

The reception that this drivel got may have been reported who knows where.

As for security, terrorists were alreday involved in protecting the mission in Benghazi, so of course they knew all about it.

Did they know there couldn’t be a rapid military response?

Yes, but that was obvious. More important, they knew the exact vulnerabilities of the site. They also knew that Stevens was supposed to go into a firetrap safe room. They knew he was going to be there! (I suspect)

They probably knew he would be there because they had caused his trip to be scheduled for that day. (I have something like agut feeling about that)

Sammy Finkelman said...

Why did Petraeus get prosecuted for much more trivial violations?

Foreign intelligence moles in the CIA and in law enforcement wanted to get him out of the chain of command and insure he wouldn't come back. But that may not work.

Why did we have months of investigations 'outed' Valerie Plame investigations for a Langley desk jockey who not covert?

To protect Tyler Drumheller, Sidney Blumenthal's associate.

This got everyone completely away from the original question which is who sent Joe Wilson to Niger. It wasn't Valerie Plame

This mission was the CIA's way of avoiding answering the question about whether the documents that European something CIA chief Tyler Drumheller had supplied that showed Iraq had signed a contract to buy yellowcake from Niger were forgeries. Sick Cheney had wanted taht double-checked.

Instead, the CIA sent Joe Wilson on this mission to Niger where he reported that there were such protections that the yellowcake could not actually have bene sold to Iraq. But nobody ever said it was. When Judith Miller of the New York Times aused Scooter Libby to inquire who sent Joe Wilson to Niger, the CIA spread a rumor throughout the higher echelons of the U.S. government that it was Joe Wilson's wife,

When this factoid was leaked to Bob Novak, an accusation went that this was done in retaliation for Joe Wilson writing (supposedly truthfully) that he debunked the charge that Saddam hussein had wanted to buy uranium yellowcake, which he had not in fact, done.

So George W. Bush appointed a special prosecutor to clear himself of acting in retaliation, and punish anybody guilty. He required nobody working for him take the
5th amendment, on pain of dismissal.

Scooter Libby neither told the truth nor took the 5th amendment, but lied (because he knew neither he nor Judith Miller was Bob Novak's source, and he didn't want to be forced out.)

Terry said...

Michael K. wrote:
On the other hand Netanyahu has commented that "Iran does not need ICBMs to hit Israel."
ICBM's are pretty useless w/o a nuclear warhead. The cost/kill is terrible (as the Germans discovered in WW2). So the Iranians claim they need long-range rocket tech to launch satellites. But MIRV tech, which Iran has developed, doesn't make sense if you are launching satellites.

Sammy Finkelman said...

* Dick Cheney had wanted that double-checked.

The CIA didn't want to stop George W. Bush from using that claim in a speech and.or they wanted to protect Tyler Drumheller.


Sammy Finkelman said...

Unknown said...

----And, to me, that is evidence that she knew, when taking the job, that she wouldn't serve honestly and honorably , but instead knew that she would cross the line on a routine basis

She could have used two different e-mail addresses, but having only private e-mail would ensure she wouldn't make a mistake - she wouldn't leave or get the wrong e-mail at the wrong e-mail address.

The most charitable possible interpretation is that she was trying to evade Freedom of Information requests and future Congressional subpoenas. I think it was almost certainly more than that.

Terry said...

It wasn't just Hillary who had an account on the private server. Bill and Chelsea had accounts on the server, as well as several Clinton staff and former aides. I think that what they all had in common was that they worked for the Clinton's foundation.
As far as I can tell, Hillary never used her official government email account. Hillary has never given a sensible excuse for going through the trouble of managing a private email server. It's not easy, the people who managed it were chosen not for their expertise, but for their loyalty to the Clintons. The trust level between the Clintons and the Obamas is about zero. Get used to it, this is the style of government and type of politicians our media favors and will go to any length to elect.

Unknown said...

-------Which was nonsense. Loose lips did not sink ships either.

Sammy Finklestein of the multiiple posts, you may know a lot, but in this area you are beyond IGNORANT. Just above I referred to the Enigma machine which nobody disagrees won World War 2

in addition documented espionage victories:

Operation Mincemeat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mincemeat

Battle of Midway code breaking and deception https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway

Schulmeister obtained information on secret Austrian troop movements, and Napoleon feigned weakness in his own army to lure in the Austrians and Russians. http://listverse.com/2014/01/13/10-battles-won-by-espionage/

do you want to stake your life and the life of your fellow citizens on loose security?

-------- because it probably was not intercepted.

You are delusional if you think the Chinese can hack our Office of Personnel Management....

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/04/us-government-massive-data-breach-employee-records-security-clearances

and the Russians can hack the JCS

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3187344/Russia-hacked-Joint-Chiefs-Staff-shut-email-4-000-defence-department-employees-ELEVEN-DAYS.html

and they didn’t laugh themselves silly hacking into the BATHROOM SERVER. And guess what... just because that information was in an insecure location, counterintelligence must ASSUME that it was obtained by our enemies. Or would you just like to risk your life and the life of your fellow citizens that none of our enemies are alert and competent enough to target the Secretary of State?

-----(Ambassador Steven’s alerts for increased security...) That didn't show up in Hillary's inbox.

The all knowing Sammy. You don’t know any more than the rest of us. We do know that Ambassador Stevens made plenty of calls for more security - which by law should have gone straight to the SOS. We’ll know that after ALL THE EMAILS have been turned over won’t we?

----- I don't think qualified as GOVERNMENT RECORDS.

Of course it does. Every single alpha character that Hillary BY LAW SHOULD HAVE COMMUNICATED via official, SECURE networks is a government record.

and your Valeriy Plame song and dance is full of C(*** too. Richard Armitage 'leaked' the information. Another Washington backstabber that should have gone to jail or been dishonored for life.

James Pawlak said...

The acid test would be to have an honest prosecuting attorney obtain an indictment and actively prosecute the alleged crimes before a carefully selected jury (In a town not dominated or controlled by Democrats) of our fellow citizens according to the rules-of-evidence.

However, the present Administration will NOT allow that! That leaves us to evaluated such evidence as is available---AND FIND HER GUILTY.

Unknown said...

Follow up that Benhazi security communications “””"did not get to Hillary’s email inbox””"

By statute, she was required to make specific security decisions for defenseless consulates like Benghazi, and was not permitted to delegate them to anyone else.

The Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999, or Secca, was passed in response to the near-simultaneous bombings of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, on Aug. 7, 1998. Over 220 people were killed, including 12 Americans. Thousands were injured.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/victoria-toensing-doesnt-hillary-clinton-know-the-law-1403047339

I hope that Trey Gowdy and that committee does find out what Hillary was doing while she WASN'T ensuring the safety of Americans working for HER and serving in a godforsaken annex in one to the most unstable places on earth.

Michael K said...

"ICBM's are pretty useless w/o a nuclear warhead."

Oh, they have them and you and I know it. Obama's agreement was cover in case it gets out.

Now, he will negotiate with North Korea just like Clinton did.

The Godfather said...

I've been in many a courtroom and examined and cross-examined many a witness, but there was always a judge or a jury to evaluate the testimony. In that context, I would have been delighted to have an adverse witness burst out "What difference, at this point, does it make?" The judge or jury would regard that as an admission of responsibility.

But there's no judge or jury here. Theoretically, the voting public is the jury, but most of them have been persuaded already that the Republicans are the partisans, and that Hillary is being persecuted. In any reasonable world, Hillary's use of a private email account and her attempt to scrub it once the government asked for its contents would be proof of serious misconduct, but the public keeps getting told there's no smoking gun.

The commentary after the Dem debate and Sen. Sanders' remark about the email issue is proof, if more were needed, that neither the Democratic base nor the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) regard this as a legitimate issue. Maybe if there were some element of the MSM that was able to report objectively on Hillary scandels it would be different, but there isn't.

Besides which, so far the Republican "investigators" have presented pathetically bad hearings. I see no reason to think this one will be better.

Crimso said...

"Oh, they have them and you and I know it."

It is worth noting that N. Korea got their fissile material the "easy" way. Using plutonium, the engineering of the bomb is extremely difficult. Thus their tests (Trinity was a test of the engineering of a plutonium bomb; as precious as plutonium was, they still needed to test the design to be sure). Iran is enriching uranium. Our first test of a uranium bomb was about 2000 ft. above a hospital in Hiroshima (not what we aimed for; but with nukes, as with horseshoes and hand grenades, you only need to get close). The engineering of a uranium bomb is such a dead cinch you need not test it. They can easily have bombs right now, and we'd never know until they use one (they would be fools to test one).

jr565 said...

Yup. Direct it at republicans. Look over there,squirrel. Not sure if that will actually work. Except we are talking about democrats.

mr. burlingame said...

Isn't the real purpose of this committee to ascertain once and for all whether Hillary was complicit in spinning a terrorist attack in order to preserve Obama's 2012 re-election? This is the only real harm (and it's huge) don't to the republicans and if they are wanting vengeance, then it is justified and they are still without a sacrificial lamb. Susan Rice lives on and prospers as do the rest of the henchmen involved.

damikesc said...

All the coverage of Hillary shows is that if Nixon was a Democrat, Watergate would still only be an apartment complex.

Other secs of state had their own private email servers for official business??? Is that so?

They also apparently didn't turn over their documents when they left office.

This Congressional investigation should have been wrapped up by now.

Agreed. But, as usual, it is a Clinton stonewalling for years than whining about how long things take.

If she had mentioned her private email account a long time ago, this might have been done by now.

Franklin said...

She is guilty, at a minimum, of the same crime that Petraeus plead down to. Does justice apply equally to all citizens of this country? If so she should be prosecuted the same way.

Todd said...

Diogenes of Sinope said...
If a GOP candidate had ever been caught setting and executing up a scheme to hide and cover up official public records it would have been the end of that candidacy and career. Setting up the personnel, private email system IS the smoking gun. It is impossible to imagine Democrats not screaming for prison time for a Republican if this situation were reversed. A Republican would have been charged and on trial by now.

Also, why aren't all those government officials who communicated via Clinton's obviously non government email address under investigation??

10/18/15, 8:47 AM


Well going forward the R(s) can play this game too now. As Hillary! has set the bar, all future SoS will have their own private email servers. All other top cabinet staff will have their own private email servers. All will be hidden. Hillary! has just single-handedly killed transparency in government. No more FIFO requests...

Michael said...

Mr burlingame

No, a bit more than that. I believe the mission in Libya had repeatedly requested additional security. For months. Requests denied or ignored. The vile and transparent lies are bad, of course, especially when they essentially were taunts assuming the American public are morons. And then to dish them out to the parents of one of the dead.

Crimso said...

"Does justice apply equally to all citizens of this country?"

Which is why she should be asked by every actual journalist until she answers the question: "If elected, will you pardon David Petraeus?" Sanders needs to be asked the same question now that he has spouted off his opinion on the email issue.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Unknown said...

SF: -------Which was nonsense. Loose lips did not sink ships either.

Sammy Finklestein of the multiiple posts, you may know a lot, but in this area you are beyond IGNORANT. Just above I referred to the Enigma machine which nobody disagrees won World War 2

I don't see anywhere that you mentioned Enigma in this thread.

Besides I didn't say, and I didn't imply, that you thought that loose lips sank ships.

It was an idea that was around during World War II, but it was wrong. The Germans (or the Italians) did not have spies in the ports. And the Mafia did not do anything to prevent the sinking of ships.

My point was that a lot of security precautions are completely besides the point, including maybe some of those that you had to keep.

Even when you are dealing with secret files, the information actually won't get out 99% of the time if it is removed off-site. The world is not riddled with spies.

in addition documented espionage victories:
Operation Mincemeat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mincemeat


Oh, yes, I know about that "The Man Who Never Was."

It helped that Admiral Canaris, head of the Abwehr, actually understood that this was planted information, and therefore, because he wanted the Nazis to lose, vouched for its reliability!! (best guess)

This was actually the first thing connected with the Double-Cross or XX Committee that became public. It was published in 1953. I think there was a German book about it first. It was decided that it was sufficiently separate and different from other things the XX Committee did, that publishing this wouldn't reveal anything.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Battle of Midway code breaking and deception https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway

Yes, I know about that. I don't understand what the point is here.

My point is that the sinking of ships had nothing to do with loose lips. The further point being that the possession of information by the enemy is often blamed on the wrong thing.

And that's what they did during Ultra. (get the enemy to blame it on the wrong thing)

The Allies, after a point, in 1943, had steady access to the German messages to their U-boats. They didn't want the Germans to guess this. So they would send out a plane to go over water and "spot" it with the idea the Germans should see the plane too. When the pilots reported it, they could then send out a mission. This secret was also kept from the pilots and others. There was actually also some worry about German spies, but there were no German spies in England. Every single one of them was caught, (it helped that spies were supposed to make contact with earlier spies) and many of them turned or impersonated.

Unfortunately, that was also true for every Allied spy sent into the Netherlands. The whole British spy system there was run by the Nazis.

The code had first bene cracked in the middle of 1941. At one point, early on, in February 1942, the Germans changed the code, because Admiral Dönitz caught on that their code was possibly being cracked, in spite of being assured by the Abwehr, German Foreign Intelligence, that Enigma was unbreakable.

There was blackout that lasted ten months, till December 13, 1942.

Later it was changed again in March, 1943, and the Allies lost the ability to know where U-boats were, until it was cracked again, but this time the Germans never caught on the fact, or the serious possibility, that their codes were being broken, maybe because the second blackout only lasted nine days. Maybe that's when they started with the spotter planes. The Germans presumably never had a handle on how often their subs should be spotted by random planes.

Also, the Germans were used to the results, and had never really been certain that the earlier results had been so good only because their code wasn't being broken. They probably assumed the Allies just got smarter in other ways. Like maybe those planes. Which aybe only started in 1943. That needs to be checked.

Maybe there is something else not in this source:

http://users.telenet.be/d.rijmenants/en/enigmauboats.htm


Sammy Finkelman said...

Schulmeister obtained information on secret Austrian troop movements, and Napoleon feigned weakness in his own army to lure in the Austrians and Russians. http://listverse.com/2014/01/13/10-battles-won-by-espionage/

This doesn't say how he got the information. It's presumably available somewhere else on the Internet.

This bears out another point: You cannot underestimate the importance of intelligence. The United States did so poorly in Iraq and Afghanistan because of bad intelligence, and good, world class intelligence by the enemy.

do you want to stake your life and the life of your fellow citizens on loose security?

What is very important is not to stake it on the belief you have good security, and that the leaks are where you think they could be, and you should just try harder.

Sammy Finkelman said...

SF -------- because it probably was not intercepted. <

You are delusional if you think the Chinese can hack our Office of Personnel Management....

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/04/us-government-massive-data-breach-employee-records-security-clearances

and the Russians can hack the JCS

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3187344/Russia-hacked-Joint-Chiefs-Staff-shut-email-4-000-defence-department-employees-ELEVEN-DAYS.html

and they didn’t laugh themselves silly hacking into the BATHROOM SERVER. And guess what... just because that information was in an insecure location, counterintelligence must ASSUME that it was obtained by our enemies. Or would you just like to risk your life and the life of your fellow citizens that none of our enemies are alert and competent enough to target the Secretary of State?


This wasn't just any Secretary of State. This was a Clinton - and the Clintons' secrets have never been penetrated by anybody. Unlike Romney, for instance, who got recorded. They have good security.

Hillary Clinton wasn't really joking when she said she had better security than the government.

http://pagesix.com/2015/06/02/hillary-jokes-hackers-couldnt-get-through-her-servers/

At a $2,700-a-head Monday event at the home of Nassau County Democratic Chair Jay Jacobs, Clinton talked about cybersecurity and a recent breach of the White House computer system. She joked the White House would not have been hacked “had they been using my server.”

In the first place, for anyone to penetrate it, they have to know about the server. Maybe it took the Russians a few years to find out about that, and then they wouldn't know how much was in there.

Now a server with limited users can be protected better than one with many users.

Why, just simply verifying the very limited number of devices that logged on would be enough. The way banks and Paypal does. Except it might require a voice call to someone who could recognize the voice to authenticate a device. I don't know if they did that, though, but they did catch a lot of attempts which sometimes shut the server down

The Clintons aren't stupid. They have to worry about more than just the Russians and the Chinese.

If that server was so easy to hack how come we don't have the names of any of Bill Clinton's girlfriends? Maybe that was kept off e-mail, but, still, there are other things.

There have been no leaks (except probably planted voice ones by purported friends.)

Sammy Finkelman said...

SF: -----(Ambassador Steven’s alerts for increased security...) That didn't show up in Hillary's inbox.

The all knowing Sammy. You don’t know any more than the rest of us.

You missed Face the Nation Sunday. That's what Trey Gowdy said. It was one of the two findings the committee mad ethat he said he could reveal right then.

We do know that Ambassador Stevens made plenty of calls for more security - h by law should have gone straight to the SOS. We’ll know that after ALL THE EMAILS have been turned over won’t we?

I think Trey Gowdy may have gotten all of Stevens' official e-mails.

Also, I would think that, if Hillary Clinton wanted to cut back on security in Libya, she would make sure, or attempt to make sure, she didn't get any official communications from the Ambassador about that.

SF ----- I don't think qualified as GOVERNMENT RECORDS.

Of course it does. Every single alpha character that Hillary BY LAW SHOULD HAVE COMMUNICATED via official, SECURE networks is a government record.

But a corrupt bribe offer is not something that SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATED via official, SECURE networks!

I am sure her lawyers would have agreed.

Sammy Finkelman said...

and your Valeriy Plame song and dance is full of C(*** too. Richard Armitage 'leaked' the information.

I know that. But he only "knew" that Valerie Plame had been responsible for sending Joe Wilson to Niger because the CIA told him and others.

But - one important point, which is being lost - that wasn't true. Taht was a cover story.

Another Washington backstabber that should have gone to jail or been dishonored for life.

I didn't want to speculate on whether or not Armitage had been part of a conspiracy to protect the CIA and Drumheller.

Maybe the spreading of the disinformation around the upper levels of the U.S. government (when Scooter Libby tried to find out, at the request of Judith Miller of the New York Times, as to who sent Joe Wilson to Niger) that Joe Wilson's wife had been responsible for sending him to Niger (instead of being the CIA's way of avoiding retracting the claim that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellowcake from Niger after it was questioned by Vice President Dick Cheney's office)

Maybe that was one conspiracy.

And when it leaked, as might perhaps have been inevitable, demanding an investigation of the leak was another conspiracy.

I don't know that Armitage was part of the whole plot.

Sammy Finkelman said...

@Crimso

A better question would be: Would Hillary Clinton appoint David Petraeus to some important position.?

Almost certainly not.

But a Republican might and very well maybe should.

Sammy Finkelman said...

@ Crimso - what about the trigger?

stan said...

As the comment shows, Democrat voters are completely unhinged from reality. Just confirming what we have been seeing for the last 3 decades.

Actual facts are meaningless. All that matters is the cause. Dems are good, GOP is evil. And all "facts" must bend to conform to that central religious belief.

Crimso said...

@ Sammy Finkelman-what trigger?