Friday, October 23, 2015

poor Trey

The Benghazi chairman was stumped on a simple question about Hillary Clinton's marathon testimo

  • Maxwell Tani

  • trey gowdy benghazi committeeREUTERS/Jonathan Ernst                 William's boy

  • After questioning Hillary Clinton for 11 hours in Congress, the head of the House Select Committee investigating the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya didn't have a concrete answer about whether he'd learned anything new.

    On Thursday, Clinton sat with lawmakers on Capitol Hill for a daylong hearing about the attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.
    Over the course of the day, lawmakers grilled Clinton about everything from her use of a private server while serving as secretary of state, to the rationale behind her support of an international military incursion into Libya in the first place.
    But when asked by a reporter after the hearing about what new information the committee had gleaned from the hearing, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina) didn't have an answer.

  • "In terms of her testimony, I don't know if she testified that differently today than she's previously testified," Gowdy said.
    The congressman then said that he'd follow up by looking at the day's transcripts.


    1. And I thought this guy was a great lawyer. Any investigator worth a salt would know EXACTLY what Hillary Clinton has testified to in the past. That's how you get the "gotchas". Purely "B" team here.

    2. The hearings confirmed that Hillary Clinton deliberately and knowingly lied when she blamed it all on that video. It really isn’t a debatable point. We can argue about why she lied and we can debate whether that lie matters. But that she lied is incontrovertible.

      First of all, we know that the video story wasn’t, in fact, true.
      Second, we know that the Obama administration knew it wasn’t true.
      Third we know that Hillary knew it wasn’t true.
      Fourth, much of the mainstream media simply does not care.

      You have to ask yourself honestly if that's possible,
      If George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice had instantly blamed a terrorist attack on a video and then it was revealed they deliberately lied about it to win reelection, newsrooms across this country would be aflame in outrage. What is the response when the same fact pattern applies to the Obama and Clinton? “Meh.”

      We all know lies don't matter, integrity doesn't matter, what matters is that Hillary become president and cement in history forever, lies don't matter and people could care less when a politician lies to them.

      1. Bush and people in his administration lied about far bigger things, and the media largely gave him a pass. It cuts both ways Lou. The media is giving the people what they want, and what a majority want is not objective, unbiased reporting.

      2. So because a former president lied, or many former presidents lied, we should hire another proven liar.

      3. No William, that is not remotely what I am saying. What I want is honest discussion. This perpetual fixation about the initial claim that this was because of some stupid fucking video accomplishes nothing. I guess, some hyper purists believe that if they bitch about this enough, they will convince everyone that Hillary is a lying piece of shit. But it's kinda like wearing a toupe, it's not fooling anyone about what the real goal is. It's not remotely about honoring the dead Americans, it's not about having an investigation to fix a problem, and it's not intended to have a discussion about whether we should be putting outposts in such hostile territory. You stomp around with all this righteous indignation, and then get pissed when no one takes you seriously. This scam hearing is not about restoring honor or confidence to anything.

      4. Did Bush lie about Iraq? Or did Bush present the information given by the CIA?

        Of course Bush lied and we all know Clinton was a master at the lie.

        Do we hire another liar for president knowing they are a liar walking in the door or hold out for a possible honest person with integrity? Or is that a thing of the past and now Americans have low expectations from our leader?

        Is Hillary's server a scam? Did she possibly pass sensitive information in her emails? Did she lie about her server? Did she lie during her time testifying? Seems she did lie and that is perjury like Bill did.

        I guess we face a new world where a liar is no big deal regardless of the consequences. Once a president as forced from office for the lies told and no one was killed.

      5. "I guess we face a new world where a liar is no big deal regardless of the consequences. Once a president as forced from office for the lies told and no one was killed. "

        When I read this Lou, I think I understand clearly where you are going with it, but it nonetheless feels a little disingenuous. What I hear you saying is that you want to see honor and integrity, what you are using for an example, however, is an expression of frustration that the American people are not erupting with outrage toward Clinton as a result of an investigation that is again asking questions that have already been answered lead by a man who has also acknowledged that this most recent romp through the emails will probably not reveal anything new.

        If you think Clinton is a lying scumbag, it seems more virtuous to just say so than use this hearing as an example of something that represents a quest to restore integrity. In Nixon's case, he was a much different person and it was a different time when there was still some respect for the government. This is my opinion, but I believe Nixon left because he wanted the country to be spared the process of impeachment. The Clinton's are hardly examples of unquestionable integrity, but sadly, neither are the people who have pursued them like Ahab's white whale.

        I don't believe that questioning this endless series of hearings is somehow an embrace of lying, especially in light of what people like McCarthy said. I'm not real happy at the prospect of a Clinton administration either but if this is the length that has to be gone to in order to make her so despised by everyone that they don't vote for her, I hardly think the country is being done any big favor.

    3. Now back to the incompetence of Trey Gowdy. This guy was presented and billed by himself and others as THE ONE who could get to the bottom of this. His incompetence shows through time after time. Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's long time aide, confidant and best friend is grilled for 6 hours and Trey Gowdy is not there. As chairman I would find that hearing too important to miss for anything but my own death. Hillary Clinton grilled by the committee for 11 hours and the chairman doesn't know what her previous testimony has bee through the other gazillion hearings on this matter. So Louman , William my question is this how can you be so god damn sure that Hilary is lying. Even your little fucking hero Trey Gowdy doesn't know that for a fact because he is incompetent and didn't care enough about the truth to do his homework. Just because Hillary doesn't jump up and say

      :"yes Chris Stevens asked for security and I said no. I wanted him dead. I knew Al Qaeda was go to off him days before it happened. I am glad he's dead. I just wish they would have killed more Americans."

      That's what you want but what you got was the truth.
      “I would imagine I’ve thought more about what happened than all of you put together. I’ve lost more sleep than all of you put together.”

      Just because Brietbart calls it a lie doesn't make it so. You see Louman I find Brietbart the rightist equivalent of the inquisitor. They collect news then swing it left our right depending on their readership. Neither one is real reporting.

    4. Gowdy admits that he doesn't know where future email may lead. But they will keep comimg, and coming, and comimg, and coming,,,

      She's already been proven a liar. But that's OK, the left loves sleeping in the mud with pigs.

      1. The point you miss William is the American people have come to expect so little from those that lead us. It's not just the left, it's the entire country.

        We no longer expect our leaders to be honest with the American people. We no longer expect integrity from our leaders. We no longer expect our leaders to unite the country and represent the entire country.

        The days when America was outraged by the wrongdoings of a politician so much as to show them the door as was Richard Nixon no longer exist in America today.

        We have become a highly partisan nation of pathetic people with our hands out screaming for the government to take more from some and give it to others.

        Not 1 of the people running for our broken presidency has said the words reunite the nation. Not one of the politicians running for office will represent all Americans and we will once again have a president of a political party instead of a president of the United States.

      2. And as a side note William Americans no longer want the truth. Rick's post is proof positive as to the limited ability of Americans to want the answer to why. They believe their party instead of digging for the real truth behind the actions of our leaders. Americans are now willing to believe the lies or ignore the lies and call them irrelevant or discount them saying they did it so can we. At once we have a media that provided that desire for the truth. Woodward Bernstein provided that drive for the truth during the Nixon era. There is no media today to provide that drive for the truth.

        If a politician lies it doesn't matter, America doesn't care.

      3. Exactly why I have predicted a split. Some people still do care to educate themselves and their children.