Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2015/10/22 18:54:49
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: It isn’t their purpose. However, this committee's work has been instrumental in getting the facts out into the open over this debacle, which hopefully creates an avenue to change flawed procedures and improve security at diplomatic posts.
R kool-aid is strong with this one.
These things have never been about "open facts". You want proof? How about the party line vote by Rs to continue to hide transcripts? The one that was done today, right after Gowdy complained about cherry-picking transcripts. So they vote to ... cherry pick transcripts.
This isn't and has never been about facts. It's about a political crap smearing, that's all.
Erm... hide what transcripts?
Gowdy et al have been griping about the cherry picked nature of contact transcripts (e.g.: Blumenthal email).
Cummings agrees (read: calls Gowdy's bluff) and calls for all transcripts to be released.
Vote
Gowdy and all Rs vote against. Cummings and Ds vote for.
Vote fails. More Rs than Ds.
They're doing a spectacular job of showing how little they actually care about "open facts". They'd rather complain about the way Hilary sorts her email it seems. "When I wanted all the email sent by Blumenthal, why did you collect by sender instead of who he sent the to? We're going to recess now!"
2015/10/22 18:57:23
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Not effective. Clinton has shown repeatedly that Stevens made his security requests through the appopriate security professionals at the State Department.
Much has been made so far in this hearing about Sidney Blumenthal, and she's given satisfactory answers to all related inquiries.
2015/10/22 18:58:09
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: It isn’t their purpose. However, this committee's work has been instrumental in getting the facts out into the open over this debacle, which hopefully creates an avenue to change flawed procedures and improve security at diplomatic posts.
R kool-aid is strong with this one.
These things have never been about "open facts". You want proof? How about the party line vote by Rs to continue to hide transcripts? The one that was done today, right after Gowdy complained about cherry-picking transcripts. So they vote to ... cherry pick transcripts.
This isn't and has never been about facts. It's about a political crap smearing, that's all.
Erm... hide what transcripts?
Gowdy et al have been griping about the cherry picked nature of contact transcripts (e.g.: Blumenthal email).
Cummings agrees (read: calls Gowdy's bluff) and calls for all transcripts to be released.
Vote
Gowdy and all Rs vote against. Cummings and Ds vote for.
Vote fails. More Rs than Ds.
They're doing a spectacular job of showing how little they actually care about "open facts". They'd rather complain about the way Hilary sorts her email it seems. "When I wanted all the email sent by Blumenthal, why did you collect by sender instead of who he sent the to? We're going to recess now!"
What is in the Blumenthal transcripts that the Republicans just suppressed? I'm quite curious.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/22 18:59:53
2015/10/22 18:59:11
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Much has been made so far in this hearing about Sidney Blumenthal, and she's given satisfactory answers to all related inquiries.
What's not said, is that she was actually forbidden by the White House from working with Sid.
Valeria J., et. and el isn't happy about that.
No, the Republicans have not mentioned this at all (yet). The only thing close so far is they have mentioned several times that the Obama admin turned him down for a job with the State Dept.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/22 19:01:40
2015/10/22 19:06:45
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: It isn’t their purpose. However, this committee's work has been instrumental in getting the facts out into the open over this debacle, which hopefully creates an avenue to change flawed procedures and improve security at diplomatic posts.
R kool-aid is strong with this one.
These things have never been about "open facts". You want proof? How about the party line vote by Rs to continue to hide transcripts? The one that was done today, right after Gowdy complained about cherry-picking transcripts. So they vote to ... cherry pick transcripts.
This isn't and has never been about facts. It's about a political crap smearing, that's all.
Erm... hide what transcripts?
Gowdy et al have been griping about the cherry picked nature of contact transcripts (e.g.: Blumenthal email).
Cummings agrees (read: calls Gowdy's bluff) and calls for all transcripts to be released.
Vote
Gowdy and all Rs vote against. Cummings and Ds vote for.
Vote fails. More Rs than Ds.
They're doing a spectacular job of showing how little they actually care about "open facts". They'd rather complain about the way Hilary sorts her email it seems. "When I wanted all the email sent by Blumenthal, why did you collect by sender instead of who he sent the to? We're going to recess now!"
What is in the Blumenthal transcripts that the Republicans just suppressed? I'm quite curious.
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It's not the first time they voted to NOT release them either. If there was something in there, they would have released it now to actually get something on Hilary. But there isn't. And only by with holding those emails can they maintain the illusion that there JUST MIGHT be something in them. It's political chicanery at its worst.
2015/10/22 19:08:16
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: It isn’t their purpose. However, this committee's work has been instrumental in getting the facts out into the open over this debacle, which hopefully creates an avenue to change flawed procedures and improve security at diplomatic posts.
R kool-aid is strong with this one.
These things have never been about "open facts". You want proof? How about the party line vote by Rs to continue to hide transcripts? The one that was done today, right after Gowdy complained about cherry-picking transcripts. So they vote to ... cherry pick transcripts.
This isn't and has never been about facts. It's about a political crap smearing, that's all.
Erm... hide what transcripts?
Gowdy et al have been griping about the cherry picked nature of contact transcripts (e.g.: Blumenthal email). Cummings agrees (read: calls Gowdy's bluff) and calls for all transcripts to be released. Vote Gowdy and all Rs vote against. Cummings and Ds vote for. Vote fails. More Rs than Ds.
They're doing a spectacular job of showing how little they actually care about "open facts". They'd rather complain about the way Hilary sorts her email it seems. "When I wanted all the email sent by Blumenthal, why did you collect by sender instead of who he sent the to? We're going to recess now!"
What is in the Blumenthal transcripts that the Republicans just suppressed? I'm quite curious.
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It's not the first time they voted to NOT release them either. If there was something in there, they would have released it now to actually get something on Hilary. But there isn't. And only by with holding those emails can they maintain the illusion that there JUST MIGHT be something in them. It's political chicanery at its worst.
So wait, you mad about this? This isn't about what Blumenthal thinks, said, feels, etc. about emailing Clinton. It’s about Clinton’s response and actions. Keep the spotlight on her.
EDIT: I see what's going on... the problem is that the Democrats only want certain information released.
i.e., let’s release everything on Sid Blumenthal…
The R's on the committee would then want to release EVERYTHING (that the Democrats would obviously object), such as: transcripts of the survivors, the people who watched in real time, the workers at both of the companies that oversaw Hillary’s private server, and her IT guy, who repeatedly pled the 5th, etc, etc, etc...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/22 19:16:37
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/10/22 19:19:14
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
EDIT: I see what's going on... the problem is that the Democrats only want certain information released.
i.e., let’s release everything on Sid Blumenthal…
The R's on the committee would then want to release EVERYTHING (that the Democrats would obviously object), such as:
transcripts of the survivors, the people who watched in real time, the workers at both of the companies that oversaw Hillary’s private server, and her IT guy, who repeatedly pled the 5th, etc, etc, etc...
Exactly...
Only the exact opposite of what you said. Which is why Cummings (D-MD) called for EVERYTHING to be released, and why a party line vote by Rs prevented it from being released.
It's almost like I even said this to you in one of my earlier posts. Oh wait, I did:
Gowdy et al have been griping about the cherry picked nature of contact transcripts (e.g.: Blumenthal email).
Cummings agrees (read: calls Gowdy's bluff) and calls for all transcripts to be released.
Vote
Gowdy and all Rs vote against. Cummings and Ds vote for.
Vote fails. More Rs than Ds.
They're doing a spectacular job of showing how little they actually care about "open facts". They'd rather complain about the way Hilary sorts her email it seems. "When I wanted all the email sent by Blumenthal, why did you collect by sender instead of who he sent the to? We're going to recess now!"
2015/10/22 19:21:28
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: Perhaps this will be a dissapintment to you whembley, buto
the Republicans have not mentioned "the private server" even once (yet)
They are in a hard situation there.
It's pretty much the only thing that this "investigation" has found that is different from anything that the other 8 investigations have already told us, but it has nothing to do with what happened in Benghazi.
It also doesn't help that one of the Republicans suggested that the ambassador should have send sensitive information to Clinton's private email to ask for help instead of going through the official channels.
2015/10/22 19:25:29
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: Perhaps this will be a dissapintment to you whembley, buto
the Republicans have not mentioned "the private server" even once (yet)
Nah... it really isn't *about* Clinton's private server.
This is about her handling of this ordeal during her tenure as Secretary of State. You know, da boss of the department that oversaw diplomatic activites.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/10/22 19:27:00
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
This is about her handling of this ordeal during her tenure as Secretary of State. You know, da boss of the department that oversaw diplomatic activites.
No, it is about her Presidential candidacy, and has been for quite some time.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2015/10/22 19:37:58
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
This is about her handling of this ordeal during her tenure as Secretary of State. You know, da boss of the department that oversaw diplomatic activites.
No, it is about her Presidential candidacy, and has been for quite some time.
Who are you going to believe? Wembly, or the Republicans who admitted that?
2015/10/22 19:38:24
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Hell, the republicans did not even want to put this hearing up before the public. Clinton demanded that it was a public hearing. That right there shows that the GOP doesn't want an open airing of info.
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2015/10/22 19:43:58
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
This is about her handling of this ordeal during her tenure as Secretary of State. You know, da boss of the department that oversaw diplomatic activites.
No, it is about her Presidential candidacy, and has been for quite some time.
Who are you going to believe? Wembly, or the Republicans who admitted that?
Why can't it be both.
Because if enough folks believe that Clinton is guilty of malfeasances during her tenure... then, why would anyone vote for her for President?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: Open hearing or not, there is still a dead horse that needs beating.
You may not care, but this committee does enjoy a majority support when polled.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/22 19:47:42
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/10/22 19:52:59
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
EDIT: I see what's going on... the problem is that the Democrats only want certain information released.
i.e., let’s release everything on Sid Blumenthal…
The R's on the committee would then want to release EVERYTHING (that the Democrats would obviously object), such as:
transcripts of the survivors, the people who watched in real time, the workers at both of the companies that oversaw Hillary’s private server, and her IT guy, who repeatedly pled the 5th, etc, etc, etc...
Exactly...
Only the exact opposite of what you said. Which is why Cummings (D-MD) called for EVERYTHING to be released, and why a party line vote by Rs prevented it from being released.
It's almost like I even said this to you in one of my earlier posts. Oh wait, I did:
Gowdy et al have been griping about the cherry picked nature of contact transcripts (e.g.: Blumenthal email).
Cummings agrees (read: calls Gowdy's bluff) and calls for all transcripts to be released.
Vote
Gowdy and all Rs vote against. Cummings and Ds vote for.
Vote fails. More Rs than Ds.
They're doing a spectacular job of showing how little they actually care about "open facts". They'd rather complain about the way Hilary sorts her email it seems. "When I wanted all the email sent by Blumenthal, why did you collect by sender instead of who he sent the to? We're going to recess now!"
I saw the last few minutes just before Gowdy adjourned... even *he* asked, why won't the Democrats agree to release ALL transcripts. My point stands.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/10/22 20:03:04
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: You may not care, but this committee does enjoy a majority support when polled.
That is funny both because the silliness continues but also because of the false dichotomy of "if you don't believe this lunacy you must think it is ok for there to be government malfeasance". The horse continues to still be dead, no matter how much the beatings continue.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2015/10/22 20:03:14
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
EDIT: I see what's going on... the problem is that the Democrats only want certain information released.
i.e., let’s release everything on Sid Blumenthal…
The R's on the committee would then want to release EVERYTHING (that the Democrats would obviously object), such as:
transcripts of the survivors, the people who watched in real time, the workers at both of the companies that oversaw Hillary’s private server, and her IT guy, who repeatedly pled the 5th, etc, etc, etc...
Exactly...
Only the exact opposite of what you said. Which is why Cummings (D-MD) called for EVERYTHING to be released, and why a party line vote by Rs prevented it from being released.
It's almost like I even said this to you in one of my earlier posts. Oh wait, I did:
Gowdy et al have been griping about the cherry picked nature of contact transcripts (e.g.: Blumenthal email).
Cummings agrees (read: calls Gowdy's bluff) and calls for all transcripts to be released.
Vote
Gowdy and all Rs vote against. Cummings and Ds vote for.
Vote fails. More Rs than Ds.
They're doing a spectacular job of showing how little they actually care about "open facts". They'd rather complain about the way Hilary sorts her email it seems. "When I wanted all the email sent by Blumenthal, why did you collect by sender instead of who he sent the to? We're going to recess now!"
I saw the last few minutes just before Gowdy adjourned... even *he* asked, why won't the Democrats agree to release ALL transcripts. My point stands.
And yet when the Democrats put forth that they release ALL the transcripts of Blumenthal(Gowdy's pet punching bag from his series of questioning), he tried to push it off until November.
Please, Whembly. Realize that this had nothing to do with what happened at Benghazi and everything to do with Hillary running for president.
2015/10/22 20:04:05
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
They haven't found jack gak, wasted a fethton of money, and publicly celebrated "we hurt her in the polls".
Republicans have admitted its a political partisan scam, the committee is refusing to actually release the majority of findings because of "reasons" but are fine releasing anything they think can hurt Clinton, including classified information which outed a government informant in the process.
But yeah, it's about "truth".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/22 20:16:21
2015/10/22 20:19:00
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: GOP: Obama/Hillary lied about Benghazi...
Democrats/Media: No... they were just confused... fog of war stuff ya know.
GOP: Here's the evidence that they lied.
Democrats/Media: This is nothing more a partisan effort to derail Clinton's Presidential run...
Me:
You know what?
Sure, let's keep talking about it being "lies". Never mind that one of the fething planners of the attack said that the video that you and the Republicans love to point to as the administration "lying" about?
It was part of the drives for them to launch the attack on the Benghazi compound.
So yeah. Keep at it. Let the sheeple know they're being lied to!
2015/10/22 20:25:56
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
