It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fired Benghazi Investigator Says House Committee 'Hyper-focused' on Clinton

page: 3
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Hillary is about as interesting politically as an old, musty wash-rag.

Still, there was absolutely NO REASON for the Republican Congress to do 14 investigations and drag the memories of 4 slain Americans through the muck just to score points against Clinton.

That is the far, far worse crime here, if there is one.

Whatever Hillary did, if she's broken the law, indite her, have a trial, let the justice system work.

Do the same for the traitors in Congress.




posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

She deleted what was determined to be "personal" emails, which she was not required to submit under that subpoena. That has already been addressed. She had every right to delete those emails and handed-over everything else.
.


Nah, she deleted emails that would send her to Guantanamo Bay... If you believe all this new revelation about her being innocent, I have a bridge to sell you!



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: imitator

Why don't you submit your evidence to the Justice Department ... or Fox News?

You know, that evidence you have of what Clinton deleted from her server?

That evidence that no one anywhere seems to have?

Yeah, that's it.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: theantediluvian

To bad she wiped her server.

Anyone else would go to jail.


What's most ridiculous is that anything she wiped was sent TO or RECEIVED FROM someone else.

Meaning that whatever she said in an email would have been backed up from the OTHER END.

So regardless of whether her server was deleted or not, the emails would all be on public record elsewhere.


How would they know who was sent any emails if they wiped the server ? If they lied and said everything was turned over and it wasn't ? if they failed to produce the requested items when subpoenaed ?

It' not like that happened did it ? Oh it did.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: WhereAreTheGoodguys

I think we agree on many things, but we disagree on one major point.

Due Process.

We have to have evidence to convict people and believing she is guilty does not convict her.


originally posted by: imitator

originally posted by: introvert

She deleted what was determined to be "personal" emails, which she was not required to submit under that subpoena. That has already been addressed. She had every right to delete those emails and handed-over everything else.
.


Nah, she deleted emails that would send her to Guantanamo Bay... If you believe all this new revelation about her being innocent, I have a bridge to sell you!


I don't believe she is innocent, but I cannot condemn her before her guilt is proven. That right is protected in the US Constitution and I feel it is a good way to think overall.

The Right-Wing politicians and media have engaged in a very viscous propaganda campaign to convince people of her guilt, but their own investigations turn up nothing.

Why is that? Why do we continue to believe what they tell us? Wouldn't it be wise to wait to pass any judgement until clear evidence is presented?



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: WhereAreTheGoodguys

Sorry, Goodguys, I don't want it to seem like you're being ganged up on...

But do you honestly think none of the alphabet agencies or secret service could dig up deleted emails?

Honestly, I don't think anyone is that naive.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies

Actually, the subpoena for the emails came AFTER she had them deleted. The immediate reaction to the subpoena was that she didn't have them.


Hillary knew the Department of State was going to subpoena her... don't let her play you like a fiddle. ♫ ♪



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

All good.

I don't feel ganged up on =)

I don't think anyone knows what the FBI has yet and don't think everything has been released. I also don't have faith in the Gov to do whats right either. I believe it is corrupt.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: WhereAreTheGoodguys

I feel it necessary to ask you again a question I posted earlier.

Are you open to the idea that you may be wrong on this issue?

I'm not trying to be a smartass or snarky. It's a genuine question.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: WhereAreTheGoodguys


I also don't have faith in the Gov to do whats right either.


Objectively, does that include those Justice Warriors investigating Hillary?




posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: WhereAreTheGoodguys

I feel it necessary to ask you again a question I posted earlier.

Are you open to the idea that you may be wrong on this issue?

I'm not trying to be a smartass or snarky. It's a genuine question.


I am open to the idea that she will not get in any trouble yes.

But to me what she has done up to this point already makes her seem guilty in my eyes. I'm not a judge, but I have my own opinion.

I guess that's as far I can I stretch it. Now if everything came out in the open and it made complete sense. I would be man enough to say I was wrong, no problem.

There is a difference between being proven 100% innocent and getting away with something tho.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: WhereAreTheGoodguys


I also don't have faith in the Gov to do whats right either.


Objectively, does that include those Justice Warriors investigating Hillary?



Like I said I don't have faith in any of them until someone proves otherwise. Lets see if they can get anything right.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: WhereAreTheGoodguys

That's not what I asked you.

Are you open to the idea that you may be wrong on this issue?



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: WhereAreTheGoodguys

That's not what I asked you.

Are you open to the idea that you may be wrong on this issue?



Wrong how ? On which part of it ?

The whole thing , no.

Hillary Obama and Susan Rice should of never tried to push a lie down our throats. She shouldn't of had a private server conducting her State Dept business away from any semblance of oversight. She should not of lied about it and should of been transparent upfront from the starting gate.

Maybe if you can explain to me how I could be wrong about all that I could understand what you mean.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: WhereAreTheGoodguys



Maybe if you can explain to me how I could be wrong about all that I could understand what you mean.


Look at my posts in this thread and you will have that explanation.

While we all may feel strongly on certain issues, I feel it is crucial to remain open to the idea that we may be wrong. Because we are all wrong from time to time, are we not?

Why will you not simply say that you could very well be wrong on this topic? Can you not admit that it is possible?



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: WhereAreTheGoodguys

I wouldn't typically respond to a post that was just an excerpt of some random forum poster's post somewhere else but since you're saying this person's words describe your own opinions, whatever.

I'll refer you to H.Res.567 - Providing for the Establishment of the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi.


Establishes in the House of Representatives the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi to conduct a full and complete investigation and study and issue a final report of its findings to the House regarding:

- all policies, decisions, and activities that contributed to the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, as well as those that affected the ability of the United States to prepare for them;
- all policies, decisions, and activities to respond to and repel such attacks, including efforts to rescue U.S. personnel;
- internal and public executive branch communications about these attacks;
- accountability for policies and decisions related to the security of facilities in Benghazi, Libya, and the response to the attacks, including individuals and entities responsible for those policies and decisions;
- executive branch authorities' efforts to identify and bring to justice the perpetrators of such attacks;
- executive branch activities and efforts to comply with congressional inquiries into them;
recommendations for improving executive branch cooperation and compliance with congressional oversight and investigations;
- information related to lessons learned from the attacks and executive branch activities and efforts to protect U.S. facilities and personnel abroad; and
- any other relevant issues relating to such attacks, the response to them, or the investigation by the House into the attacks.


What you're missing here is that the Benghazi committee was formed with the express purpose of being the end all investigation into the Benghazi attack not the legality of Hilary Clinton's email practices. There's an ongoing FBI investigation by what even Fox News and Rush Limbaugh have characterized as the FBI's "A-team" into whether her email activity violated any laws. These are the same folks that investigated Petraeus, a criminal investigation that resulted in him pleading guilty to giving classified documents to Paula Broadwell. At the conclusion of their investigation, they'll make a recommendation as to whether or not to pursue an indictment.

What has the committee actually accomplished aside from revealing the fact that Hilary Clinton used a private email server? More importantly, after 17 months, what have they learned that is new and substantive and about the death of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans? The committee is way over budget and they've managed to conduct one interview that was worth reporting on (in Gowdy's eyes anyway) and that was the Blumenthal deposition. It's been months since Blumenthal was deposed under oath and the transcript hasn't been made public despite the requests of Blumenthal's attorney and those of Elijah Cummings and the Democrats.

Why? Why release just select emails and and not the transcript?

Again, what has this proved in regards to Benghazi? That Clinton received emails from Blumenthal which included his unsolicited advice and intelligence that he'd gotten from his buddy Tyler Drumheller at the CIA? Who did she forward it to at the State Department?

Hillary Clinton is a liar. I don't like that she was running her own private email server. I don't like that Colin Powell was doing it when he was Secretary of State either for that matter (is the Benghazi committee going to investigate Powell's emails too? I'm sure they can find a tangential connection to Benghazi somehow). I fully support the FBI investigating her email activities and I certainly won't shed a tear if she ends up getting convicted of something.

What you seem unwilling to acknowledge is that nothing that has been revealed thus far has any direct bearing on the Benghazi attack. Gowdy and friends are on a politically motivated fishing expedition under the guise of investigating Benghazi; at the end of the day is Gowdy any better than Clinton? If this is all there is for the committee to investigate, then the book's effectively closed on Benghazi. If it's not all there is for them to investigate and there are important details yet to be uncovered, then why are they wasting their time with something that is better and most appropriately left to a criminal investigation by the FBI?
edit on 2015-10-12 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Honestly, I really don't care about Benghazi, and I am so sick and tired of the all the jackasses still bellowing about it. Really. I don't give a flying @#$% about what happened at Benghazi. A consulate gets sacked by a bunch of goat raping hysterics, an ambassador and a couple others gets killed. Yes, very sad. But small potatoes, folks. What the hell are they trying to investigate, anyway, other than politically based BS that I, nor many others, remotely care about? Hell, I barely even remember what happened. Unlike the bombing of Khobar Towers that killed 19 airmen in 1996, which I remember very well, as I had been stationed there a year prior. Or the U.S.S. Cole, where 17 sailors died, in 2000. Yet neither of these two incidents received a fraction of the investigative intensity that Benghazi has. Why? Because the other two overseas bombings of U.S. assets didn't have an angle that could be politically exploited like Benghazi. That's ALL Benghazi is. Political B.S. No one cares beyond political payout and how it can be used, so I stopped paying attention long ago.

Maybe my callous attitude towards Benghazi stems from the fact I see bigger tragedies unroll before my eyes every day that deserve deeper investigation and action. Like:

1. Something like an average of 22 veterans a day commit suicide. The V.A. system is underfunded and staffed by apathetic, substandard morons in most places. How about some investigation (and an increase in funding) there?

2. The D.E.A. is currently running amok in the medical field and overriding doctors and other medical professions in their new War on Drugs front. Now all pain patients are treated like drug addicts until proven not. Since when should a law enforcement agency have access to medical records and doctor/patient private discussions and decisions? Where the hell is Congress putting a halt to the D.E.A. and maybe doing a little investigation there?

3. There is no border anymore, and only token security. On another thread, the problem with this lack of security was discussed, in terms of disease outbreaks. There has been an increase in the amount of food related sickness and disease that has been traced back to uninspected foods from dubious foreign sources. Why the hell is no one focusing any attention there?

Benghazi? Seriously? WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Yeah I think that guy gave a good brief summary. I also like this one that's a little more in-dept

theconservativetreehouse.com...

I can't help that the Benghazi hearings are bringing to light other issues, like the email server, It's just a byproduct of the investigation. No one made her lie though, no one made he do anything wrong. She should of been willing to work with them day one and get it all behind her if she expects to be president.

I never said I thought the Committee was doing a bang up job either, I think I stated otherwise when I said I do not trust the government to do whats right, but would like to be shown different.

Blumenthal , I'm not sure if you know the recent news on him : www.nytimes.com... --It's just all so shady.

In the end you say I seem unwilling to acknowledge nothing has been revealed, but I think there has been stuff revealed just maybe not what most expect. I don't know what everyone wants ? Do they need to find a written letter from Hillary saying Kill the Ambassador ? I personally think proving the Video excuse was a straight up LIE was enough for me.

I think stuff like these investigations shines a light where it needs to be shined. Is it perfect? no. But I think we all can agree there is some shady stuff going on in the Federal Government that needs to be exposed.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: WhereAreTheGoodguys



Maybe if you can explain to me how I could be wrong about all that I could understand what you mean.


Look at my posts in this thread and you will have that explanation.

While we all may feel strongly on certain issues, I feel it is crucial to remain open to the idea that we may be wrong. Because we are all wrong from time to time, are we not?

Why will you not simply say that you could very well be wrong on this topic? Can you not admit that it is possible?


Yes I can say I could be wrong, but it would take a whole lot to make me feel that way.=)

Just like I would like to be wrong about 9/11 and JFK. But I'm on a conspiracy site for a reason right ? I would love to be wrong
edit on 13-10-2015 by WhereAreTheGoodguys because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   
So, it's a bad thing to focus on the State Department and the Secretary of State when investigating a terrorist attack on sovereign U.S. soil in another country on the anniversary of 9/11 where the first U.S. Ambassador was killed in the line of duty since 1979? Where repeated requests for increased security for the embassy were denied? Where, a couple of hours later, an attack on another compound killed two CIA contractors?

It's bad to focus on the State Department and the Secretary of State when they knowingly mislead the American public with a false story as to the motivation of the attack, and in doing so wreaked havoc on a film maker's life? Where the State Department claimed the attack was a 'spontaneous uprising?'

Amongst many other things that I'm not going to take the time to recount, it was Hillary herself who said, "It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again."

Now, while I agree that figuring out what actually happened is taking way too long--often because of Clinton, State Department, or Obama administration road blocks--I don't think that focusing on Clinton and her State Department is a foolish or time-wasting endeavor in the least. You better believe that if I was in charge of figuring out what happened, I'd be hyper-focused on the department specifically tasked with the safety of the ambassador, the others killed or injured, and the sovereign U.S. land that was breached and destroyed.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join