A comprehensive review of Hillary Clinton's lifetime of corruption

AAAintheBeltway said:
None of the investigations looked into what should have been a major question: why in the world was our ambassador running guns to ISIS and other hostile jihadi groups in syria? Did congress ever approve that, which is clearly an act of war against Syria?
More...


This is from Republican led investigations that were trying to bury Obama and Clinton.


"Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies surrounding the incident, the report concludes that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria."




The report also tried to put to rest a persistent rumor that began after the attacks that the CIA had been using the Benghazi base to covertly smuggle Libyan weapons to Syrian rebels.

"The eyewitness testimony and thousands of pages of CIA cables and emails that the committee reviewed provide no support for this allegation," it said.

In fact, the report said, the CIA agents at the facility were tracking on local groups smuggling weapons, not collecting them themselves.





AAAintheBeltway said:
As for the attack and its aftermath, the fact is no rescue attempt was ever attempted. The explanations that there were no units available,etc are ridiculous. We had fighters in Italy that could have been there in a half hour probably. They had a drone over the site. We had troops who could at least have been dispatched. It's easy to say they would not have gotten there in time, but no one knows that. The fact is Obama and Clinton were more concerned about some theoretical violation of a failed state's sovereignty than they were of saving American lives.
More...

Again,from Republican led investigations.


"Appropriate US personnel made reasonable tactical decision that night, and the committee found no evidence that there was a stand-down order or a denial of available air support.

"The CIA received all military support that was available," it added.




The Pentagon had no forces that could be readily sent to Benghazi when the crisis began. The closest AC-130 gunship was in Afghanistan. There were no armed drones within range of Libya. There was no Marine expeditionary unit, a large seaborne force with its own helicopters, in the Mediterranean Sea.

The Africa Command also did not have on hand a force able to respond rapidly to emergencies. Every other regional command had one at the time. The Pentagon was caught unprepared for this type of crisis.

On the night of the attacks, the Pentagon was able to divert an unarmed Predator drone operating 90 miles away to Benghazi, and the C.I.A. later used it to help plan an escape route for the surviving Americans. But other military forces were too far away or could not be mobilized in time, military commanders have said.


■ Despite authorization from President Obama, no American military forces were deployed to Benghazi on the night of the attacks, and Marines stationed in Spain repeatedly received conflicting orders.


The unclassified version of an independent 2012 report, headed by Thomas R. Pickering, a former diplomat, concluded that “there simply was not enough time, given the speed of the attacks, for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference.”



AAAintheBeltway said:
We know they lied in the aftermath. Clinton sent her daughter an email saying it was a terrorist attack, then lied and said it was a reaction to a video, the same story they sent Rice out to lie to the public about and that she shamelessly peddled to the grieving parents.
More...



But the report concluded that Rice had based her remarks -- which did indeed prove false -- on an intelligence assessment that was believed correct at the time.



The investigations generally concluded that after the attack, the Obama administration’s talking points were flawed but not deliberately misleading.
 
This is the problem arguing with people who have no idea how Washington works.

The report said there was "no evidence" the CIA was shipping arms to jihadists. That is meaningless on several levels. "No evidence" is not the same as "didn't happen." Ironically, that is a classic Clinton diversion. This was the Intell Committee, which probably had authorized the arms transfer. They knew for a fact whether or not there were such transfers, yet they say there was "no evidence?" Obvious red flag, if you know how to read between the lines.

Second, they specified that the "CIA" was not "shipping" arms. The "CIA" never is involved directly. They use cut outs, phony companies, other countries, etc. Maybe the CIA was providing arms and the jihadis were shipping them.

You also have to understand that these committees see their role as protecting their agency, in this case the CIA. They are very vulnerable to being convinced to whitewash things in the interests of protecting the agency's reputation.

I don't have time to pick all the rest of this stuff apart. The Gowdy investigation was pretty devastating, if you read the actual report instead of a media summary.

One thing that does annoy me is the claim they could not have provided any rescue, etc. That is clearly nonsense. There were many things they could have done, beginning with a flyover from Italy, which probably would have been enough to convince the terrorists to break off.

The bigger problem however is that Obama and Clinton had no idea how long this siege would last. Yet they did nothing. If they had sent a rescue mission and it got there too late, ok they tried. But they did nothing. It's almost like they didn't want to have a shootout with the terrorists attacking our guys. Maybe they didn't want to risk screwing up the arrangement, so they just left our guys out to dry. And blamed it on a video.
 
FBIfbi-678x509.jpg
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
This is the problem arguing with people who have no idea how Washington works.

The report said there was "no evidence" the CIA was shipping arms to jihadists. That is meaningless on several levels. "No evidence" is not the same as "didn't happen." Ironically, that is a classic Clinton diversion. This was the Intell Committee, which probably had authorized the arms transfer. They knew for a fact whether or not there were such transfers, yet they say there was "no evidence?" Obvious red flag, if you know how to read between the lines.

Second, they specified that the "CIA" was not "shipping" arms. The "CIA" never is involved directly. They use cut outs, phony companies, other countries, etc. Maybe the CIA was providing arms and the jihadis were shipping them.

You also have to understand that these committees see their role as protecting their agency, in this case the CIA. They are very vulnerable to being convinced to whitewash things in the interests of protecting the agency's reputation.

I don't have time to pick all the rest of this stuff apart. The Gowdy investigation was pretty devastating, if you read the actual report instead of a media summary.

One thing that does annoy me is the claim they could not have provided any rescue, etc. That is clearly nonsense. There were many things they could have done, beginning with a flyover from Italy, which probably would have been enough to convince the terrorists to break off.

The bigger problem however is that Obama and Clinton had no idea how long this siege would last. Yet they did nothing. If they had sent a rescue mission and it got there too late, ok they tried. But they did nothing. It's almost like they didn't want to have a shootout with the terrorists attacking our guys. Maybe they didn't want to risk screwing up the arrangement, so they just left our guys out to dry. And blamed it on a video.
More...


Shit happens. But someone like Trump is shit to begin with.
 
fhl said:
FBIfbi-678x509.jpg
More...


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...ake-for-gop-to-attack-fbi-directors-integrity


July 07, 2016, 03:58 pm
Pete King: Mistake for GOP to attack Comey's integrity

A top House Republican says it's a mistake for Republicans to go after FBI Director James Comey's integrity in the wake of the bureau's decision not to recommend charges against Hillary Clinton.

"I have great regard for Jim Comey. I thought he handled himself very well today," Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) told MSNBC's Brian Williams on Thursday as Comey testified before the House Oversight Committee.

"I think it's a mistake for Republicans to somehow think that Comey was in on a fix or he was rigging something. He is really of unimpeachable integrity," King continued, describing Comey as "a total straight shooter."

"He could have indicted Hillary Clinton if he wanted to — there was enough evidence there — but I thought he made a very good case why he didn't," King said.

King reiterated that Republicans are "going to make a mistake" if they attack Comey, because the FBI chief outlined "damning accusations" against for the former secretary of State's mishandling of classified information on her private email setup.

Comey announced his decision Tuesday, and his remarks have already made their way into a campaign video for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump that contrasted them with Clinton's previous statements about her email.

"I think Republicans should be embracing Comey right now," King said, adding that his colleagues could disagree with the decision not to pursue charges while "praising his judgment."





http://mediamatters.org/research/20...on-results-clinton-email-investigation/211326



Rush Limbaugh: “James Comey … Really Is A Guy With Impeccable Integrity.” On the April 12 edition of Premiere Radio Networks’ The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh praised FBI Director James Comey, saying he “really is a guy with impeccable integrity, especially measured against most people in Washington.” [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 4/12/16]

Fox’s Kimberly Guilfoyle: “I Trust In Jim Comey Completely.” When asked about the State Department Inspector General report on Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she served as secretary of state, The Five co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle said she believes the FBI is going to do a “really thorough job” in their investigation and that she trusts in FBI Director James Comey “completely.” From the May 25 edition of Fox News’ The Five:




Fox Contributor George Will: “Comey Is A Big Boy.” Washington Post columnist and Fox News contributor George Will lauded Comey as a “big boy” who Will said will move “quickly” on the FBI investigation into Clinton’s email server. From the June 12 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday:

Fox’s Bill O’Reilly: I “Trust Director Comey” And “Believe An Honest Investigation Is Being Done By The FBI.” On the March 2 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, host Bill O’Reilly said, “some Americans don’t trust Director Comey. Talking Points does. I believe an honest investigation is being done by the FBI.” [Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor, 3/2/16]

Fox Guest David Bossie: “I Trust” Comey And “He’s A Very Squared-Away Individual.” On the May 11 edition of The O’Reilly Factor, Fox guest and president of Citizens United David Bossie said that Comey “seems like he's a very squared-away individual and I trust him.” Host Bill O’Reilly also said, “he’s an honest guy, yes.” [Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor, 5/11/16, via Nexis]

Fox Contributor Arthur Aidala: “James Comey, By All Accounts, Is A Very Decent Man, He’s Very Even-Keeled.” On the April 1 edition of Fox News’ Outnumbered, Fox News contributor Arthur Aidala referred to FBI Director James Comey as “a very decent man, he’s very even-keeled.” [Fox News, Outnumbered, 4/1/16]

Fox Legal Analyst Peter Johnson Jr.: “James Comey [Is] A Straight-Shooter And A Guy That’s Got A Great Reputation For Integrity.” Fox legal analyst and Fox News CEO Roger Ailes’ personal lawyer, Peter Johnson Jr., praised Comey, calling him “a straight-shooter and a guy that’s got a great reputation for integrity.” From the April 1 edition of Fox News’ Fox & Friends:



Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Andrew Napolitano: James Comey “Is A Very, Very Straight Shooter. He’s Very Apolitical.” On the April 21 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, Fox senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano said that Comey “is a very, very straight shooter. He's very apolitical.” [Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor, 4/21/16]

Fox’s Martha MacCallum: “James Comey Is A Very Serious Operator And A Man Who Is Respected Pretty Much Universally.” On the March 28 edition of Fox News’ America’s Newsroom, host Martha MacCallum praised Director Comey for being “a very serious operator and a man who is respected pretty much universally.” [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 3/28/16]

Fox Guest Rudy Giuliani Agrees The FBI Is “Doing An Honest Investigation,” And Comey Is “Straight As An Arrow.” Fox host Bill O’Reilly stated that he “believe the FBI is doing an honest investigation” and that Director Comey “is an honest man.” Fox guest Rudy Giuliani agreed and also said Comey is “straight as an arrow and very smart.” From the March 9 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor:


Fox Guest Ron Kessler: Comey “Has An Impeccable Reputation For Integrity.” Fox host Bill O’Reilly said that he does not believe that Director Comey “is going to succumb to pressure from anybody, including Barack Obama,” to which his guest, anti-Clinton author Ronald Kessler, replied saying that Comey “has an impeccable reputation for integrity.” From the February 3 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor:



Fox’s Chris Wallace: “Everybody I Talk To Say That [Comey] Is A Straight-Shooter, That He’s A Serious Guy, That He’s Non-Political, And … You Got To Give Him The Benefit Of The Doubt.” Host of Fox’s Fox News Sunday Chris Wallace stated that everyone he talks to says that Director Comey “is a straight shooter, that he’s a serious guy, that he’s non-political” and concluded by saying that “you got to give him the benefit of the doubt” to conduct the investigation properly. From the March 1 edition of Fox News’ Outnumbered



Fox’s Geraldo Rivera: “I Have No Doubt That James Comey Is The Straightest Shooter In Washington, D.C.” On the February 25 edition of Fox News’ Outnumbered, correspondent Geraldo Rivera stated that he has “no doubt that James Comey is the straightest shooter in Washington, D.C.” and that “f there’s something there, he will recommend it for prosecution.” [Fox News, Outnumbered, 2/25/16]

Sean Hannity: James Comey Is “Respected By Both Sides Of The Aisle.” Fox News host Sean Hannity said that “James Comey [is] respected on both sides of the aisle,” to which his guest, Fox News contributor Julie Roginsky, replied, “If the FBI finds nothing improper took place, you're going to have to sit here and say, you know what, she's not guilty of these things she's being accused of.” From the February 4 edition of Fox News’ Hannity:


Fox Guest Jay Sekulow: “James Comey Is A Man Of Principle.” On the January 29 edition of Fox News’ Hannity, frequent Fox News guest Jay Sekulow said that “James Comey is a man of principle” and “a serious guy.” [Fox News, Hannity, 1/29/16, via Nexis]

Breitbart News: Comey “Seems Sincerely Dedicated To Keeping [The Investigation] Above Politics, And Has A “Law-And-Order Reputation.” A December 1, 2015 Breitbart News article stated that “FBI Director James Comey is one of the most intriguing figures in Washington today: a key official who evidently gives little thought to White House narratives before speaking his mind.” The article noted that Comey has a “law-and-order reputation” and that he “seems sincerely dedicated to keeping [the investigation] above politics.” The article also stated, “He has expressed a particular dedication for taking the protection of classified material seriously.” [Breitbart News, 12/1/15]
 
Last edited:
A quick look at some of Clinton's accomplishments as Secretary of State...

Hillary Clinton and the Syrian Bloodbath
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-clinton-and-the-s_b_9231190.html

In the Milwaukee debate, Hillary Clinton took pride in her role in a recent UN Security Council resolution on a Syrian ceasefire:

"But I would add this. You know, the Security Council finally got around to adopting a resolution. At the core of that resolution is an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva, which set forth a cease-fire and moving toward a political resolution, trying to bring the parties at stake in Syria together."

This is the kind of compulsive misrepresentation that makes Clinton unfit to be President. Clinton’s role in Syria has been to help instigate and prolong the Syrian bloodbath, not to bring it to a close.

In 2012, Clinton was the obstacle, not the solution, to a ceasefire being negotiated by UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan. It was US intransigence - Clinton’s intransigence - that led to the failure of Annan’s peace efforts in the spring of 2012, a point well known among diplomats. Despite Clinton’s insinuation in the Milwaukee debate, there was (of course) no 2012 ceasefire, only escalating carnage. Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10 million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead.

As every knowledgeable observer understands, the Syrian War is not mostly about Bashar al-Assad, or even about Syria itself. It is mostly a proxy war, about Iran. And the bloodbath is doubly tragic and misguided for that reason.

(more at above url)
 
Tony Stark said:
Pete King: Mistake for GOP to attack Comey's integrity
More...

All those quotes were before the latest revelations about how deliberately inept the FBI's investigation was.

Comey has no integrity left. He has been unmasked as a craven opportunist trying to play both sides of the street.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top