world

Final Benghazi report: No 'smoking gun' pointing to Clinton

151 Comments
By MATTHEW DALY

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

151 Comments
Login to comment

So it only cost us 7 million dollars and 2 years that these guys theoretically could have been actually working....to find out the previous 7 or 8 investigations were correct.....that's the GOP in action, folks!

10 ( +20 / -10 )

So it only cost us 7 million dollars and 2 years that these guys theoretically could have been actually working....to find out the previous 7 or 8 investigations were correct.....that's the GOP in action, folks!

So basically, we should let Hillary off the hook just because justice means nothing to liberals? I keep forgetting, the truth for Democrats is irrelevant as long as they keep power and look good and escape justice for the family and scrutiny is nothing. Got it.

-19 ( +13 / -32 )

So basically, we should let Hillary off the hook just because justice means nothing to liberals? I keep forgetting, the truth for Democrats is irrelevant as long as they keep power and look good and escape justice for the family and scrutiny is nothing. Got it.

What exactly do you think she should be "on the hook" for? Be real specific, ok?

19 ( +25 / -6 )

Requests about inadequate security, Leon Panetta ordered better assets, nothing was deployed and nothing was put in motion to better equip the embassy. The communication between the White House, Hillary's focus on disposing Gaddafi and making a BS excuse about a stupid video that Susan Rice was peddling to the public and spoon feeding them and arresting an innocent man who is still sitting in jail as a scapegoat to cover Hillary's Bungle ups.

-13 ( +10 / -23 )

Republican insistence that the investigation was not politically motivated was undermined last year when House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) suggested that the committee could take credit for Clinton’s then-slumping poll numbers.

Pretty much confirming the GOP spent two years and seven million for political theater.

They'll still complain. But seven million and two years? - Bupkis.

Shrewd.

6 ( +13 / -7 )

So basically, we should let Hillary off the hook just because justice means nothing to liberals?

It's a GOP cover up, Bass4Funk!

House Republicans on Tuesday concluded their $7 million, two-year investigation... but no “smoking gun” pointing to wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton

2 ( +8 / -6 )

They'll still complain.

Complain??? LOL! Seriously?? I'll digress on that comment, kc.

But seven million and two years? - Bupkis.

Shrewd.

Funny! Now liberals are complaining about the cost, that's a first. Wish they felt the same about the national debt, I mean $19 trillion ain't no chump change.

-12 ( +11 / -23 )

No theater at all! Hillary and the administration first off sent no help in those 13 hours. Assets were in Italy!

Secondly, the video blamed on the violence was a lie. They changed the lie after nearly a week.

Both reasons for scepticism or suspicion.

If your complaining about the $7M, what cost was it to place guards at national parks to inflict pain on the American public during that bogus shutdown? Actually rented fencing and placed armed guards at the open air WW2 vets memorial. Public, keep out!

-11 ( +6 / -17 )

"what difference does it make?!", told me all I needed to know.

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

"If your complaining about the $7M, what cost was it to place guards at national parks to inflict pain on the American public during that bogus shutdown?" - comments

Easy, it is wonderful the GOP-tea could fund political theater for two years. And it was Senator Ted Cruz who shut down the Government when the GOP-tea decided healthcare was something Americans didn't need.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

The bottom lines of the report are that Hillary pushed her own version of the attacks and that officials in the Obama administration had two timelines of the attack: one they shared publicly, and another they circulated only among among themselves. Even if only the president can give the direct order to send forces, the Obama administration knowingly provided the American people a false story about the Benghazi attack, its causes and its consequences. Whether you believe lying to families who lost their loved ones in the service of this country is disqualifying to run for president is another story.

-9 ( +7 / -16 )

Something that I found in another story on this, but not listed in this article talks about the delays in getting the military response there. Part of it has to do with deciding "what to wear" to the fight.

In a newly revealed two-hour secure video conference on the night of the attacks led by White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and attended by Clinton and others, State Department officials raised concerns about the diplomatic sensitivities of the attire to be worn by assets launched. According to one commander, the report states, as forces prepared to deploy, “during the course of three hours, he and his Marines changed in and out of their uniforms four times.”

Those types of decisions come from the top, or from those very near the top that know what their bosses think and are trying to make sure that they are covered. Whoever at State and the Pentagon who debated this, should be fired immediately, regardless of party affiliation.

There are probably many other bits of information in this report, that may get glossed over. They may seem trivial, but one needs to ask oneself, if this were an attack on "W" and his failings, or having to do with a bad business deal from Trump, wouldn't every aspect of this report be all over the news, and Wolfie in the "Situation Room" over at CNN would be going into overtime.

-5 ( +8 / -13 )

"So basically, we should let Hillary off the hook just because justice means nothing to liberals? I keep forgetting, the truth for Democrats is irrelevant as long as they keep power and look good and escape justice for the family and scrutiny is nothing. Got it."

Your posts are a perfect example of the partisan thinking and politicking which has wasted so much time and money. Justice isn't served by this kind of thinking.

Just change your posts from Hillary Benghazi ROFL to Hillary e-mails ROFL. You've still got something to cling to for now.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

Funny! Now liberals are complaining about the cost, that's a first. Wish they felt the same about the national debt, I mean $19 trillion ain't no chump change.

Wanting to spend money on health care and education INSTEAD of perpetual war that CAUSED this $19million debt doesn't mean we don't care.

Please don't lump all 'liberals' together. Ten million of us voted for Bernie Sanders. and hope the FBI finds a way to indict her before the DNC in July. I hate HRC almost as much as I hate Trump, but this investigation was over the top with no results. SO yes, it was a waste of money.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

@MarkG, fencing at a WW2 memorial inflicted pain on the public? Can you give us some more context about the pain of WW2 memorializers and any reasons for the recent government shutdown (surely not war spending!) to help us make our own determination about where it ranks on the pain scale.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

This is classic. The first line of the article:

House Republicans on Tuesday concluded their $7 million, two-year investigation into the deadly attacks in Benghazi, Libya

Lets repeat that - house *Republicans concluded this. The people who have a vested interest in finding that Hillary did something wrong.

And the right-wingers in this thread are still claiming it's a Liberal coverup.

This may be one of the most quintessential examples of how reality does not penetrate the bubble, that this site has ever seen.

19 ( +24 / -5 )

"Already bitterly partisan, Tuesday’s release of the report exposed divisions within Republican ranks." - article

Add Donald J. Trump into the mix, and the international reader sees a political party not able to run a lemonade stand, never mind the ongoing repair of the economic disaster left under GWBush.

The Republicans can't issue a false report slamming Secretary Clinton? Well, at least it gives Trump more things to make up things about and end with a childish witticism. Tedious little party of big tents this.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., the chairman, summed up the document by asking “the American people to read this report for themselves, look at the evidence we have collected and reach their own conclusions.”

What a weasel. They spent two years and $7 million and found no evidence of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton. But instead of directly stating this, they leave it up to "the American people" (i.e. wing nut conspiracy theorists) to conclude that Hillary must be guilty because, well, Hillary. And Benghaaaaaaaaaaazi! Enter bass4funk.

7 ( +12 / -5 )

TorafusuTorasanJUN. 29, 2016 - 07:55AM JST @MarkG, fencing at a WW2

memorial inflicted pain on the public? Can you give us some more context about the pain of WW2 memorializers and any reasons for the recent government shutdown (surely not war spending!) to help us make our own determination about where it ranks on the pain scale.

Inflicting pain is a metaphor for intentional and with great effort and expense closed all the nations national parks. Human guards provided when normally they are not. In other words inconveniencing the US public! International tourists as well! And the reason was no money to open the parks. The vet memorial is an easy one to use as example. Many news clips showed the fencing and guards. One with a WW2 vet in a wheel chair unable to pay respects. That may have been that mans first and last chance to do so. Very divisive of the administration and costly too!

-14 ( +3 / -17 )

Reps. Mike Pompeo of Kansas and Jim Jordan of Ohio issued a separate report slamming Clinton and the Obama administration, with Pompeo telling reporters that the former first lady and senator was “morally reprehensible.” - article

Someone should tell these guys about a place called Iraq.

250,000 dead in their adventure based on forged documents.

And not at a little cost.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Never got wrapped up in the Clinton/Bengazi issues. If the reps werr investigating, I'm sure they would have found something if they could have. But it is important to look at the big picture and place the whole Libya mess at Clintons feet. What a mess. She is a true warmonger and should never be president.

-7 ( +7 / -14 )

Gowdy was way over his head IMO. There are still unanswered questions but unfortunately he didn’t seem to really know what questions to ask and how to properly press witnesses on discrepancies because he didn’t know what was supposed to happen (the crisis planning and order deployment protocol on the books).

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

There are still unanswered questions

You think that after spending 7 million dollars, for a report by the party that wanted to find Hillary had done something wrong, that there are unanswered questions?

Yeah, right.

More cluelessness from the bubble.

This thread absolutely reeks with sour grapes.

10 ( +16 / -6 )

The smoking gun is that $7M bill.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

The Warren Commission was also an official report. Do you really believe that any facts exposing CIA failures or malfeasance would be included? Two words: State Secrets.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Do you really believe that any facts exposing CIA failures or malfeasance would be included? Two words: State Secrets.

Hah, another one so bitter about the fact that the Republican report didn't find any wrong doing with Hillary, that they are trying to claim it's a Republican coverup.

10 ( +15 / -5 )

The unanswered question for one of Sec of Defense Panetta claiming to have produced a deployment order which there is no evidence of (which he doesn't even have the authority to do) and of the real order not materializing until more than five hours into the attack.

There is a process to respond to these types of incidences that was created based on prior experience from other terrorist attacks Hillary might not be ultimately responsible but the basic conclusion is that the Obama Administration did not take full advantage of the established doctrine that would have put U.S. forces into Benghazi. Gowdy gets that no substantive action was taken to come to the aid of our personnel who were under attack....he just doesn't seem to have a firm grasp on what the proper protocol should have been and how this circumvented it.

-12 ( +3 / -15 )

"House Republicans on Tuesday concluded their $7 million, two-year investigation..."

Two years, and SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS and solely for a witch hunt that they have admitted was merely to discredit Clinton. If they want to truly find criminals, they need only look in the mirror.

But I will bet you one million dollars -- one seventh of what they spent on these witch trials -- that it's not over; already posters like bass are demanding the people not found guilty by the Republican panel "not be let off the hook" (as though they were on it for anything but the imaginations of the Republican party).

Utter waste. Americans should be even more ashamed of the GOP.

10 ( +15 / -5 )

Two words: State Secrets. - comments

Perfect.

Now The GOP-tea is in on it!

Drat!

4 ( +7 / -3 )

The unanswered question for one of Sec of Defense Panetta claiming to have produced a deployment order which there is no evidence of (which he doesn't even have the authority to do) and of the real order not materializing until more than five hours into the attack.

Then I suggest you ask the Republican party to answer these questions, since they are the ones who did the investigation, and at a cost of $7 million, must surely have the answers.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

jusbsy:

" Wanting to spend money on health care and education INSTEAD of perpetual war that CAUSED this $19million debt doesn't mean we don't care. "

...and it was Hillarys and Obamas illegal war against Gadaffi that caused this. Plus the disastrous situation in Libya that we have today. Cognitive dissonance anyone?

And I wonder what the film maker who Hillary framed thinks about this. "No smoking gun" has been severely down-defined here.

-9 ( +6 / -15 )

Not a bad investment by the GOP. They got four years of dropping speculative headlines and now the bubble dwellers are so worked up they won't even accept a Republican report.

So, time to move on? I think this one has been played out. Going forward any Benghazi statements will mostly be Republicans talking to other Republicans. I can't imagine too many moderates will take the GOP statements seriously anymore and that's the important thing.

8 ( +13 / -5 )

The reports are weak from both sides. I have been trying to read it and it’s just ineffective, like the questioning of Clinton.

The basic questions were just not answered, as far as I can tell:

Where was Clinton, minute by minute. Same question for Obama Did Panetta order an immediate response, or not? If so, exactly who disobeyed or countermanded the order?

If anyone knows the answers to this, please let me know. I looked.

The only real "bombshell" is that neither the committee’s official report, nor the Democrats’ dissenting minority report, mentions the “three directives." that Obama claimed to have issued when he first learned about the attacks. (In fact, President Obama barely features in the Democrats’ report at all, as if someone else were Commander-in-Chief that evening.)

"I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure we are securing our personnel and that we are doing whatever we need to. Number two, we are going to investigate exactly what happened and make sure it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice.

Obama’s account was repeated by former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, and echoed by other Democrats. However, the directives are absent from the final Benghazi reports."

It appears that Obama lied about his three directives.

-9 ( +6 / -15 )

Going forward any Benghazi statements will mostly be Republicans talking to other Republicans. - comments

This has been the basic technique.

Very much like Trump.

Step 1. Say something false adding it might be true.

Step 2. Spend any amount, for however long it takes, to show there's no evidence of the initial false claim.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Then Lizz, I suggest you ask the Republican party to answer these questions, since they are the ones who did the investigation, and at a cost of $7 million, must surely have the answers.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

Trumsaid Hillary was on bed. And Republicans did not like their candidate confessed heis a pervert who love to sneak in women's bedroom. Republicans said they only used fact. They were not on lunch mob.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

and it was Hillarys and Obamas illegal war against Gadaffi that caused this. Plus the disastrous situation in Libya that we have today. Cognitive dissonance anyone?

I said perpetual war. As in all the war in the past 10+ years. Selecting just one situation, and one location to prove a point? Leaving out all that started during GW Bush's presidency? Ignoring how much the GOP pushes for more and more weapons and attacks? that is surly cognitive dissonance.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind, and won't change the subject.

Just saying...

9 ( +12 / -3 )

She is a true warmonger and should never be president.

The Republicans have just verified that Clinton is clean and she will be a great president. They are endorsing her. We are still waiting to see if Obama was born in Kenya or not. Thoughts? How is the Republican investigation with that going? Will this be brought up in the Clinton/Trump debates?

2 ( +7 / -5 )

It seems clear that a House committee must be organized immediately to investigate the findings of the previous House committee.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Lizz: If anyone knows the answers to this, please let me know. I looked.

Ah, well let's see if we can help you fact check the Congressional Report with information you pieced together on the internet. Can you run down the events of the night as told by your sources?

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Easy, it is wonderful the GOP-tea could fund political theater for two years. And it was Senator Ted Cruz who shut down the Government when the GOP-tea decided healthcare was something Americans didn't need

We also didn't need that mockery grand standing of Democrats wasting their time on the floor whining like little spoiled brats to force legislation on gun control, knowing full well nothing was going to happen. But I guess that was ok in the eyes of liberals?

Your posts are a perfect example of the partisan thinking and politicking which has wasted so much time and money. Justice isn't served by this kind of thinking.

How is it partisan thinking. Please elaborate, this should be good.

Just change your posts from Hillary Benghazi ROFL to Hillary e-mails ROFL. You've still got something to cling to for now.

It's amazing how Obamabots and Hillary worshippers will flatly deny and refuse to see facts for what they are. Ok, all tinfoil hats aside. The problem that I and most people have about the whole Benghazi tragedy is not that Hillary was one of the worst Secretary of States, the real problem is, she lied about it, which makes everything worse. I could care less what liberals think or how they try so hard to recreate a fictional narrative to misguide the public thinking that this admin. is completely innocent when we know, the president, none other than the anointed one himself has the power and the authority block, hinder, silence and surpressed any information as with the Orlando case regarding the mention of Jihadism or anything this president or liberals THINK they have the absolute right to change the narrative on any issue. Fact: Hillary called her daughter and immediately told her the embassy was attacked by terrorists, she said the same thing the next day to the Egyptian PM they were under attack by Islamic militants, but when she gets to the White House the story changes, so the public, the families, especially, have to listen to these people lie and have to live with the fact that Obama and Hillary care more about their political positions than the rule of law? And I thought Sersi was cold and manipulative.

-15 ( +4 / -19 )

Mrs. Bill Clinton lied to both all Americans and the survivors of the four Americans for whom she played a key part in their deaths that it was a YouTube video that cause the attack.

Now, she says, "it's time to move on". Memo to Mrs. Clinton: #AllLivesMatter. U.S. liberals (non-voting foreigners' opinions don't count) and RINOS may be willing to give her a pass, but she is guilty as sin in the court of U.S. public opinion. The first Tuesday in November will be Mrs. Clinton's day of atonement. . . .

-12 ( +6 / -18 )

"Mrs. Bill Clinton lied to both all Americans and the survivors of the four Americans for whom she played a key part in their deaths that it was a YouTube video that cause the attack."

No, she didn't.

9 ( +13 / -4 )

Surprising that the Secretary of State would refuse responsibility for this incident and even more surprising that the armaments taken/stolen (15,000-20,000 ManPads (manned surface to air missles)) are not even mentioned. Even more surprising a cache of arms like that was not properly secured. Unlogical surprises abound it seems.

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/06/28/pentagon-officials-anti-aircraft-weapons-prevented-possibility-air-force-aid-benghazi/

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

@Lag

It seems clear that a House committee must be organized immediately to investigate the findings of the previous House committee.

"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy"? -- WIlde (alleged)

"The conspiracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding conspiracy."

-- Black Sabbath

5 ( +7 / -2 )

@bass4 How is it partisan thinking. Please elaborate,

@bass4 I could care less what liberals think or ...

Thank you for answering your own question.

12 ( +14 / -2 )

Thank you for answering your own question.

Sorry, but I'm not a partisan, but nice try.

The Republicans have just verified that Clinton is clean and she will be a great president.

They said NO such thing.

They are endorsing her.

Who exactly and show us exactly what they said or how they publicly said, they will endorse her.

Will this be brought up in the Clinton/Trump debates?

Her untrustworthiness will, no doubt about that.

Mrs. Bill Clinton lied to both all Americans and the survivors of the four Americans for whom she played a key part in their deaths that it was a YouTube video that cause the attack.

You got thumbed down because for liberals who gives a....how the families feel, as long as Hillary can get in the White House, ethics should be thrown to the wind. Remember, it's the Democratic ideology that's at stake, all and everything else can take a backseat.

-16 ( +3 / -19 )

Republicans are pretty much losing it. Maybe they feel they are owed something for all the time and effort they spent whipping up hysteria. They really don't have anything to show for it and I can see why they feel shortchanged.

But it really is time to move on. Seven investigations is enough. Send whatever comments or questions you have to the GOP and be their problem.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

Wow, lots of clowns stuck on the $7M investigation. Have you ever heard of solyndra or A123 systems? The list can grow if I search, these two bother me most though. Roughly 100x the cost of the investigation down the toilet in a year!

But the intent was there.....all forgiven.

Or

It was a democrat, they are perfect. Just a small slip of judgement.

Or

The administration GAVE suspicion blaming some video. And nobody gave the green light to save the defenders. That is what I take issue with. No group of terrorists would attack an embassy without a strong defense reaction. 13 hour standoff! No 30 minutes. The military services were ready to go and rescue awaiting the GO order.....it never came and two extra casualties and an empowered al Qaida prevailed. But, "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE". The families and friends of the defenders or staff did not deserve that ar all.

-9 ( +5 / -14 )

Republicans are pretty much losing it.

Oh, Superlib - more than I'd even expected. Two themes of articles I'd read today: that many reactionary Republicans are panicking over Trump's silence (which they take as conciliation) over the recent Supreme Court abortion ruling and his ever-shifting stance on deporting all 3,000,000 undocumented aliens in the US; and also that most Americans trust Clinton far more than they do Trump to protect America from terrorists.

Full-scale intra-partisan warfare - will it break out before or during the Cleveland convention? That is the question.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Sorry, but I'm not a partisan, but nice try.

You're in denial, but nice try.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

The GOP is sure losing it BIG TIME!!! The GOP is a CLEAR & PRESENT DANGER for the US of A!!

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Republicans are pretty much losing it.

If the Democrats had to deal with a lying president that solely believes in obstructing the law and poisoning the well of politics, even trying to coheres the DOJ, you'd be a little upset as well.

Maybe they feel they are owed something for all the time and effort they spent whipping up hysteria.

The truth, but when dealing with liberals, it's like asking Bill Clinton to keep his hands off the interns.

They really don't have anything to show for it and I can see why they feel shortchanged.

Again, you have the head of the Democratic Party who is also the president of the US or with this guy, the King that surveys over everything, a person has to be nuts if they think Obama would let anything rock or destroy his legacy. There is no way on God's green Earth would he ever allow that to happen. So, you are right, as long as Obama is in office, the GOP don't have the power that Obama yields, so he can block and shut this down with ease. But another 133 more days and this too, shall pass and Obama will be a memory, so there is water at the end of the rainbow.

But it really is time to move on. Seven investigations is enough.

It's not about the investigations, it's about the president blocking them. But ask how the families feel. I bet they would never vote for a liberal again as long as they live.

-12 ( +3 / -15 )

It's not about the investigations, it's about the president blocking them.

What? Please elaborate.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Sorry Bass but you & other GOP supporters REALLY are focusing on some alternative, UN REAL "reality" in some totally OTHER dimension............

I mean most of the stuff GOP supporters here are harping about trace DIRECTY to GWB! Its unreal how you & other cant see the obvious

2 ( +8 / -6 )

when dealing with liberals, it's like asking Bill Clinton to keep his hands off the interns.

In no way can that statement be called partisan or nonsensical.

6 ( +12 / -6 )

GW "I mean most of the stuff GOP supporters here are harping about trace DIRECTY to GWB! Its unreal how you & other cant see the obvious"

Some of them LITERALLY think -- no lies -- that Obama hopped in a time machine and started the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and also think GWB hopped in a time machine and killed OBL. Oh, and Bill Clinton hopped in a time machine and the twin towers fell on HIS watch and because HE ignored the intelligence. So, telling them that most of what they are harping about traces back to GWB falls on deaf ears. Deep down they know it, that's why people like bass are now officially losing it.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

GW "I mean most of the stuff GOP supporters here are harping about trace DIRECTY to GWB! Its unreal how you & other cant see the obvious"

Some of them LITERALLY think -- no lies -- that Obama hopped in a time machine and started the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and also think GWB hopped in a time machine and killed OBL. Oh, and Bill Clinton hopped in a time machine and the twin towers fell on HIS watch and because HE ignored the intelligence. So, telling them that most of what they are harping about traces back to GWB falls on deaf ears. Deep down they know it, that's why people like bass are now officially losing it.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

But another 133 more days and this too, shall pass and Obama will be a memory,

Actually, that's not true. Obama's last full day in the White House will be on Jan. 19, 2017, which is a Thursday.

Republican math?

9 ( +11 / -2 )

that's why people... are now officially losing it

Oh, the Schadenfreude!

2 ( +6 / -4 )

toshiko, are you implying that trump snuck into hillarys bedroom and they got it on? this would actually explain the animosity they have for each other - theres nothing like love gone bad to sour a relationship.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

A few quotes from the report by the Republican committee:

"Security at the consulate was inadequate - since Republicans cut funding for embassy security"

"Clinton never personally denied any requests for additional security in Benghazi"

"On the night of the attacks, she was active and engaged working with the White House and the CIA"

And just to repeat that first point, the lack of defense was a result of Republican funding cuts. Yes, read that again, Republican funding cuts.

5 ( +11 / -6 )

Sorry Bass but you & other GOP supporters REALLY are focusing on some alternative, UN REAL "reality" in some totally OTHER dimension............

No, they are just amazed that the president is that cold and careless that he would make sure that the average idiot would believe the WH narrative.

I mean most of the stuff GOP supporters here are harping about trace DIRECTY to GWB! Its unreal how you & other can't see the obvious

Is that what you guys really think? OMG! Hey, how long are you guys going to beat the Bush drum? Obama is almost out of office now and you guys are still droning about that?

In no way can that statement be called partisan or nonsensical.

Easy, because we are talking about the person that was responsible and her boss for covering up, refusing to hand over vital evidence and trying as hard as they can to side step, block and suppress as much damaging evidence as possible. Funny, Hillary tells her daughter, "remember: HER child" in a direct way that they were attacked by Muslim extremists, given the fact that a bunch h of people refuse to accept what Hillary is and that's ok, just feel sorry for the parents that have to live with this guy and woman telling them to their face they'll get to the bottom of this. Again, November can't come soon enough, at least we'll be rid of this current dictator.

Some of them LITERALLY think -- no lies -- that Obama hopped in a time machine and started the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and also think GWB hopped in a time machine and killed OBL.

What in the world are you talking about? We know Obama was responsible for the creation of ISIS, but if Obama could go back in time, he probably would have engaged ISIS and snuffed them out.....but then again, we are talking about Obama, the man that's too cowardly to even address radical Islam will make every other excuse in the world to call it something that is suitable for his palette.

Deep down they know it, that's why people like bass are now officially losing it.

Sorry, but if it means not buying into the BS of the Obama WH talking points and calling them out, buddy you and every liberal on the planet can use any euphemism you want, doesn't mean that exonerates the anointed one and the woman with the pantsuits.

-11 ( +4 / -15 )

We know Obama was responsible for the creation of ISIS

Who is "we"?

Since you are supposed to be a non-partisan guy, perhaps you would like to read this little tidbit on how ISIS was formed. I think it gives a much better balanced narrative than the partisan one that you are peddling:

http://globalcomment.com/is-isis-a-form-of-blowback-for-the-iraq-war/

9 ( +11 / -2 )

"Hah, another one so bitter about the fact that the Republican report didn't find any wrong doing with Hillary, that they are trying to claim it's a Republican coverup."

Hah! Another sucker that believes government reports on themselves. So, then you still believe in the magic bullet.

Like I said : STATE SECRETS

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

we are talking about the person that was responsible and her boss for covering up, refusing to hand over vital evidence and trying as hard as they can to side step, block and suppress as much damaging evidence as possible.

Really? Because the Republican committee didn't find that this happened. How is it that you know more than the Republican committee that actually investigated the incident, reading over "tens of thousands of pages" of documents on the matter. Do you have some sort of access to documents that the Republican committee didn't?

We know Obama was responsible for the creation of ISIS

No we don't. We know Bush was responsible for the creation of ISIS.

if it means not buying into the BS of the Obama WH talking points

I assume you made a typo, since it's the Republican committee's talking points, not the White House. Are you saying you don't buy into the Republican committee's talking points?

Another sucker that believes government reports on themselves.

Why would the Republican committee cover up mistakes made by Hillary? It's in their best interests to find wrong doing with her.

Like I said : STATE SECRETS

Like I say: TINFOIL HATS

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Bass4funk: "Sorry, but if it means not buying into the BS of the Obama WH talking points and calling them out, buddy you and every liberal on the planet can use any euphemism you want, doesn't mean that exonerates the anointed one and the woman with the pantsuits."

It's understandable your head's exploding, bass... Trump's going down in flames despite you insisting he's doing better day by day, your own panel has found Clinton not guilty AGAIN and you think even the Republicans are lying now, and you are the most partisan poster on here but claim you are not partisan. In backwards world, everything you say is correct, so like I said, you and others are naturally losing it in this reality and now can only result to name calling and deflection. How about what Strangerland quoted from the panel? That is was Republican's having cut dope fence funds? I notice you could not comment on that.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Seven million dollars divided by 800 pages of stuff we already knew equals eight thousand seven hundred fifty dollars per page. This is akin to Pentagon spending.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Who is "we"?

People not tainted but he pull of the Unicornverse.

Since you are supposed to be a non-partisan guy, perhaps you would like to read this little tidbit on how ISIS was formed.

I think it gives a much better balanced narrative than the partisan one that you are peddling:

Hmmm, I prefer a more in-depth and accurate look.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386354/how-obama-caused-isis-ira-straus

-12 ( +2 / -14 )

People not tainted but he pull of the Unicornverse.

I'll get the codebreakers to work on that one.

I can see why you prefer the skewed opinion piece from the National Review since it supports your viewpoint. The link for the article that I quoted had opinions from actual ISIS commanders--not from folks on the sidelines. Their opinion differs in that they don't blame one person or their administration. Instead they blame Western policies from not only the US but also European governments. I consider that a well-balanced and more credible argument. It's also non-partisan.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

If they want to open Pandora's Box on Embassy Attacks, let's go back and investigate Bush's administration prior to Benghazi. Here's a nice list:

http://www.politifact.com/embassyattacks/

Prior to Benghazi, were there 13 attacks on embassies and 60 deaths under President George W. Bush?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

you and every liberal on the planet can use any euphemism you want, doesn't mean that exonerates the anointed one and the woman with the pantsuits.

That's a pretty funny sentence, if you're into dada. Which I am.

But what liberal 'euphemisms' are you referring to?

And from your nonpartisan journalistic perspective, are you accusing we he pull of the Unicornverse of obfuscating truth by perverting language because we can't except reality and think were smarter then everybody and wear pantsuits and stuff?

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Prior to Benghazi, were there 13 attacks on embassies and 60 deaths under President George W. Bush?

That was Obama's fault. Obviously.

Now I know that may seem an insane position, you only have to read the comments from our Asylum dwellers on this very thread to see that they are all quite clearly barking mad.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

We know Obama was responsible for the creation of ISIS

By backing bigot Al Maliki as Iraq PM in 2006. Oh wait...

3 ( +6 / -3 )

It's understandable your head's exploding, bass...

Homie, I'm perfectly fine, I assure you.

Trump's going down in flames despite you insisting he's doing better day by day,

Hmmmmm, the GOP thought up until yesterday Hillary's goose is cooked and look what happened with that.

your own panel has found Clinton not guilty AGAIN

If you think Obama is going to sit back and let THE ONLY Democratic candidate be indicted regardless of what the charges are, you have got to be out of this galaxy. Only a fool would believe that with everything that Hillary is charged with and is strolling by on charges NONE of us would EVER get away with that she is just as innocent as little Miss Muffet is a joke of all jokes.

and you think even the Republicans are lying now, and you are the most partisan poster on here but claim you are not partisan.

That would be true, but since I'm not and don't drink the Kool aid, I've been as tough on the GOP as well, I'm not a Republican loyalist as many liberals here are when it comes to Democrats or Hillary and the anointed one. The thing is, Democrats are more methodical, cunning, sneakier than the GOP. They GOP have their share of problems, but they are just not as good as lying, scheming, and being underhandedly as the Democrats, so there is a lot more on the dinner plate to go around and also, Democrats keep me in business and my business running, Trump does help to a degree, but Obama and Hillary are ca$h cows. So I hope they keep on being dishonest as they can be, I have kids that need to a private JHS.

In backwards world, everything you say is correct,

No, but when it comes to the dishonesty of this president and this woman, it sure is.

so like I said, you and others are naturally losing it in this reality and now can only result to name calling and deflection.

Sorry, I don't do personal attacks. Also, can't speak for everyone, but I think it's safe to say, most of the conservatives and independents here are maybe upset because they know the truth and how crafty and dishonest Obama is, but at the same time, we all feel a sense of relief and emotional euphoria knowing that Obama will be gone soon, and I think the anger of today will be met with joy and jubilation on the last day Obama is out of the Oval Office. That's enough consolidation for a lot of us.

-14 ( +2 / -16 )

What a disgusting display of partisan politics.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

The fact that the Obama administration and State Department blamed some independent film for the attack, while knowing otherwise, illustrates their lack moral integrity.

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

If you think Obama is going to sit back and let THE ONLY Democratic candidate be indicted regardless of what the charges are, you have got to be out of this galaxy.

How would Obama influence a Democratic committee report?

The fact that the Obama administration and State Department blamed some independent film for the attack, while knowing otherwise, illustrates their lack moral integrity.

Heh, now we see the Republicans change tack from 'Hillary was a criminal for Benghazi' to 'Hillary is immoral'.

All credibility in Republicans is now destroyed.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

One point that's always confused me about Libyan naysayers is, despite their criticism of the policies Obama took, they offer no other options. The way I see it is that there were four options: to support Qaddafi, to ignore the entire event, to offer limited support to the rebels, or to take on the entire country.

The former and latter are untenable, leaving the middle two as the only practical options. Ignoring the event brings up the specter of Bush the Elder and his non-response to the Shia uprising following the Gulf War(Hussein tore through the region, and there are reports of rebels hanging from lampposts as warning) - one reason why the Iraqi Shia did not particularly trust the Americans when they came back under Bush the Junior.

It seems to me that Obama's choice was the most prudent: offer modest support to the rebels without committing America to any permanent role (i.e., "Pottery Barn" rule not invoked), and support those in favor of democracy through what would undoubtedly be a messy and protracted civil war and period of nation building. That is exactly what has happened.

A famous comedienne years ago talked about his impatient grandfather glaring at the microwave, shouting, "C'mon! It's been five seconds already!" This reminds me of Republican naysayers of Obama's Middle East policy. Think about how long it took to create and solidify the United States - slavery existed there a full half-century after it was abolished by the British Empire, and the entire American experiment was almost ended a full hundred years after it had achieved independence. Yet some expect Libya to achieve this in a span of a few years.

A decade or so from now, history will likely judge Obama's decisions quite well. These steps are necessary if painful, but to put them off does not mean that they would never be necessary - it just shoves the problem to future generations.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

The fact that the Obama administration and State Department blamed some independent film for the attack, while knowing otherwise, illustrates their lack moral integrity.

Who said Obama or his minions in his administration had ANY integrity??

-15 ( +2 / -17 )

Who said Obama or his minions in his administration had ANY integrity??

Me.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

Can someone pass the popcorn... this is hilarious. All these conspiracy theorists going ballistic... (munch munch)... so funny. I thought the Brexit fallout was bad tempered and bordered on the farcical, but this is incredible.

A Republican committee finds the Democratic front runner innocent of wrong doings in Libya and the Republican supporters don't accept it? Blinkered... totally blinkered.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

I don't like Hillary in the least (and 54.6% of Americans would agree with me), but this Benghazi dog and pony show was shameful. After all was said and done and she was exonerated by the findings, the GOP just couldn't let it go because of their own brand of visceral hatred of Clinton.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

LagunaJUN. 29, 2016 - 06:00PM JST One point that's always confused me about Libyan naysayers is, despite their criticism of the policies Obama took, they offer no other options

Bah aren't they the same on every single issue? Like a room of caged monkey's being fed methamphetamine - just utter the words "Obama" or "Hillary" and watch the screaming start.

The Republican party should be sued for gross spunking of public funds:

http://benghazicommittee.com/benghazi-by-the-numbers/

6 ( +8 / -2 )

The email circus hasn't finished yet. Then after the email circus is over with their clown acts, what's next on the Hate Hillary agenda? Thoughts?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Then after the email circus is over with their clown acts, what's next on the Hate Hillary agenda? Thoughts?

I suspect we'll be hearing cries of 'Benghazi' and 'Email violations'.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

600 requests for increased security to Mrs. Clinton in the month prior the 9/11 attack were ignored.

She was in the White House Situation Room watching live streaming video of the attack as it took place and still Mrs. Clinton diddled for more than two hours before making any kind of decision. By then, Ambassador Stevens and three American military men were dead.

She lied to Americans and the survivors of those U.S. citizens who were killed by the radical Islamic terrorist organization whose foreign policy decision she helped to create by sticking to her story that a YouTube was the cause of the attack although she sent emails to her daughter and the leader of Egypt telling them that terrorists from the "JV team" were actually to blame.

Her desire to support a deadly far-left political agenda outweighed any desire to pull the trigger, go in and save the lives of fellow Americans.

Is this the type of "person" U.S. voters want to lead them? The U.S. court of public opinion will answer that question on the first Tuesday in November. . . .

-12 ( +3 / -15 )

600 requests for increased security to Mrs. Clinton in the month prior the 9/11 attack were ignored.

By who? From the report:

Clinton never personally denied any requests for additional security in Benghazi

And as for why they had lowered security in the first place:

"Security at the consulate was inadequate - since Republicans cut funding for embassy security"

And for your next point:

She was in the White House Situation Room watching live streaming video of the attack as it took place and still Mrs. Clinton diddled for more than two hours before making any kind of decision.

From the report:

On the night of the attacks, she was active and engaged working with the White House and the CIA

Easy to second guess in hindsight, but the fact remains that she was working on the situation at the time.

She lied to Americans and the survivors of those U.S. citizens who were killed by the radical Islamic terrorist organization whose foreign policy decision she helped to create by sticking to her story that a YouTube was the cause of the attack although she sent emails to her daughter and the leader of Egypt telling them that terrorists from the "JV team" were actually to blame.

Blah blah blah, more Republican PC talking points.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

Gowdy and the lot should be sued, if not imrpisoned, for this collossal waste of time and money despite having found her innocent already. Terry's probably going to go a few days again without changing his clothes or shaving while he thinks up the next Benghazi probe.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Bah aren't they the same on every single issue?

Ha ha! - that is so true. Paul Ryan's "healthcare plan" is the Benghazi Report of proposals, for example - all fluff, zero substance (though the former, weighing in at 28 pages, certainly cost a lot less to produce). There's the actual Benghazi, though, and then there's Benghazi™, and while rational people (even among the conservatives) have washed their hands of the former, the latter will live on for years to come. Sad and pathetic, yes - but objective reality alludes the grasp of a certain group. It's always tomorrow - and always will be - just like the GOP healthcare plan.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Ok, so we have a few people on the planet that lap up the sweetened Kool aid and think Obama and his minions have somewhat of what some might call, dare I say, integrity, well, for Hillary she needs as much login' as she can get, she can't run on any issues.

Gowdy and the lot should be sued, if not imrpisoned,

Lol! If Hillary ain't going to prison, then there is zero chance Gowdy would go and for what? Seeking the truth? It's not his fault, Obama wields, bends and contorts the constitution to suit his needs.

for this collossal waste of time and money despite having found her innocent already.

He did t find her innocent, he just couldn't find (with the help of the anointed one) or get the cooperation he needed.

-14 ( +2 / -16 )

Sept. 11, 2012 is the result of Mrs. Bill Clinton failing to provide adequate security for the safety of the American lives she swore to protect. Then she tried to save face by lying and blaming it on a video. Then she stated, "what difference does it make now?" And today she claims, "It's time to move."

Mrs. Clinton embodies the definition of the term "abject failure of humanity". . . .

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

Laguna : Paul Ryan's "healthcare plan" is the Benghazi Report of proposals, for example - all fluff, zero substance (though the former, weighing in at 28 pages, certainly cost a lot less to produce)

I heard about that. It was about time they offered an alternative after 60 odd failed votes to repeal Obamacare. Another textbook Republican insanity. Even more disgusting is the way they tied funding for emergency items to bills repealing a law that actually helps average Americans.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Can any Hillary be clear about two things:

(1)What should she be indibted with? (2)What is the criminal punishment?

In a previous comment I said that if Obama did fake his US govt. docs that is a 10-year prison punishment and it is in writing. But you Hillary haters just go all the way from she's a murderer to she sold secrets to the ISIS and concluding she's a bad woman. It's very vague and it shows you just hate her without giving any real facts. You hating Hillary the way you do makes as much sense as Trump hating all Mexicans for his reasons that don't make sense.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Wow, the GOP report has really triggered a lot of outrage in Republicans. I think their reality has been challenged and now they are lashing out at everyone.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Apparently the NRA is taking the suggestion that Americans make up their own mind about what multiple admittedly partisan investigations could not substantiate by running a series of Benghazi-themed ads.

Wow. Think about this. Of all the issues the NRA could have attacked Clinton with, they chose Benghazi. The optics are clear: The terrorists from abroad will come here and kill you in your beds unless you elect Trump and buy lotsa guns.

This will undoubtedly fire up their base but likely alienate everyone with any functioning cognitive level above reptilian. Trump will dip in the polls again.

<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/29/nra-2-million-ad-campaign-trump-benghazi/86484306/ >

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Complete and utter waste of $7 million.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Pretty much confirming the GOP spent two years and seven million for political theater.

Shoulda seen Hamilton.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I've never shied away from anything, including liberals.

Actually, you quite regularly ignore actual 'liberals' when they challenge you. Hillary Clinton is more left of you, but that hardly makes her a liberal.

Honestly moderators, this guy is ridiculous.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

bass4funk: "Question, what has Hillary done for the families of Benghazi?"

What has Gowdy and his supporters done besides spit on the memory of those who died, asking the families to support them while they lie about why and waste their money?

"How do you think they view her or do you think"

Well, the sister of the US ambassador killed certainly doesn't blame Hilary at all, and in fact, blames Congress for not funding enough:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/stevens-family-clinton-benghazi-interview/index.html

Yeah... OOPS!

"After being on JT for so many years, that comment was the funniest, I have EVER heard in my life. It took me twenty minutes to stop laughing and regain my composure. Good one, dude."

Because you are in absolute denial. Now you can no longer use Bengazhi to attack Clinton and distract from the mess that is the GOP and the Republican world in general, and it makes you angry. Now you can no longer say the families are mad at her because they do not blame her, and you're angry. Even Gowdy himself has found Clinton innocent, and you're angry and now disagreeing with your own people.

No wonder you laughed. Just like you said, John Gotti laughed a lot, too. It's called desperation when you know you've lost.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

According to CNN, Latest polls put trump and hillary neck and neck.

btw, @laguna.

The way I see it is that there were four options: to support Qaddafi, to ignore the entire event, to offer limited support to the rebels, or to take on the entire country. The former and latter are untenable,

Why would it have been untenable to support Qaddafi?? He had renounced terrorism years before and was actively fighting radical islamic terrorists and supporting the USA's war on terror. Instead hillary urged obama to support his ouster and laughed and giggled about Qaddaffi being murdered in the street. And look at Libya now.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Latest News update:

Ambassador Chris Stevens’ family: Don’t blame Hillary Clinton for Benghazi

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Outrider,

According to CNN, Latest polls put trump and hillary neck and neck.

Umm... No, not quite.

CNN's most recent "Poll of Polls" shows Clinton leading Trump 47% to 40%.

The most recent Quinnipiac poll that was reported on at CNN shows Clinton leading Trump by 2 points (42% to 40%).

Meanwhile, according to Ballotpedia, Clinton currently leads Trump in these key battleground states:

• 51% to 37% in Florida • 45% to 41% in Iowa • 50% to 33% in Michigan • 48% to 38% in North Carolina • 46% to 37% in Ohio • 49% to 35% in Pennsylvania • 45% to 38% in Virginia

Meanwhile, that same Quinnipiac poll (singular, I might add) you so desperately wnat to pin the rapidly fading hopes of a beaten and battered GOP also found the following:

*"61% of those surveyed say the 2016 election has increased the level of hatred and prejudice in the United States -- compared to just 34% who say it has had no impact... Of that 61%, 67% blame Trump and 16% blame Clinton."*

A majority of Americans believe -- and rightly so -- that your free-falling candidate is a searing a-hole.

Seriously, man. It's over. No Benghazi conspiracy. No email indictment. No swelling tide of popular grassroot support for Trump and his racist garbage. No sudden, magical epiphany among American women, hispanics, blacks, gays, lesbians, transgenders, bisexuals, or young people that Trump is somehow a swell guy just looking out for their best interests.

It's just plain over for the GOP. Turn out the lights and go to bed. And please spend the next four years seriously contemplating how to not screw it up so epically again in 2020.

*(Pro-tip: Never assume the other people in the room are unable to simply Google your nonsense.)*

10 ( +12 / -2 )

But they do keep me busy and the checks keep rolling in. So I guess maybe I should be a bit thankful for having Hillary and the anointed one. Helps my bank account.

So, you finally admit to being a partisan? After all, wouldn't a true non-partisan be writing about the Republicans, too?

Hmmmm.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Outrider, the US put up with Qaddafi precisely because of the reasons you mention (and despite that whole Pan Am thing - hey, bygones can be bygones) - after all, he was allowed into America back in 2009, when Trump made some bucks by allowing the dictator to erect his tent in his backyard (the neighbors didn't go for it). https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/23/muammar-gaddafi-tent-trump-estate

The US didn't spark the Arab Spring; it began in neighboring Tunisia, and by the time what was happening had been grasped, had already spread to Libya. Are you suggesting that the US should have supported those trying to bring down one of the worlds most corrupt and long-lasting dictators? If so, you share now American values whatsoever.

Regarding the current Libyan government and terrorism, the nascent unity government has been cooperating closely with the US and NATO on repelling ISIS advances in their country - because it is in their interest, not because some dictator ordered it.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

From the Ambassador's sister on the tragedy:

"I do not blame Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta (for Stevens' death). They were balancing security efforts at embassies and missions around the world," Dr. Anne Stevens, who has acted as a spokesperson for the family, said in an interview with the New Yorker published Tuesday.

"But what was the underlying cause? Perhaps if Congress had provided a budget to increase security for all missions around the world, then some of the requests for more security in Libya would have been granted. Certainly the State Department is underbudgeted," she said.

Stevens also said that "it doesn't look like there's anything new" in the Benghazi reports released by House Republicans and Democrats earlier this week after two years spent investigating the 2012 attacks, and she expressed frustration with the politicization of the tragedy that killed her brother.

"Yes! Definitely politicized," Stevens said. "Every report I read that mentions him specifically has a political bent, and accusatory bent."

3 ( +6 / -3 )

"I do not blame Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta (for Stevens' death). They were balancing security efforts at embassies and missions around the world," Dr. Anne Stevens, who has acted as a spokesperson for the family, said in an interview with the New Yorker published Tuesday.

Ok, that's one family...

There are 3 more.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/8/charles-woods-father-of-benghazi-victim-challenges/

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5006752088001

I agree!

-11 ( +3 / -14 )

We've moved on to detonate?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

"Sure, if you liberals can promise never to bring Bush into the political arena when talking about wars, since it's the past and we have moved on." - comments

Few journalists would support this.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Few journalists would support this.

Exactly! So that means, it's fair game, the left can talk about what they like and about whomever they want and the right can do as well.

-12 ( +2 / -14 )

"the left can talk about what they like and about whomever they want and the right can do as well" - comments

The complaint may be finding anything worth listening to.

Contempt that Bush's wars are passé, or a figment of the imagination, seems the attitude from the GOP-tea since Bush left office. (Bush's wars were only one disaster GW left in his wake . . .)

What has this, present day, charadé been, other than a smoke screen, or talking head chum for FOXNews?

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Contempt that Bush's wars are passé, or a figment of the imagination, seems the attitude from the GOP-tea since Bush left office. (Bush's wars were only one disaster GW left in his wake . . .)

No, the problem is, harping on Bush, NOW at this point and time is irrelevant. Now, if you do it because you despise the man, I get it, at least to make it seem as if you guys care about the aftermath, because if the left really cared, they would take about all the factions contributing to the war and instability in the Mideast and that includes passing the Blame to Obama and Hillary as well. You guys can't be selective in your outrage, either condemn all the players or say nothing at all.

What has this, present day, charadé been, other than a smoke screen, or talking head chum for FOXNews?

The charade would be that the left should be equally fair with their anger and outrage.

By the way, what is going on with "Bill Clinton" meeting with "Loretta Lynch?" Transparency, eh? They're all pathetic.

-16 ( +1 / -17 )

"House Republicans on Tuesday concluded their $7 million, two-year investigation into the deadly attacks in Benghazi, Libya"

Talking head chum for FOXNews.

The anger or outrage? Neither apply.

The Republicans are doing a two year investigation of an investigation and it cost seven million.

Turned up, nothing.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Ok, that's one family...

There are 3 more.

Who are probably angry either because they believed the lies told to them by the Republicans for the past four years, or who are angry at the Republicans for lying to them for the past four four years.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

The Republicans are doing a two year investigation of an investigation and it cost seven million.

Turned up, nothing.

With the most powerful man in the world at the helm of the same political party, endorsing a candidate that is under FBI investigation, there's your reason right in front of you why nothing turned up. The only thing I fault Gowdy on that him and his committee should have known Obama would never allow Hillary to be indicted under that scrutiny or even allow his name to possibly come up.

Interesting comment as well as deeply insulting to the families. If Democrats and liberals think that the families are either ignorant or too stupid to think for themselves is beyond any comprehension. This is the reason why liberalism is masked behind an umbrella of fascism. Either you think the liberal way or you're stupid, irrelevant and completely incompetent, devoid of all rationale.i feel like this, people see and believe what they want to believe. If the Stevens family want to believe Hillary is not responsible for their sons death, that is their prerogative and I don't think liberals have anything to do with influencing their feelings on the matter, it's how they view the entire situation through their perspective. The same goes for the other 3, they have the right to feel the way they do and they believe that Hillary is responsible for the deaths of their loved ones. If liberals want to make the case that the 3 families were in some naive way influenced by conservatives, so be it, the same applies to the right. I respect both sides of their decisions, but as far my own personal beliefs are concerned....well, most people know where I stand.

-12 ( +2 / -14 )

With the most powerful man in the world at the helm of the same political party, endorsing a candidate that is under FBI investigation, there's your reason right in front of you why nothing turned up.

It was a Republican committee's report. Can anyone say 'bubble'?

4 ( +7 / -3 )

What are those Republicans getting out of this report?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

talaraedokko: "What are those Republicans getting out of this report?"

It distracts themselves from the fact that they are useless, and stirs up anger amongst the extremely stupid voter base they have. What else are they going to do? stand behind Trump?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

It distracts themselves from the fact that they are useless,

Fascism at work and the longing for a one party system, that's exactly what the country needs, less political diversity.

and stirs up anger amongst the extremely stupid voter base they have. What else are they going to do? stand behind Trump?

In other words, it's better to vote for a crooked candidate that's a historic habitual liar than a loudmouth, self-centered entrepreneur-one responsible for creating jobs and the other a woman that has a resume.....if we can find it and it's not shredded of siphoning off a lot of cash to line her pockets and her mysterious foundation.

-15 ( +1 / -16 )

bass4funk: "Fascism at work"

Says the Trump fan.

"that's exactly what the country needs, less political diversity."

The admitted witch-hunt has NOTHING to do with political diversity and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that Republicans have nothing to offer and so need to smear those who do.

"In other words, it's better to vote for a crooked candidate"

Says the Trump fan.

"it's better to vote for a crooked candidate that's a historic habitual liar than a loudmouth, self-centered entrepreneur-one responsible for creating jobs and the other a woman that has a resume.....if we can find it and it's not shredded of siphoning off a lot of cash to line her pockets and her mysterious foundation."

Hey, if you like the man despite saying he would not win the vote earlier, all the power to you! I'm just saying that obviously your own people do NOT like Trump, with McConnel yet again today trying to both mollify, condemn, and hide others from Trump's self-destruction, and cannot stand behind him and so desperately need Bengazhi to diminish Clinton's reputation.

Face it... that's all you've got, and you lost it AGAIN! Not to worry, though, Gowdy and the other criminals that spit on the graves of the dead, despite the families being angry at Congress and not Clinton, have already literally said they will not "move on from Bengazhi". So, you get to waste millions more of the tax payers' time and money for yet another not-guilty verdict, my friend.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

The admitted witch-hunt has NOTHING to do with political diversity and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that Republicans have nothing to offer and so need to smear those who do.

"In other words, it's better to vote for a crooked candidate"

Says the Trump fan.

Hey, if you like the man despite saying he would not win the vote earlier, all the power to you!

The reason I would never vote for Hillary is rather simple. Not because she's a woman or a Democrat (although, the last Dem I voted for was Clinton) it's because of WHO she is and what she stands for and her lack of luster history as a politician makes all the more reason why I would never vote for the woman, even her husband has more charisma than she does.

I'm just saying that obviously your own people do NOT like Trump, with McConnel yet again today trying to both mollify, condemn, and hide others from Trump's self-destruction, and cannot stand behind him and so desperately need Bengazhi to diminish Clinton's reputation.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-14/bloomberg-politics-national-poll-june-2016

And equally as many liberals don't like Hillary, both have high negatives, both are popular with their base supporters. Hillary has problem with men and evangelicals, the military and the vets and Trump with women and minorities. So what's your point?

Face it... that's all you've got, and you lost it AGAIN!

Lose what again? Don't need to, from June until November, a lot can change for either candidate.

Not to worry, though, Gowdy and the other criminals

Like Clinton, go on....

that spit on the graves of the dead, despite the families being angry at Congress and not Clinton,

But 3 of the families are and oh, by the way, if Hillary cares so much for these families, why won't she and Obama meet with them as they promised? After all since Hillary is as you say "innocent" (whatever that means in the UnicornVerse) she should be able to confidently and proudly look these people in the eye and answer any and all of their questions about their loved ones, if they supposedly care so much. But we know what that outcome would look like....

have already literally said they will not "move on from Bengazhi". So, you get to waste millions more of the tax payers' time and money for yet another not-guilty verdict, my friend.

But when liberals mulled Bush's name on a daily basis, that was ok? Even though Holder found NO evidence of any wrongdoing on the Bush admin. Violating any laws. Please, let's put the political double-standards to the side.

-15 ( +1 / -16 )

With the most powerful man in the world at the helm of the same political party, endorsing a candidate that is under FBI investigation, there's your reason right in front of you why nothing turned up.

Nice. I was hoping you'd say something like that. Can't take it back now.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

But when liberals mulled Bush's name on a daily basis

But even Republicans are doing that now on Iraq. Not only are Republicans slamming GWB they are also saying that Hillary was not to blame for Benghazi. The Republicans are helping Clinton win the general election.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

But when liberals mulled Bush's name on a daily basis, that was ok? Even though Holder found NO evidence of any wrongdoing on the Bush admin. Violating any laws.

The difference is, we curse Bush's name based on what he actually did (invading a sovereign country, without being attacked, based on a lie), whereas you curse Hillary's name based on a bunch of stuff that was made up and has been proven not to have happened - by the Republicans I might add.

World of difference. But you still try to equate them.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

Nice. I was hoping you'd say something like that. Can't take it back now.

Likewise and I'm equally glad you admitted what most people thought all along about liberals.

But even Republicans are doing that now on Iraq.

But they're not droning on about it and even through all that, they know ou can't and shouldn't beat a dead horse, enter the Democrats that have a sickening infatuation with constantly regurgitating and holding onto the past.

Not only are Republicans slamming GWB they are also saying that Hillary was not to blame for Benghazi.

They didn't say, she's NOT to blame verbatim, lawyers are careful with their words. They just couldn't find or get any cooperative evidence and people to fully testify and put all the pieces together and why would Obama allow that? Why would Obama let the ONLY Democratic Candidate be prosecuted. By the way, why were BIll and Loretta Lynch spotted together the other day? What do you suppose a former president and the head of the DOJ have to discuss? One can only wonder....

The Republicans are helping Clinton win the general election.

And Hilary's pacifist stance on foreign policy as well as her elusive money scheming records are helping Trump's.

Ok, so Democrats base Bush's actions on so called lies and the GOP based Hilary's screw ups in Syria and Libya as cmeplete lies. I guess, both sides will believe whatever they want.

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

They just couldn't find or get any cooperative evidence

Yes, as you said they are trying to find criminal evidence so she can be arrested. She is directly to blame according to these hating conservatives.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

bass4funk: "Not because she's a woman or a Democrat (although, the last Dem I voted for was Clinton) it's because of WHO she is and what she stands for..."

Says the guy who supports a flat-our racist, liar, misogynist, and plain old bigot.

"But they're not droning on about it and even through all that, they know ou can't and shouldn't beat a dead horse"

Hahaha! You say THIS on the Republicans failing to turn up anything on Benghazi after two years and seven million dollars and THEIR OWN PEOPLE finding no fault time and again?? Classic!

"enter the Democrats that have a sickening infatuation with constantly regurgitating and holding onto the past."

Hahaha... again... too funny!

5 ( +6 / -1 )

In other words, it's better to vote for a crooked candidate that's a historic habitual liar than a loudmouth, self-centered entrepreneur-one responsible for creating jobs...

...and, apparently, breaking the law by soliciting donations from foreign politicians:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/29/trump-campaign-donations-foreign-politicians http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-29/trump-campaign-broke-law-by-soliciting-foreign-donations-complaint-alleges http://fortune.com/2016/06/29/donald-trump-spam/

As for creating jobs? Who was that it that was just bragging about how Obama and Clinton are making money for him? They do seem to have created some jobs, don't they?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Yes, as you said they are trying to find criminal evidence so she can be arrested. She is directly to blame according to these hating conservatives

That's why both sides play this game, the left tried to get Bush and it didn't work as the GOP on the Benghazi. So now it's over, both sides couldn't get what they want Bush is smiling and Hillary is smiling. Next.....

Says the guy who supports a flat-our racist, liar, misogynist, and plain old bigot.

As opposed to supporting a an old lying crook, a person with zero ethics or Conscience? A woman that would sell her entire family down the river to get what she wants. I don't see any difference between her and Sersi Lannister, cut from the same cloth.

"But they're not droning on about it and even through all that, they know ou can't and shouldn't beat a dead horse"

!Hahaha! You say THIS on the Republicans failing to turn up anything on Benghazi after two years and seven million dollars and THEIR OWN PEOPLE finding no fault time and again?? Classic!

Thank Obama for that. Not classic. Actually quite sad, because we have a Tyrant that thinks his reign is best for the country and would do anything or destroy anyone as we've seen with the families of Benghazi in order to stay in power. Fascism at its worst, but we will get this time over with and won't have to worry about this guy anymore.

"enter the Democrats that have a sickening infatuation with constantly regurgitating and holding onto the past." But conservatives do that as well, just not to the extent liberals will go. The GOP are not as savvy or can lie their way out of shoebox unlike the crafty and calculating and methodical Democrats.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

the left tried to get Bush and it didn't work Get Bush for what? And do what?

If Hillary gets elected we can thank the Republicans. And we can thank them more after their email investigation.

Can't wait.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Thank Obama for that. Not classic. Actually quite sad, because we have a Tyrant that thinks his reign is best for the country and would do anything or destroy anyone as we've seen with the families of Benghazi in order to stay in power. Fascism at its worst, but we will get this time over with and won't have to worry about this guy anymore.

Absolute rubbish.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

bass4funk: "I don't see any difference between her and Sersi Lannister, cut from the same cloth."

Not surprised, given the fantasy you are pushing on here. Meanwhile Gowdy and the Bengazhi "can't let go of history" crew are still trying to stick the horn and the horse to sell you the unicorn.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

The email investigation concerns me. Not that she will be indicted, I actually wouldn't mind Bernie stepping up. I'm more concerned about what happens if they don't indict her. Conservatives know the Benghazi investigation was a political witch hunt and look at their reaction to the GOP's latest report. The response has been a complete loss of control.

What will happen when she walks away from the email scandal? Republicans have invested too much time and energy, even pinning all of their White House hopes, on this derailing Clinton. If they freak out this much over an investigation they know is bogus, how will they be able to handle the FBI passing on the emails? It's not going to be pretty.

They really have no other choice than to vilify Hillary to the same extent as Obama. Republicans essentially shut down some parts of the US government as a response to his winning the election. I always thought it was silly that the GOP would have us believe that they would just flip the switch back on and start governing again once Obama left, so I figured they'd need some excuse to keep things broken. Enter Hillary. They will smear her more than any candidate in history, and if and when they lose they will use that to justify continuing their policy of non-governance. We might as well kiss the judicial branch goodbye.

So things are basically going to be broken in government until the GOP starts to make an effort to expand their base. It might take years, and that really sucks.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

You make a good point. The only thing worse than that would be if Trump actually won. It would take even longer to fix the country.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Now the conservatives are throwing Gowdy under the bus and preparing the EIGHTH panel on the issue because their crazy conspiracy theories (they are now suggesting the panel and some GOP are in on Hilary winning the presidency and so that's why "all the smoking guns" were not brought up in the findings!). Hahaha. Classic. Time to waste a few more million, people, and a whole lot more time on loony-bin theories and trips to fantasy land (not that bass4funk thinks this is Game of Thrones) -- it's an election year, after all, and the GOP certainly can't get behind their decided candidate.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has 81% chance of defeating Trump, Nate Silver predicts....

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/29/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-nate-silver-poll-prediction

5 ( +5 / -0 )

bass4funk (and dmacleod): "Hey, if the shoe fits....."

Actually, the shoe does fit -- you are absolute rubbish and fantasy, as proven by your comparison to Sersi Lannister.

"From the man with a lot of hits and misses and this from a guy that said this...."

Says the Trump fan. Did you know that, thanks to Trump, the KKK is making it's biggest comeback since its founding? These are your fellow supporters, my friend, of the man you claim is not racist. It's absolutely hilarious watching you guys panic over the fact that, yet again, the Benghazi panels have failed and you're struggling to spin the broken record again.

"Ouch! Well, so much for that...."

Yep, your own people are predicting that Hilary will win, bass... and many are even going to vote Hilary and Dem instead of your buddy Trump. Yeah, back to listening to Glenn Beck for you.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

...and, apparently, breaking the law by soliciting donations from foreign politicians.

To be fair, Clinton funneled donations from foreign governments thought the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State. No one batted an eye at this clear conflict of interest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

http://www.inquisitr.com/1886483/hillary-clinton-foundation-took-foreign-government-cash-while-she-was-secretary-of-state/

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

You're right, I'm not running for office and I'm not good at lying. Hillary is master at it...or crooked whichever way you want to interpret it.

...and, apparently, breaking the law by soliciting donations from foreign politicians:

The Washington Post reported last week that the tax-exempt foundation run by Bill and Hillary Clinton accepted money from seven foreign governments while Hillary served as U.S. Secretary of State (it’s unclear how much foreign money the organization accepted while Hillary was a U.S. Senator). Super shady, right? It’s worse than that, though, because Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution actually bans foreign payola for U.S. officials.

The constitutional ban on foreign cash payments to U.S. officials is known as the Emoluments Clause and originated from Article VI of the Articles of Confederation. The purpose of the clause was to prevent foreign governments from buying influence in the U.S. by paying off U.S. government officials. Here’s the text of the clause:

My favorite part....

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Various statutes and rules have been promulgated to effect the constitutional ban on foreign cash. The U.S. House of Representatives bans cash payments from foreign governments. The U.S. Senate, of which Hillary was a member from 2001 to 2009, bans cash payments from foreign governments. And the U.S. State Department bans cash payments from foreign governments. Let’s take a look at the specific language from the State Dept.:

Executive branch employees are subject to restrictions on the gifts that they may accept from sources outside the Government. Unless an exception applies, executive branch employees may not accept gifts that are given because of their official positions or that come from certain interested sources (“prohibited sources”).

A prohibited source is a person (or an organization made up of such persons) who: is seeking official action by, is doing business or seeking to do business with, or is regulated by the employee’s agency, or has interests that may be substantially affected by performance or nonperformance of the employee’s official duties.

As for creating jobs? Who was that it that was just bragging about how Obama and Clinton are making money for him? They do seem to have created some jobs, don't they?

So, even if Trump broke the law, (not justifying it) Trump is a businessman and Hillary is a public servant, monumental difference. Also what are her qualifications and what jobs has she created for blue collar workers? How many people were on her payroll account? As a senator, how much did she do for NY in fixing it's decaying and crumbling infrastructure? I'll let you guys marinade on that for awhile.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

Hey moderators, aren't we getting off the topic here? I thought this thread was about the failed Republican witch hunt. Now it seems we are debating Hillary Clinton's character and eligibility for becoming president.

Classic Bass - deflect and change the topic.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Yes. All readers back on topic please. Posts that do not focus on the story will be removed.

Perhaps a U.S. liberal echo chamber dweller (non-voting foreigners need not respond) can explain to this registered independent voter why Mr. Trump’s name came up in the 339-page report written by the democrats on the House Select Committee on Benghazi not once, not twice, but 23 times. . .

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

Perhaps a U.S. liberal echo chamber dweller (non-voting foreigners need not respond)...

Well, you just know what's going to happen when you make a comment like that.

...can explain to this registered independent voter why Mr. Trump’s name came up in the 339-page report written by the democrats on the House Select Committee on Benghazi not once, not twice, but 23 times. . .

Why, are you incapable of reading the thing and working it out for yourself?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Even Huma Abedin, Clinton's most trusted ally was worried about communication challenges (mails going to spam folders etc) and has admitted in testimony that Clinton "couldn't do her job right" with a private server. Which is at least worth a mention since Amb Stevens sent hundreds of messages asking for help but never got a reply....

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

was this the seventh eighth or ninth "investigation"? Repubs are the toxic waste of government and everyday show their irrelevance.

Delicious

5 ( +7 / -2 )

7 million tax payer dollars wasted by Republicans for purely political purposes.. while insulting the memory of those fell in Benghazi... contemptible.

Registered Republicans should be required to reimburse the tax payer for this.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

gcbelJUL. 01, 2016 - 05:45AM JST

7 million tax payer dollars wasted by Republicans for purely political purposes.. while insulting the memory of those fell in Benghazi... contemptible.

No, it really is in the national interest to hobble the career of any politician who might be in with a fair chance of delivering the White House to the Democrats when they can hardly get behind their own candidate. Honest. And I'm sure they will think nothing of spending ten times that amount of taxpayers' money to ensure election results in the best interests of the Rep-... the... um, Republic. Americans should be proud to be paying through the nose for such a noble cause.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Final Benghazi report: No 'smoking gun' pointing to Clinton

Just four smoking bodies and several angry relatives of the deceases who say Clinton lied to them.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Just four smoking bodies and several angry relatives of the deceases who say Clinton lied to them.

A lot of angry relatives of deceased US and UK service personnel probably say Bush and Blair lied. Your point?

Incidentally, how do Hillaryphobes feel about the FBI not pressing charges over the emails?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Just four smoking bodies and several angry relatives of the deceases who say Clinton lied to them.

Yeah, it's sad that the Republicans lied to them for so long, that they came to believe this.

Though the Ambassador's family says that Clinton shouldn't be blamed.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites