Page 2 of 14 First 123456 ... Last
  1. #12
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,382
    Thanks
    2,805
    Thanked 5,613 Times in 3,690 Posts
    Trey Gowdy - 2 hrs

    UPDATE: This week, the Select Committee met in closed session to discuss the facts surrounding the attacks on our Mission Facility and Annex in Benghazi. The Department of State provided new information to the committee and answered questions raised by committee members. The committee is continuing its probe into all aspects of Benghazi and is currently focused on ensuring access to all first-hand accounts from those on the ground that night. This process will be ongoing and in some respects must remain classified. MORE: http://benghazi.house.gov/news/press...losed-meetings

    Select Committee on Benghazi Holds Closed Meetings






    January 14, 2015
    | Press Release





    Washington, DC – The Select Committee on Benghazi held a closed-door, classified briefing this week with the Department of State about the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks that left the U.S. ambassador to Libya, a State Department communications officer and two U.S. security agents dead.

    “The Select Committee met in closed session to discuss the facts surrounding the attacks on our Mission Facility and Annex in Benghazi," said Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. “The Department of State provided new information to the committee and answered questions raised by committee members.”

    Gowdy added, “The committee is continuing its probe into all aspects of Benghazi and is currently focused on ensuring access to all first-hand accounts from those on the ground that night. This process will be ongoing and in some respects must remain classified.”

    Gowdy also said the committee held a closed-door meeting with the Department of Justice regarding document production and potential witnesses related to the committee’s ongoing probe. He went on to say while the bulk of the committee’s work will have to be done in classified settings or through investigative techniques that do not lend themselves to public hearings, he still plans to hold more public hearings.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement The Benghazi Hearings
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #13
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,382
    Thanks
    2,805
    Thanked 5,613 Times in 3,690 Posts
    Partisan attacks erupt during Benghazi hearing
    Mary Troyan, USA Today 6:18 p.m. EST January 27, 2015

    WASHINGTON – A simmering partisan dispute over a special House committee's investigation into the 2012 attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi burst into public view Tuesday.

    Democrats complained during a hearing of the House Select Committee on Benghazi that Republicans have secretly interviewed witnesses and dismissed certain evidence.

    "We spent months trying to resolve these problems privately, but we can no longer remain silent," said Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the panel's top Democrat.

    The committee's chairman, Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, called Tuesday's hearing to pressure the State Department and the CIA to move faster in producing documents and witnesses.

    On Monday night, Democrats released letters dating to November outlining their complaints. They say five witnesses have been interviewed solely by Republican members and staff without notification to Democrats.

    The committee was created by the House in May 2014 to investigate the September 2012 attacks that killed four Americans working in Benghazi, Libya, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

    Tuesday's rancor disrupted what had been a publicly cordial start to the special committee's investigation. Gowdy and Cummings had pledged for months to keep the panel's work civil and bipartisan.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...pute/22406919/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  4. #14
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,382
    Thanks
    2,805
    Thanked 5,613 Times in 3,690 Posts
    Trey Gowdy threatens to subpoena State Dept. officials over Benghazi
    Democrats Are Asking Trey Gowdy Not to Follow Through on This Benghazi Threat

    Jan. 28, 2015 5:10pm Pete Kasperowicz


    Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on Wednesday threatened to issue subpoenas to compel State Department officials to testify before his Select Committee on Benghazi.

    Gowdy made that threat in a statement that said he would continue to run his committee according to rules already agreed to by the House, after he offered to work with Democrats to improve those rules. Among other things, Democrats this week argued it’s unfair that only Republicans can issue subpoenas.

    Gowdy responded by saying Democrats don’t seem interested in the investigation at all, have prejudged it to the extent they do care, and have shown no interest in forcing anyone to testify. But he said he won’t be as bashful about subpoenas if they’re needed.

    “I am unwilling to let the minority party veto subpoenas when it is clear they have prejudged the outcome of the investigation,” said Gowdy. “The minority has repeatedly indicated it is unwilling to issue any subpoenas. If subpoenas are necessary for the committee to talk to relevant witnesses or access relevant documents, they will be issued.”

    Republicans met with the State Department Wednesday, and said after the meeting that State has agreed to give the committee access to the officials it’s seeking. A spokesman for the committee said as a result of that meeting, no subpoenas have been issued so far.

    Nonetheless, Democrats responded by asking Gowdy to convene a special meeting to vote on whether any subpoenas should go out the door. In a letter, they said Gowdy had informed Democrats that he would soon issue the subpoenas, and warned that doing so without any input from Democrats would create a partisan investigation.

    Democrats also noted that the State Department sent a letter early Wednesday morning saying they are willing to meet at any time to schedule testimony.

    “We request that you do not issue these subpoenas, but instead work with the State Department on scheduling the interviews,” the Democrats wrote. “If you choose to reject our request, we seek a full Committee vote on each and every one of these subpoenas.”

    Staffers for Gowdy accused Democrats of jumping the gun, and accusing him of issuing subpoenas before any had been issued at all. “Today, Democrats’ attempt to politicize a Select Committee meeting with the State Department misfired,” a spokesman said.

    Gowdy spent much of Tuesday defending his efforts to get State Department officials to testify, and arguing that his committee is operating just as other committees have operated.

    In a hearing, Gowdy pressed State’s top liaison to Congress to quickly make officials available to testify, and said State is the only department that has held up the process. In particular, the official hinted that testimony could be withheld if it’s seen as conflicting with an ongoing investigation.

    “We’re going to pick up the pace,” Gowdy told State’s Joel Rubin. “I have no interest in prolonging this, none. So you’re going to have to pick up the pace with us, OK?” http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015...m-dem-attacks/

    Read the Democratic letter to Gowdy here:





    http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2015/01...i/#more-922038
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  5. #15
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,382
    Thanks
    2,805
    Thanked 5,613 Times in 3,690 Posts
    Bombshell Tapes Confirm Citizen Commission’s Findings On Benghazi

    Many questions about Libya and Benghazi surround Clinton as 2016 campaign speculation swirls.

    Roger Aronoff — January 30, 2015


    As Hillary Clinton further delays the announcement of her 2016 run for the White House, more news has broken regarding her role in the 2011 disastrous intervention in Libya, which set the stage for the 2012 Benghazi attacks where we lost four brave American lives.

    Two new stories from The Washington Times expose some of the infighting among government agencies and branches of government on this controversial decision, and highlight the key role that Clinton played in initiating the war. You can listen to tapes of discussions between Pentagon staffers, former Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), and the Qaddafi regime for yourself.

    This news also validates the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) 2014 interim report, which exposed that Muammar Qaddafi had offered truce talks and a possible peaceful abdication to the United States, which Washington turned down.


    “[The article] also makes it clear that the Benghazi investigation needs to be broadened to answer the question: ‘Why did America bomb Libya in the first place?’” commented Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic (Ret.), a key source for the CCB’s interim report who was also quoted by the Times.

    “Despite the willingness of both AFRICOM Commander Gen. Carter Ham and Muammar Qaddafi to pursue the possibility of truce talks, permission was not given to Gen. Ham from his chain of command in the Pentagon and the window of opportunity closed,” reads Kubic’s statement for our report from last year. You can watch here, from a CCB press conference last April, as Admiral Kubic described his personal involvement in the effort to open negotiations between Qaddafi and the U.S. government.

    Now we learn that the likely source of the stonewalling came from the State Department—and Secretary Clinton—herself. “On the day the U.N. resolution was passed, Mrs. Clinton ordered a general within the Pentagon to refuse to take a call with Gadhafi’s son Seif and other high-level members within the regime, to help negotiate a resolution, the secret recordings reveal,” reported the Times on January 29.

    Former Defense Secretary Bob Gates indicated in his book, Duty, that he was opposed to the war for national security reasons. He highlighted a division among White House advisors—with Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, and Samantha Power “urging aggressive U.S. action to prevent an anticipated massacre of the rebels as Qaddafi fought to remain in power.” Add to that list the former Secretary of State.


    “But that night, with Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces turning back the rebellion that threatened his rule, Mrs. Clinton changed course, forming an unlikely alliance with a handful of top administration aides who had been arguing for intervention,” reported The New York Times on March 18, 2011, the day after UN Resolution 1973 authorizing a “no fly” zone in Libya was voted on and passed.

    “Within hours, Mrs. Clinton and the aides had convinced Mr. Obama that the United States had to act, and the president ordered up military plans, which Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, hand-delivered to the White House the next day.”

    The Washington Times now reports that “In the recovered recordings, a U.S. intelligence liaison working for the Pentagon told a Gadhafi aide that Mr. Obama privately informed members of Congress that Libya ‘is all Secretary Clinton’s matter’ and that the nation’s highest-ranking generals were concerned that the president was being misinformed” about a humanitarian crisis that didn’t exist. However, one must wonder just how much President Obama implicitly supported Clinton in her blind push to intervene in what was once a comparatively stable country, and an ally in the war against al Qaeda. While this new report is certainly damning of Mrs. Clinton’s actions, and appears to place the blame for the unnecessary chaos in Libya—which ultimately led to Benghazi—on her shoulders, President Obama shares the blame as the ultimate Decider-in-Chief.

    “Furthermore, defense officials had direct information from their intelligence asset in contact with the regime that Gadhafi gave specific orders not to attack civilians and to narrowly focus the war on the armed rebels, according to the asset, who survived the war,” reports The Washington Times in its second of three articles. Saving those in Benghazi from a looming massacre by Qaddafi seems to have been a convenient excuse made by the administration for political expediency. Could it be, instead, that President Obama, as well as Mrs. Clinton, put greater value on the rise to power of an “Arab Spring” government with Muslim Brotherhood connections? And, as the CCB interim report shows, the U.S. government was willing to go so far as to facilitate the provision of arms to al-Qaeda-linked rebels in Libya in order to ensure that Qaddafi fell.




    Will the mainstream media pick up on these new revelations, or will they cast them aside as another “phony scandal” to throw into their dustbins filled with other stories that might possibly embarrass the Obama administration, or prove to be an impediment to Mrs. Clinton’s path to the White House?

    “It’s critical to note that Qaddafi was actively engaged with Department of Defense officials to arrange discussions about his possible abdication and exile when that promising development was squashed by the Obama White House,” noted CCB Member Clare Lopez, a former CIA officer, regarding the failed truce talks. “The Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi has been asking, ‘Why?’ for well over a year now.”

    “It is time the American people and the families of those who fought and gave their lives at Benghazi in September 2012 were told why those brave Americans had to die at all, much less die alone with no effort made to save them,” she said.

    Clinton, through House Democrats, has indicated that she is willing to testify before the House Select Committee on Benghazi. But Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., recently indicated that the Committee must first examine her emails from the State Department before questioning his witness. This complicates the issue of her testifying, since Mrs. Clinton is in the process of calculating when she will announce her presidential run.

    Do the emails that Gowdy has requested from the State Department even extend back to 2011?

    Chairman Gowdy identified three “tranches” that his potential questioning would fall under in an interview with Fox’s Greta Van Susteren:

    •Why was the U.S. Special Mission Compound open in the first place?

    •What actions did Clinton take during the attacks?

    •What was Clinton’s role during the talking points and Susan Rice’s Sunday morning talk show visits?

    A fourth tranche should be: Clinton’s push to intervene in Libya and how it set the stage for an insecure country and strong jihadist movement willing—and able—to attack the Americans posted there. And while he’s at it, Rep. Gowdy should ask Mrs. Clinton to explain why all of the very legitimate requests for increased security in Benghazi were turned down, and why were Ambassador Chris Stevens’ personal security staff, from the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service (DSS), directed to store their weapons in a separate location—not on them—on the night of September 11, 2012?

    This article originally appeared at http://www.AIM.org

    http://www.westernjournalism.com/was...ings-benghazi/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  6. #16
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,382
    Thanks
    2,805
    Thanked 5,613 Times in 3,690 Posts
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  7. #17
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,382
    Thanks
    2,805
    Thanked 5,613 Times in 3,690 Posts
    Hillary Clinton’s Email Use Worries Foes of Government Secrecy

    Groups warn such practices could deprive public of full view of her tenure at State Department

    By Peter Nicholas and Laura Meckler - March 3, 2015 7:40 p.m. ET


    The disclosure that Hillary Clinton used only a private email account for official business as secretary of state drew complaints Tuesday from advocacy groups and open-government specialists, who warned that such practices could deprive the public of a full view of her tenure as the nation’s top diplomat.

    In her four years as secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton didn’t have a government email account and communicated through a private email account, the State Department said Monday night. Mrs. Clinton was under no legal requirement during her time in office to use a government email account, based on regulations put in place in 2009, the year she took office. Her department, though, was obligated to preserve her email records.

    That apparently didn’t happen until after Mrs. Clinton left office in 2013. Records from her account weren’t in the custody of the State Department until late 2014, when the department asked several prior secretaries of state for such documents. Mrs. Clinton turned over 55,000 pages of emails at that time, the department said.

    Advocates for government transparency said Mrs. Clinton’s reliance on a personal email account was worrisome, and congressional Republicans criticized the practice by the overwhelming front-runner to win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016.

    Steven Aftergood, who directs the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, said that if private email records aren’t in the hands of the government, they are beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act and congressional oversight.

    Use of private email “is probably fairly widespread, but it needs to be fixed,” Mr. Aftergood said. “This would be an occasion to remind people of that.”

    Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University, which presses for greater disclosure, said it is much better for email to be housed with the government, where professional archivists are tasked with sorting out what is official business and should be released, and what is personal and should remain private. Mrs. Clinton’s system allowed her staff to exercise that judgment, he said.

    Questions about Mrs. Clinton’s email practices also were raised by a liberal environmental group, Friends of the Earth, which sought State Department email records as part of its fight against approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. The group was interested in possible communications between Mrs. Clinton and a former campaign aide who became a lobbyist for TransCanada, which seeks to build the pipeline.

    The group filed public-information requests and two lawsuits to obtain emails from the department. It said it eventually received a set of email records that included none from Mrs. Clinton.

    A Clinton aide said Tuesday that “nothing nefarious was at play” in her use of a personal account. He said that federal guidelines that barred or discouraged use of personal email weren’t in effect until after she left office. A 2014 federal law now bars use of private email for official business unless officials also copy or forward the email to their official government accounts.

    The Clinton aide said that Mrs. Clinton’s office included all emails that were related to official business in responding to the State Department’s 2014 request that she turn over her email for preservation. That amounted to nine out of 10 emails she sent, he said, and excluded only personal matters, such as a conversation with her daughter about her wedding arrangements.

    The State Department said it had “no indication’’ that Mrs. Clinton sent classified material through her personal email account. “While Secretary Clinton did not have a classified email system, she did have multiple other ways of communicating in a classified manner, including assistants printing documents for her, secure phone calls and secure video conferences,’’ the department said.

    Mrs. Clinton’s email practices, first reported by the New York Times on Monday, reverberated through Washington.

    On Capitol Hill, a House committee has been asking for Mrs. Clinton’s email records as part of an investigation into the terrorist attack at a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012 that killed four Americans.

    The chairman of that committee, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.), said it would seek to discuss the matter with Mrs. Clinton and ask for additional documents.

    Mr. Gowdy also said that Mrs. Clinton, as head of the State Department, was responsible for making sure the department fulfilled federal preservation requirements. “If the secretary was doing what she was supposed to do under the law, why would the State Department have to ask her for her emails back?” he said.

    Republicans cited an assertion Mrs. Clinton made in her 2008 presidential campaign: “I think I’m probably the most transparent person in public life,” she had said.

    A conservative group called America Rising on Tuesday said it sent a request to the State Department under the Freedom of Information Act for copies of all email sent by State Department employees to Mrs. Clinton’s private email account.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-...trending_now_5

    Wonder why the Dems made such a big deal over Palin having both a government e-mail and a private one?? Wonder why the same complaints don't apply to Hill? Especially since Hillary bypassed all the government ones and only used a personal, one that kept all her official documents out of the 'light'?
    Last edited by Jolie Rouge; 03-04-2015 at 06:26 AM.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  8. #18
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,382
    Thanks
    2,805
    Thanked 5,613 Times in 3,690 Posts
    House Committee Supoenas Hilary Clintons Personl Emails
    March 4, 2015

    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hill...emails-n317576
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  9. #19
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,382
    Thanks
    2,805
    Thanked 5,613 Times in 3,690 Posts
    Holy Crap. Hillary Is Actually Getting Roundly Criticized Over This Email Thing.
    According to this, the AP is actually considering legal action against Hillary Clinton over Email-gate


    http://chicksontheright.com/blog/ite...ning-a-lawsuit


    Associated Press Threatens Legal Action Over Request for Hillary Clinton Information
    By RAVI SOMAIYA - MARCH 4, 2015


    The Associated Press said Wednesday that it was considering legal action over unfulfilled Freedom of Information Act requests for government documents covering Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

    In its requests, the AP asked for her full schedules and calendars and for details on the State Department’s decision to grant a special position to a longtime Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, among other documents. The oldest request, the news organization said, was made in March 2010.

    “We believe it’s critically important that government officials and agencies be held accountable to the voters,” said AP’s general counsel, Karen Kaiser. “In this instance, we’ve exhausted our administrative remedies in pursuit of important documents and are considering legal action.”

    The statement comes after the revelation this week that Mrs. Clinton used a personal email account for her government business, an unusual practice that some have suggested insulated her correspondence from the eyes of investigators and the public.

    In 2012, when Congressional investigators sought documents related to the attack on the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, they were initially not supplied with emails from Mrs. Clinton’s private account. In 2013, Gawker submitted a Freedom of Information Act request seeking correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and a close adviser, Sidney Blumenthal. Though some of that correspondence had been made public already, the State Department told Gawker that it could find no records responsive to the request, Gawker reported.

    The conservative group Citizens United is expecting a ruling this week on a lawsuit filed last year after the State Department would not disclose flight records showing who accompanied Mrs. Clinton on overseas trips.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/bu...formation.html
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,434
    Thanks
    848
    Thanked 451 Times in 312 Posts
    the wh alleges they knew nothing.....which is their usual stand. does this mean they never communicated with her via email and she never communicated with them via email? i wonder about those security requests for benghazi that she had said she never saw...were they emailed to her and if they were what email address was used?

  11. #21
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,382
    Thanks
    2,805
    Thanked 5,613 Times in 3,690 Posts
    Obama gave $500 MILLION For Weapons To Al-Qaeda Terrorist Used On Our Four Dead Americans In Benghazi.
    By AmyElizabeth - Apr 23, 2014


    http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/04/2...-in-benghazi/#
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  12. #22

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,434
    Thanks
    848
    Thanked 451 Times in 312 Posts
    where are the weapons being sent to iraq? is iran getting them? our government said we would arm the kurds but we have to send it thru iraq. the kurds said they haven't gotten anything from us. the kurds are allegedly getting arms from iran. iraqi troops are being trained by us troops.....and iran

    we have sent arms to the rebels in syria to fight isis but last i heard they were not going to fight isis but were quitting so that they could fight assad. so where are those weapons? who else is in syria? iran

    we were an ally of yemen who we supplied. where are those supplies? who is now running yemen? iran

    we were an ally to libya and where are those arms now after benghazi? some say in syria. who is syria's ally? iran

    how do we know that the people we are arming are not terrorists and will not turn our supplied arms on us?

    iran has trained terrorists. who do those terrorists want to destroy? us

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in