Forum Thread

The Inquisition of Hillary Rodham Clinton

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 55 1 2 3 4 Next
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The above title is borrowed from a New York Times article calling for the end to the Benghazi committee.

    Media Matters, October 7, 2015: New York Times Editorial Board Calls On Republicans To "Shut Down The Benghazi Committee"

    "On October 7, in the aftermath of McCarthy's acknowledgement, The New York Times editorial board called for an end to the Benghazi committee. Deeming it a "charade" that "has accomplished nothing," the board wrote that the "laughable crusade" should be shut down or at the very least renamed "the Inquisition of Hillary Rodham Clinton." The board went on to claim that the committee and its efforts have lost "any semblance of credibility" and has "become an insult to the memory of four slain Americans""

    The NYT references the Kevin McCarthy "gaffe" where he unwittingly admitted that the Benghazi hearings had less to do about finding what went wrong and more about political gamesmanship to take Clinton down.

    We have discussed Clinton and Benghazi in other posts, but I'll start a clean one since she is once again going to testify before this charade of a committee on November 22nd. Republicans cannot let the Benghazi committees die or the Clinton e-mail server dialogue. It will go on and on until Clinton either loses in the primaries or loses after the election. If she wins the presidential election they will carry forward with the charade another four years unless Democrats retake the House.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Schmidt, I guess they learned that method from the news media here, they drag on the same forever as well; milk it to death.

    Like I said many times the Benghazi issue would have happened with or without Clinton anyway; because this country is hated all over the middle east.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The topic is Hillary Clinton and Benghazi, but you are correct to point out that America's favorability ratings in Middle East countries is rather poor, much of it as a result of our absolute uncompromising support for Israel. Hence we are viewed very unfavorable by the Palestinian Territories, Lebanon, and Jordan. But we don't do too bad in the rest of the world, except for Russia and China, both of which exercise absolute control over their media and hence how people think.

    Pew Research Center, America’s Global Image

    I guess we can't all be revered like some European countries.

  • Democrat
    Missouri
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    As my earlier thread on "Swift-Boating Hillary", I doubt that the Republican agenda will allow letting Hillary go on Benghazi. However, I am thrilled at the concept of having a committee to investigate the Benghazi Committee and their "real" intentions. It's so much a waste of our taxes. Voters can stop much of what is going on by making their vote count to throw the bums out of Congress. Let's get back to the real troubling issues for America. Hillary's email thingy is just what it is a thingy of who cares. Email is so easy for any politician to get caught in transporting something he/her should not have. What is most at issue with the Hilary email is the State Department problems and the authorities entrusted to protect our politicians from doing stupid thingy's. The latest poll indicates Hillary is the least trusted of candidates. Who trusts anybody in politics?

    I'm voting Hillary............no matter what Boehner, Carly, Trump, Sanders, Ryan, Cheney, Bush (and all Bush's), Rand, Palin, or any Fox media says against her. I like Hillary...........period.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    If Joe Biden enters the race, I will support him. Otherwise Hillary is my intellectual choice. She is a politician, and as much as politicians are now despised in Washington, she would be more effective in governing and cutting deals than Bernie Sanders. Having said that, if the same people that have worked to sabotage Obama's presidency are still in power in Congress, then it doesn't matter who we elect. Filibustering will be taken to new levels.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: We have discussed Clinton and Benghazi in other posts, but I'll start a clean one since she is once again going to testify before this charade of a committee on November 22nd. Republicans cannot let the Benghazi committees die or the Clinton e-mail server dialogue. It will go on and on until Clinton either loses in the primaries or loses after the election. If she wins the presidential election they will carry forward with the charade another four years unless Democrats retake the House.

    I agree that they can't let this die. They have already succeeded in one thing--making a certain segment of the American population think that Secretary Clinton did something wrong or illegal. They don't know what she did wrong or illegal, especially with regards to Benghazi, but that doesn't really matter. It's the thought that counts and in that regard--the Republicans have won.

    My hope of all hopes is that moderate Americans begin to wise up and realize that this whole thing Benghazi committee is a charade. McCarthy's gaffe will hopefully shine a light on the fact that Republicans don't care about finding the truth of what happened in Benghazi, but instead are conducting a political witch hunt to damage Secretary Clinton and President Obama. If they wanted to actually get to the truth then they would conduct regular, public, hearings.

    Instead of doing that they are conducting the vast majority of their hearings in private and selectively leaking information to Fox News and other conservative media outlets. It's time for Americans to wake up and realize they have been bamboozled by the Republicans.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over” -- Joseph Goebbels

    This is what the Republicans keep practicing...repeating lies over and over and over again. They use their Fox News propaganda outlet to keep the lie alive.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Media Matters: New York Times' Paul Krugman Calls Out The Media For Failing To Acknowledge The "Political Fakery" Of The Benghazi Investigation

    The New York Times' Paul Krugman called out the media's fraudulent coverage of the Benghazi committee and Hillary Clinton's email use, for treating the non-scandals as "real debates about national security or economics even when it's both obvious and easy to show that nothing of the kind is actually taking place."

    Sometimes I have the impression that many people in the media consider it uncouth to acknowledge, even to themselves, the fraudulence of much political posturing. The done thing, it seems, is to pretend that we're having real debates about national security or economics even when it's both obvious and easy to show that nothing of the kind is actually taking place.

    But turning our eyes away from political fakery, pretending that we're having a serious discussion when we aren't, is itself a kind of fraudulence. Mr. McCarthy inadvertently did the nation a big favor with his ill-advised honesty, but telling the public what's really going on shouldn't depend on politicians with loose lips.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For many of us who write in this website, this "fraudulence" has been obvious for some time as media outlets competing for ratings not only sensationalize the news, but also engage in a highly unbalanced coverage. Donald Trump makes headlines with the same stump speech covered over and over and over again, both on Fox News and the "new MSNBC ". Chuck Todd's "serious discussion" of the Clinton e-mail scandal is a joke. It is getting old. Come on Chuck, you keep repeating your same ole talking points over and over and over again. Clinton on the other hand has made some major policy speeches that warrant more than a 5 second sound bite, while Donald Trump's repetitive stump speech is covered in it's entirety, in the hope that he inserts a new zinger that can be sensationalized.

    Krugman is right.

  • Democrat
    Missouri
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Denying the message that was broadcasted to the public is fashionable in politics. Trump, Carson, Christie and even world leaders like Putin. In order to deny a verbalism you earlier spoke to the public, you must first say, "the people took what I said out of context", or "here's the reason why I said this" (by back stepping and legitimizing the statement), or "the media is against me" (as in Carson calling reporters as used car salesman). There are a variety of examples of how these presidential candidates are trying to attract voters at the same time they spout off incredible gaffes. With some of the gaffes, the public becomes fortunate to hear the "real" story because the speaker informs us, which if he had wisely known what he was going to say, he would not have said it. Public speaking is an art and a precious skill. It's sad that many politicians have not been able to be good speakers. Trump just mouths off anything without "thinking", McCarthy did not think first before speaking, and Carson speaks from his mind and could careless about how others think about him. I don't believe Carson is truthful to humanity, because he lets the public know who he is as a bigoted, racist, uneducated person not suitable for being a president. My suggestion to Carson is go do what you are best at, which is a surgeon and leave politics to those who "KNOW".

    This morning I read where Putin is in deny form of the incursion acts in Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq. Putin just will not talk of the matter other than say, Russia did not do that." That is the fashionable way to deny the horrific act and not do the unthinkable thing like Obama did and "apologize". What's wrong with indicating you made a mistake? What is wrong is denying the overwhelming evidence against you. I can see fighting for the truth to come out and turn back the public sentiment and judicial acts against you, just like Tom Brady and the NFL, or Hillary with Benghazi and emails. I do not believe either Brady or Hilary has ever apologized, but neither has their attackers, which continue to pursue their evil agendas.

    What a lesson to our youth we adults are showing as if you do something wrong, just deny it and it will go away. Whatever happened to being responsible for your actions? This is an example of how humanity has not improved. Maybe these people with public sentiment against them are guilty of their bad acts, but there is a tremendous amount of evidence that their attackers have secret agendas to dethrone their position. The media are the winners, because the storylines sell either way and who cares whos right, just so that it sells newsworthy pieces to the public

    .

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    AMC -- Just to be clear, Hillary Clinton has nothing to apologize for on Benghazi. As per this article:

    CNN: What Benghazi probe is really about

    "The Benghazi Committee has now passed the Watergate Committee as the lengthiest investigation in congressional history. As Ari Ravin-Hapt noted in The Observer, the committee has a Republican staff of 18 people, who are paid an average of $128,000 apiece. Apart from harassing Hillary Clinton's friend (and mine) Sidney Blumenthal, the committee has no substantive accomplishments. And for good reason: It's not on the level.

    "Benghazi has already been investigated by a blue-ribbon independent review board led by career diplomat Thomas Pickering and retired four-star Adm. Mike Mullen. It's been investigated by the House Intelligence Committee , which produced a bipartisan report that thoroughly debunks numerous conspiracy theories;the Senate Intelligence Committee; the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; the House Armed Services Committee; the House Foreign Affairs Committee; the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."

    That's eight investigations every one of which has vindicated Hillary Clinton. That's not common knowledge in the beltway media. Republicans keep pushing the story as it has been successful in bringing down her ratings. The media carries the same debunked talking points because it's good for their ratings.

    Regarding the e-mail server probe, that too has not uncovered anything. She has admitted it was a mistake to keep a separate private server, but beyond that the security of the USA has not been compromised by any hacking. And yes she has apologized on September 9, 2015, not that it makes any difference to the anti-Hillary folks.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    AMC -- Just to be clear, Hillary Clinton has nothing to apologize for on Benghazi. As per this article:

    CNN: What Benghazi probe is really about

    "The Benghazi Committee has now passed the Watergate Committee as the lengthiest investigation in congressional history. As Ari Ravin-Hapt noted in The Observer, the committee has a Republican staff of 18 people, who are paid an average of $128,000 apiece. Apart from harassing Hillary Clinton's friend (and mine) Sidney Blumenthal, the committee has no substantive accomplishments. And for good reason: It's not on the level.

    "Benghazi has already been investigated by a blue-ribbon independent review board led by career diplomat Thomas Pickering and retired four-star Adm. Mike Mullen. It's been investigated by the House Intelligence Committee , which produced a bipartisan report that thoroughly debunks numerous conspiracy theories;the Senate Intelligence Committee; the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; the House Armed Services Committee; the House Foreign Affairs Committee; the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."

    That's eight investigations every one of which has vindicated Hillary Clinton. That's not common knowledge in the beltway media. Republicans keep pushing the story as it has been successful in bringing down her ratings. The media carries the same debunked talking points because it's good for their ratings.

    Regarding the e-mail server probe, that too has not uncovered anything. She has admitted it was a mistake to keep a separate private server, but beyond that the security of the USA has not been compromised by any hacking. And yes she has apologized on September 9, 2015, not that it makes any difference to the anti-Hillary folks.

    Schmidt, sure it is pure nonsense. The only remark I have is indeed on how our Government keeps on wasting money. just to name a few things:

    1) this case

    2) Training rebels for 500 million and only one left who also disappeared; now that the Russian came in, they stopped the program.

    3) All the money given to Maliki and others wasted ( billions)

    4) Bombing hospitals and continuing a war which Obama promised which should have been stopped on the end of 2014

    5) Bombing Iraq and Syria at "x" millions per day

    6) Having endless meetings on "Banned parenthood" or "XL pipelines"

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch -- The topic is the inquisition of Hillary Clinton by Republicans who want to take her popularity down a few notches. The issues you listed are worthy of discussion, but I don't see how they relate to Hillary Clinton and the Benghazi hearings.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: Dutch -- The topic is the inquisition of Hillary Clinton by Republicans who want to take her popularity down a few notches. The issues you listed are worthy of discussion, but I don't see how they relate to Hillary Clinton and the Benghazi hearings.
    There should be a law passed that grants immunity to people acting in emergency situations. Like the Good Samaritan law. We pick these people to do a job and then it seems we want a right to second guess our choice.
  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Well, I would vote for Bernie first, Hillary second and Biden dead last. Biden is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the big banks. He puts on a good show but he would make a terrible president. Of course, he would be better than any Republican running but that's not saying much.

    Hillary has all the requirements for president other than the fact she is owned by Wall St. and Bernie has the best ideas and the vision of where we have to go in the future but I doubt if he has much of a chance at the convention.

    Let's not forget, it's the convention delegates from each party who actually choose the candidates, NOT the voters. The whole primary election is nothing but a relatively meaningless sham, IMHO. Hillary will be the Democratic candidate and most likely, JEB, the dumbest Bush yet, the Republican choice I believe.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: Dutch -- The topic is the inquisition of Hillary Clinton by Republicans who want to take her popularity down a few notches. The issues you listed are worthy of discussion, but I don't see how they relate to Hillary Clinton and the Benghazi hearings.
    Schmidt, so you don't think these hearings are not wasted money? you must be kidding