House Majority Leader Admits Benghazi Committee Part of Political Attack Strategy?

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: queenofswords
I listened to that interview. I didn't get that interpretation you spun at all.

Were you wearing special headphones?

"What you are going to see is a Conservative Speaker, that takes a Conservative Congress, that puts a strategy to fight and win.

And let me give you one example

Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?" McCarthy said on Fox News.

"But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought."

The strategy was to show she was not able to be trusted. Isn't that what all political strategies do? To show the opponent is not to be trusted with the fate of the country? I can't remember a campaign when someone wasn't using a strategy of making their opponent look untrustworthy.

While I don't care for either party, this is the pot calling the kettle black. The dems put out a viral semantics play on a statement and spun it to mean something different....that spin being that they put the committee together for the sole purpose of discrediting Hillary. I did not get the opinion from hearing it that this was the intention. They wanted the truth to a matter and Hillary, at every step, decided not to comply.

She wiped a server she wasn't even supposed to be using in the first place....I would say that is a very reasonable excuse to investigate her. At least they have it now and have been able to get more emails....some of which have already been stated to have been confidential in nature. She lied....what is wrong with calling a duck a duck?

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: theantediluvian

I believe it was just poor phrasing on his part and then the dems snapped it up and used the semantics approach to make it sound like he said something he didn't mean.

Unlike some spinners in the media and ...ahem..elsewhere...I am fan of full quotes. I provided his quotation above...It appears difficult to read it any other way then him taking credit for orchestrating a political attack on Hillary Clinton in the guise of a multi-million dollar, tax-payer funded, pretend investigation.

I would counter with, it is also hard for anyone to take Hillary wiping her personal server after finding it was used for work, to not be an admission of guilt. But hey....people interpret things in different ways. What is it most criminals try to do with evidence after a crime? That's right...get rid of it.

So the Democrats believe this?

What if the "statements" by McCarthy are just a preliminary to some major announcements and damning findings?

Sounds like a buttering-up for an onslaught.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Moresby

But, even if they go ahead, the teeth are now removed. And it will be easy to dismiss it all as just politics.

All of the Hillary-philes already dismissed it as politics.... a witch hunt.... wasted money.

She is still an obvious liar and plans to continue milking anyone... foreign or domestic for all the money she can, especially if she is elected as POTUS.

So...you don't like Hillary...that makes it OK that a do-nothing congress decides to spend millions in tax-payer dollars, countless hours on the job, while collecting a tax-payer paid check...conducting a glorified political attack ad at the expense of those who actually died in the attack?

All politics aside...WTF?

originally posted by: xuenchen
So the Democrats believe this?

What if the "statements" by McCarthy are just a preliminary to some major announcements and damning findings?

Sounds like a buttering-up for an onslaught.

Bingo....my thought is this is a calculated answer. But I would expect Hillary to drop out before anything is publicly released. Now if only they could implicate Jeb and get him to drop out at the same time.

Personally I am enjoying the antics Trump is throwing out so I hope he doesn't step down just yet.

a reply to: Indigo5

Congress is moot as long as a hostile President is in veto mode.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: queenofswords
I listened to that interview. I didn't get that interpretation you spun at all.

Were you wearing special headphones?

"What you are going to see is a Conservative Speaker, that takes a Conservative Congress, that puts a strategy to fight and win.

And let me give you one example

Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?" McCarthy said on Fox News.

"But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought."

The strategy was to show she was not able to be trusted. Isn't that what all political strategies do? To show the opponent is not to be trusted with the fate of the country? I can't remember a campaign when someone wasn't using a strategy of making their opponent look untrustworthy.

I can't believe you do not see the difference between a campaign and a congressional oversight committee...

Just holy hell...

Yes the strategy was to demonstrate she could not be trusted. I have no issue with the CAMPAIGN strategy...but I have news for you...If it is proven that what he is saying is correct...that a taxpayer funded congressional committee was convened and orchestrated for GOP campaign purposes...impeachment and jail time are possibilities for those involved in those back-room conversations...and the GOP will discover the difference between a "strategy" of a smear campaign and what a genuine hearing looks like.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: xuenchen
So the Democrats believe this?

What if the "statements" by McCarthy are just a preliminary to some major announcements and damning findings?

Sounds like a buttering-up for an onslaught.

Bingo....my thought is this is a calculated answer. .

That is some desperate hope spin. No, this is not some prelude to the ultimate...ever waiting on but never arriving.. evidence that Hillary Clinton eats babies.

This is a cluster-eff for the GOP. They are in full panic spin mode cuz their future leader accidently spoke truth.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: queenofswords
I listened to that interview. I didn't get that interpretation you spun at all.

Were you wearing special headphones?

"What you are going to see is a Conservative Speaker, that takes a Conservative Congress, that puts a strategy to fight and win.

And let me give you one example

Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?" McCarthy said on Fox News.

"But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought."

The strategy was to show she was not able to be trusted. Isn't that what all political strategies do? To show the opponent is not to be trusted with the fate of the country? I can't remember a campaign when someone wasn't using a strategy of making their opponent look untrustworthy.

I can't believe you do not see the difference between a campaign and a congressional oversight committee...

Just holy hell...

Yes the strategy was to demonstrate she could not be trusted. I have no issue with the CAMPAIGN strategy...but I have news for you...If it is proven that what he is saying is correct...that a taxpayer funded congressional committee was convened and orchestrated for GOP campaign purposes...impeachment and jail time are possibilities for those involved in those back-room conversations...and the GOP will discover the difference between a "strategy" of a smear campaign and what a genuine hearing looks like.

No worries...I am sure he has the same team wiping his private email servers with that exact info on it right now.

I love how team Hillary jumps on this as if it is some major talking point when they brush her wiping an entire server of emails directly related to the entire investigation under the rug.

Again...what do criminals do with evidence? I mean why did she wipe it in the first place? Guess it was just time for a rebuild or something?

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: xuenchen
So the Democrats believe this?

What if the "statements" by McCarthy are just a preliminary to some major announcements and damning findings?

Sounds like a buttering-up for an onslaught.

Bingo....my thought is this is a calculated answer. .

That is some desperate hope spin. No, this is not some prelude to the ultimate...ever waiting on but never arriving.. evidence that Hillary Clinton eats babies.

This is a cluster-eff for the GOP. They are in full panic spin mode cuz their future leader accidently spoke truth.

I guess only time will tell.....I don't think this will even be in the news in a week. Hillary is stuck in the news. This will blow over quickly....it's a bait and switch game both sides are playing.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: xuenchen
So the Democrats believe this?

What if the "statements" by McCarthy are just a preliminary to some major announcements and damning findings?

Sounds like a buttering-up for an onslaught.

Bingo....my thought is this is a calculated answer. .

That is some desperate hope spin. No, this is not some prelude to the ultimate...ever waiting on but never arriving.. evidence that Hillary Clinton eats babies.

This is a cluster-eff for the GOP. They are in full panic spin mode cuz their future leader accidently spoke truth.

I just went to "search" and typed in..."Hillary's role in Benghazi".....pages and pages of vitriol, and nastiness, in different forums....and now with this reveal from the republican majority leader.....as a democrat, please be kind to all on the right, and maintain strict decorum.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

I can't remember a campaign when someone wasn't using a strategy of making their opponent look untrustworthy.

Bottom line...It is illegal for a member of Congress to use public funds to pay for campaign activities.

He admitted the same on FOX News...

I imagine he is already consulting his attorney about the accidental speaking of truth.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I have no love of Hillary Clinton but what exactly should we expect to find in her email that is going to place the blame for the attack on her? What exactly is the accusation? That because she's a slimy political monster and a liar (who isn't?), she what? Orchestrated the attack? Purposefully allowed it to happen? Knew it was going to happen and did nothing about it? Leaked information that led to the attack?

I'm sure there were all sorts of emails in there that she didn't want out but that isn't the same thing as believing that there is reasonable expectation of finding some sort of "gotcha" email about Benghazi.

What I continue to read in comment after comment are basically opinions about Hillary being a liar. This is a separate issue from whether or not she has significant culpability in the attack on Benghazi and the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans.

I believe it was just poor phrasing on his part and then the dems snapped it up and used the semantics approach to make it sound like he said something he didn't mean.

I thought this might be the case too but I watched the video and taken in context, it seems to me that even if he thinks the ends justify the means, he himself believes that the real goal of the Select Committee is to demonstrate that Clinton is "untrustable."

It's also not just Democrats who have pounced on his comment, here's a few comments from fellow Republicans.

CNN -House Republicans repudiate McCarthy comments on Benghazi probe Republicans

Speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said McCarthy should apologize, saying the California Republican made an "absolutely inappropriate statement."

Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, who supports Webster, said McCarthy's remark "diminishes" the work of Rep. Trey Gowdy, the South Carolina Republican who chairs the committee.

McCarthy “needs to reread the job description of speaker of the House if he thinks it’s to bring hearings that help us denigrate Democrats that are running for president,” said Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie. “We need to focus on what we’re supposed to do in this chamber.”

“I totally disagree with those comments,” Rep. Justin Amash, a leader of the party’s conservative wing, said Wednesday. Asked whether the comments could threaten McCarthy’s chances of becoming speaker, Amash said, “I think it should be a concern.”

Pertaining to what I asked you above about the reason for this investigation, I thought the following comment was mind-boggling:

Illinois Republican Rep Adam Kinzinger, a supporter of McCarthy's, told CNN that McCarthy's comments were "unfortunate" said he needs to address them.

"It was one comment. I can tell you Kevin McCarthy is very committed to getting justice, not taking down certain people on this. But I will say again, when you look at what happened after this, when you had Hillary Clinton blame this on a video, and we found out in fact this wasn't a video at all, I think there's a lot of questions to be answered."

So it seems that even some Republicans interpreted his remark in the same manner as Democrats. Perhaps that's a reflection of the GOP's internal political struggle but regardless of that, it also seems that a common perception among GOP congressmen is that the Select Committee's investigation is about Clinton.

a reply to: jimmyx

so congressional hearings are only about political one-upmanship?...

That was what the 2014 CIA 'report' was.

A parting 'gift'.

a reply to: theantediluvian

May heaven forbide any of those members of congress, Democrate or Republican, to convien a committe which would even attempt to bring about some kind of constructive program which would be of any benefit for the American people.

After all, they ran on platforms which specifically stated their distrust and distain of one another and promised to do nothing but bicker and argue over the least productive points they could find.

I will be very glad and happy to put each and everyone of these people into their current positions for life time terms, like the supreme court, so they can continue their current standards of work.

I wonder what favors McCarthy owed the Clintons or what dirt they had on him???




The other possibilities I thought of include, stupidity, drugs and or alcohol, naw I think it was one of the above reasons.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: jimmyx

so congressional hearings are only about political one-upmanship?...

That was what the 2014 CIA 'report' was.

A parting 'gift'.

Correct.
For the Progressives to say that only Republicans play politics is obscene.