Trump sycophant Pompeo will meet with Saudi Arabia today when he promises to discuss the brutal murder by Saudi Arabia of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Of course, he will do nothing of the sort. Trump has already approved Khashoggi's execution.

Trump clearly signaled that it's ok to murder an American journalist as long as the murderous country does business with his administration.

This is what the Trump leadership has brought America down to.

Because he worked in america doesn't make him american otherwise you have guilt by association

He was nationalized and under the US protection. But I see no evidence that Trump approved it any more than the emperor approving the multitude of human rights violations and murders and kidnapping of Americans that happened in the time the emperor was sending plane loads of cash to the 12ers in Tehran.

That cash was the settlement of a decades-old arbitration claim between the U.S. and Iran.

While this is true ;what did the 12ers do to get the cash released ? Me I would've used the money for the thousands of Americans who lost their lives or were maimed from IEDs made in Iran and used against Americans by Iranian KUD forces in Iraq or Iraninan proxies . https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/world/middleeast/10weapons.html

But ok . You are ok with Iran executions of women by stoning ? Where is the outrage ? Where is the condemnation ? I find it interesting that the left hates American allies more than it's foes.

It was Iran's money, not ours.

I'm a Republican.

I did not say Democrat . The cash was a bribe to get hostages released .You can't sugar coat that . The money was supposed to go to American families who had won court cases against the messianic homicidal regime in Tehran for Iran backed kidnapping and terrorist attacks . That was a deal Bubba had . The plane loads of cash was ransom pure and simple.

Has Iran produced a bomb? Perhaps they kept their part of the bargain, unlike Trump who thinks repudiating treaties is a life style choice

Clete you know and I know that the NORKS run Iran's laboratory .

Clete you know and I know that the NORKS run Iran's laboratory .

Seriously I think NK is freelance and Kim will build one for you if you want, suitcase bombs going cheap

It is incontrovertible .Iranian scientist attend NORK nuke tests . They share scud missile technology .

He was nationalized and under the US protection. But I see no evidence that Trump approved it any more than the emperor approving the multitude of human rights violations and murders and kidnapping of Americans that happened in the time the emperor was sending plane loads of cash to the 12ers in Tehran.


Then you didn't see ABC, NBC, FOX, MSNBC, CBS, WNET, CNN and every left-wing and right-wing media outlet. (Judge Jeanine and Hannity may have denied it).

Trump "signaled" his approval. If you missed it, you're blind.


It is incontrovertible .Iranian scientist attend NORK nuke tests . They share scud missile technology .


When Trump is criticized, why do you divert the discussion to something else? Usually Obama or Hillary or the Dems. Diverting from Trump's culpability in this instance doesn't do much for your intelligence.

It is incontrovertible .Iranian scientist attend NORK nuke tests . They share scud missile technology .
And this means Iran possesses a bomb as distinct from data, I don't think anyone is suggesting they aren't capable, but the smoking gun hasn't been found, however much Israel might hope

That cash was the settlement of a decades-old arbitration claim between the U.S. and Iran.





It would be no different than if we had handed Nazi Germany billions of dollars. It's just completely inexcusable to fund a terrorist state. If Trump had done that you would be turning red by now. As I oftentimes say, it's all about politics.

While this is true ;what did the 12ers do to get the cash released ? Me I would've used the money for the thousands of Americans who lost their lives or were maimed from IEDs made in Iran and used against Americans by Iranian KUD forces in Iraq or Iraninan proxies . https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/world/middleeast/10weapons.html

But ok . You are ok with Iran executions of women by stoning ? Where is the outrage ? Where is the condemnation ? I find it interesting that the left hates American allies more than it's foes.

Iran agreed to inspections of it's nuclear facilities and verify they were not making bomb grade plutonium. The dufus pulled out but the Europeans are still in it. That's not to say they cannot just buy a nuke at discount rates from Kim or Vlad, but putting the right wing noise machine's account aside, the dufus is the one shaking down our allies, and smoozing our enemies. Where is the Dufus's outrage over the very human rights issues that his "friends" perpetrate?

Iran agreed to inspections of it's nuclear facilities and verify they were not making bomb grade plutonium. The dufus pulled out but the Europeans are still in it.

And of course there would be no way to get around all of that and do something hidden.

I can concede that point but am amused that you blasted Hillary and investigated her over Benghazi, but not a peep over Khashoggi.

I can concede that point but am amused that you blasted Hillary and investigated her over Benghazi, but not a peep over Khashoggi.

Clinton and Obama were personally negligent and that led to the deaths of four Americans. I don't know of anyone rational who suggests that Trump had anything to do with the death of Khashoggi.

That's not what the official review of the situation found, just your version. The jury is still debating the context of the Dufus's action and it don't look good so far.

That's not what the official review of the situation found, just your version. The jury is still debating the context of the Dufus's action and it don't look good so far.

What you are saying is that there is an ongoing talk fest, if there was a case to answer an indictment would be brought, otherwise it is just another political kangaroo court

What you are saying is that there is an ongoing talk fest, if there was a case to answer an indictment would be brought, otherwise it is just another political kangaroo court


Over the past 40 years there have been several Special Counsel investigations of which the current one under Mueller has been the shortest so far. Plus he already has both indictments and convictions.

There is no evidence of Russian collusion, but even if there was, collusion is not a crime.

But treason is.

You can't say treason, such a charge is ridiculous. Trump can be impeached for high crimes, but being a businessman with business in Russia is not a crime

Treason is a crime. So is murder, and you have about as much evidence against Trump for one as you do the other. It's just an absurd statement driven by a hatred of all things even related to Trump. But at least you are prepared to agree that collusion is not a crime, so that is progress.

Obstruction of justice, and conspiracy are crimes punishable by fines, jail, or both. Cohen has implicated the dufus in campaign finance crimes, and the meeting at the Trump Tower with agents of the Russian government to lift sanctions without reporting such a meeting to the proper authorities may well be a conspiracy, as well as a quid pro quo agreement between the dufus and Vlad which is also a crime as well as his public statements around the firing of Comey.

If the Saudis had not bought out rooms in trump Tower he would have lost money which could be a violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution and that's in court now and just another example of shady dealings both in business and government. The government being shut down over this "WALL" issue does nothing but erode the faith in government and only brings chaos into the lives of workers especially those already living from paycheck to paycheck.

Sure the dufus has a core of support from this fiasco but on the whole every day without a resolution brings a greater discontent and costs the economy money. Yeah, I would say there is plenty of stuff to examine very closely here folks.

"Someone said." "It might be." "Faith eroding in government."

Do you have any real evidence about illegal actions taken by Trump himself?

That is reserved for the court process and we will just have to wait for the outcomes. I can only note again the convictions already of the dufus cronies and cabinet members as a good reason that it's ongoing and more to come... FOR SURE!

Most of the time, as in practically all of the time, the court process doesn't begin until convincing evidence can be presented. You have it backwards. Again, politics.

Point taken but I respectfully submit that the smaller fish are being fried systematically, and it's far from a done deal that there is NO evidence that will lead to the bigger fish. That's wishful thinking for dufus supporters. The dufus is NOT off the hook, probably why he has upped his lawyers to 36, and will add more.

it's far from a done deal that there is NO evidence that will lead to the bigger fish.

You are right about that and I'll agree with you. Just try to contain your gleeful anticipation!

Oh I can't wait, the suspense is killing me

Trump Derangement Syndrome! Get treatment as soon as possible.

There is only one cure

Correct. The treatment is "Hillary Observation Therapy". Just go back and look at her history and credentials and like a miracle, Trump starts to look pretty good! Works for me every time.

And No, I cannot look upon that list of failures, it is depressing. I know it seems Trump has achieved something, it used to be called the power of positive thinking, but he too has so many failures. He doesn't understand that to speak isn't to act, to articulate a dream isn't to have someone fulfill it, and he dreams of the wrong thing, walls and divisions politicians bowing down to his divine will. There is nothing new in his policies, he did not think of a wall first, he did not think about health care first, he did not think about military first, he did not think about ending war first, but politics is the art of the possible, not the art of bullying

'Clete, have you read The Art of the Deal?

"My style of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after.”

"One thing I’ve learned about the press is that they’re always hungry for a good story, and the more sensational the better…The point is that if you are a little different, a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you.”

"The final key to the way I promote is bravado. I play to people's fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That's why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole."

Let me say, I'm not interested in BuII and anyone who believes Trump only has half a brain but then you have so many people maybe this makes up for it

Many of us who voted for Trump did so for five reasons.

1. He was not named Hillary Clinton.
2. He was willing to address the terrible situation on our southern border.
3. He was willing to appoint people to the Supreme Court who actually believe in the Constitution.
4. He seemed to be concerned about the budget deficit.
5. He was going to revive the economy.

Results

1. Hooray!
2. Ongoing, but at least he is not just rehashing the failed policies of the past fifty years.
3. Doing well.
4. Lousy.
5. Fantastic so far.

His greatest asset is that he is not named Hillary Clinton. Have I already said that??

Yes you got a winner on that one, but there are a lot of people who fill that criteria but then they aren't full of bull are they

Many of us who voted for Trump did so for five reasons.

1. He was not named Hillary Clinton.
2. He was willing to address the terrible situation on our southern border.
3. He was willing to appoint people to the Supreme Court who actually believe in the Constitution.
4. He seemed to be concerned about the budget deficit.
5. He was going to revive the economy.

Results

1. Hooray!
2. Ongoing, but at least he is not just rehashing the failed policies of the past fifty years.
3. Doing well.
4. Lousy.
5. Fantastic so far.

His greatest asset is that he is not named Hillary Clinton. Have I already said that??

1. Hillary derangement syndrome. Cannot be cured, but may be worse than the alternative reality. Like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
2. Not only has the problem been exacerbated from fearmongering steeped in racism, it's a real distraction from solutions to a much bigger problem. Narrowminded to say the least.
3. Conservatives don't care about the constitution, they just believe conservative judges will turn back the clock which is a fallacy not based on the constitution. If that's the hope, then it's a false one.
4. That's another fallacy as nothing has been done to address the BUDGET deficit, but much has been done to deepen it.
5. Just like the dufus conned and screwed people for his own gain so that no bank in America will lend him a nickel he takes a good growing economy and heads it toward bankruptcy.

That whole Hillary derangement syndrome has conservatives settling on following the lunacy of a lying cheating dufus and is convinced everything is better than when he opened his bigmouth. That's okay though as another election is just over the horizon and we get a chance for a course correction.

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arcamax.com%2Fnewspics% 2Fcache%2Flw600%2F169%2F16926%2F1692669.jpg&t=1547719801&ymreqid=acd6ec88-63d3-b076-1c1b-440001014e00&sig=Kp7noMM_COY1M2qNnvt2yA--~C (https://www.arcamax.com/jeffdanziger/s-2166588?ezine=640&r=fCa8CFfKz2Et4DtqQTdKmqaMD99_a7ehKNddtDqWD0ZDOjUx MDM2OTA1Oko6MTgxNDQ0ODpMOjY0MDpSOjI2MTQ3NjpTOjIxNj Y1ODg6Vjo0Mw)

1. Hillary derangement syndrome. Cannot be cured, but may be worse than the alternative reality. Like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
2. Not only has the problem been exacerbated from fearmongering steeped in racism, it's a real distraction from solutions to a much bigger problem. Narrowminded to say the least.
3. Conservatives don't care about the constitution, they just believe conservative judges will turn back the clock which is a fallacy not based on the constitution. If that's the hope, then it's a false one.
4. That's another fallacy as nothing has been done to address the BUDGET deficit, but much has been done to deepen it.
5. Just like the dufus conned and screwed people for his own gain so that no bank in America will lend him a nickel he takes a good growing economy and heads it toward bankruptcy.

1. Maybe.
2. The usual liberal garbage of accusing people of racism when you have nothing else useful to say. Liberals have become so irresponsible in their never ending, knee-jerk accusations of racism for anyone and everyone that they have robbed the word of any meaning. Try thinking some instead. Build the wall.
3. Ignoring the Constitution in order to justify everything from abortion to gay marriage is what liberals are good at. Stick to the law.
4. You are right in that, but I doubt that you protested very much when your buddy Obama doubled the national debt in only eight years.
5. Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Still waiting for the dufus to act on the death of an American journalists.

Trump is leaving that to the Saudi

American journalist, killed in Turkey by the Saudis. What could possibly go wrong?

OK jurisdiction, evidence etc

That may take a while. Meantime enjoy a word from our sponsor...

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/169/16932/1693288.gif

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/169/16932/1693208.gif

LOL - perfect!

Oh how the right hollered about what Obama did, or hounded Hillary about everything, yet give this lying cheating dufus a pass for stuff that stinks to high hell and think the left and moderates are crazy. Imagine having TWO earners n the family working for OUR government right now. They'd be really screwed right now with many still having to show up for work for NO PAY.

A fool who doesn't care about his own citizens can hardly be expected to care about a journalist murdered on foreign soil by his buddy client can he? The thing about holding your nose and supporting this fool is you know you can never let go, and will be a mouth breather as long as he holds office.

For the rest of us who oppose the dufus, we have to endure his stink until we find out where the right hid the air freshener.

SOTU address is the most boring speech . Platitudes interupted by clapping seals while the other half in attendance sit on their hands or snooze. Go back to the old ways of POTUS sending a letter to Congress that they can ignore .

For the rest of us who oppose the dufus, we have to endure his stink until we find out where the right hid the air freshener.

Anyone accustomed to tolerating the stench that surrounded Obama and the Clintons should have no problems with Trump.

Anyone accustomed to tolerating the stench that surrounded Obama and the Clintons should have no problems with Trump.

Obviously we do, just as you did with them. TIT FOR TAT.

Obviously we do, just as you did with them. TIT FOR TAT.

I don't deny the many shortcomings of Trump, but I find it ridiculous to see you libs get so worked up about his problems when you were so strangely silent about Obama and Clinton. Again, it's all about politics. It has nothing to do with ethics and honesty, just politics. If it was really about ethics, then you would have been upset with Obama and Clinton. If that had been the case, then your criticisms of Trump wouldn't have such a hollow ring to them.

Hmm, maybe that's why I dismiss your utterings about them, because you cannot question the sleazy ethics and dishonesty of today's lying cheating dufus. You had 8 years to prove your case against Obama and half my lifetime to prove your case against Clinton. YOU failed miserably so now it's OUR turn.

Actually, there is no question about the IRS scandal, the Veterans Administration scandal, the doubling of the national debt in only 8 years, the Benghazi debacle, the Fast and Furious scandal, "I'll have more flexibility after the election", and the secret meeting with Bill Clinton by the AG, just to name a few. These are all proven instances of dishonesty, scandal, and poor job performance.

On Trump's side I would note his big mouth, continued deficit spending, and the ridiculous amount of turnover in administrative positions. As to Cohen and Flynn, what they did is on them, and there seems to have been no participation by Trump, but at least they are being held responsible for any wrong-doing they did. When did that ever happen with Obama?

NO EVIDENCE against Obama, and all those hearing into Benghazi by repubs revealed NO EVIDENCE against Hillary. Let's see if the dufus can stand up to as much scrutiny as they did. Sounds fair to me.

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/cache/lw600/169/16931/1693104.jpg

On Trump's side I would note his big mouth, continued deficit spending, and the ridiculous amount of turnover in administrative positions.

Here's an idea, Trump should resurrect the Apprentice and put the participants to work in the cabinet, couldn't do any worse and they may come up with some innovative ideas to stop the revolving door. You're fired may not resonate so often

NO EVIDENCE against Obama, and all those hearing into Benghazi by repubs revealed NO EVIDENCE against Hillary.

There was abundant evidence that her failure to act in an appropriate manner for weeks ahead of time, and the incredible inaction of Obama/Clinton the day of the attack led to the deaths of four Americans. Now did she break a law? Probably not, but her apalling incompetence was on display for everyone to see.

There was abundant evidence that her failure to act in an appropriate manner for weeks ahead of time, and the incredible inaction of Obama/Clinton the day of the attack led to the deaths of four Americans. Now did she break a law? Probably not, but her apalling incompetence was on display for everyone to see.

Amazing how nobody blamed Bush for 9/11, but the righties will never let go of Benghazi, also on 9/11 when every embassy in the world has beefed up security. And why do the 4 service men who died in Syria not show the dufus's appalling incompetence? No need to answer, I'm familiar with conservative prejudice.

Amazing how nobody blamed Bush for 9/11,

No one with even half a brain has ever suggested Bush could have avoided the attacks on 9/11, and certainly he has not been accused of standing around doing nothing while the attacks took place. It's a completely inaccurate comparison.

Now could BILL Clinton have done a better job in the eight years of his admin to have avoided the attacks? Hmmmm??

No one with even half a brain has ever suggested Bush could have avoided the attacks on 9/11, and certainly he has not been accused of standing around doing nothing while the attacks took place. It's a completely inaccurate comparison.

Now could BILL Clinton have done a better job in the eight years of his admin to have avoided the attacks? Hmmmm??

You have a poor memory, GWB was accused of dithering while the attacks took place, I remember well the pictures of him during that time during a school visit without his advisers he had no response

You have a poor memory, GWB was accused of dithering while the attacks took place, I remember well the pictures of him during that time during a school visit without his advisers he had no response
YouTube remembers it well. "My Pet Goat" was the book GWB was reading to Florida second graders.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7fs2duxjpE4

Someone making an excuse for him?

No one with even half a brain has ever suggested Bush could have avoided the attacks on 9/11, and certainly he has not been accused of standing around doing nothing while the attacks took place. It's a completely inaccurate comparison.

Now could BILL Clinton have done a better job in the eight years of his admin to have avoided the attacks? Hmmmm??


Just asking what is the dufus doing to prevent attacks? Why have you not been as critical of him when our soldiers died in Syria AND Africa as you have about Hillary and Benghazi? I really want to know since a bad guy can easily get the drop on a good guy. Every president faces these challenges don't they, where the bad guys have the advantage of secret plans and preparation.

Didn't King Reagan have his Lebanon, and near assassination?

really ? revisionist would like us to believe that GW was unresponsive. What was he to do ? get up in the middle of a reading to kids ? What purpose would that have served ?

really ? revisionist would like us to believe that GW was unresponsive. What was he to do ? get up in the middle of a reading to kids ? What purpose would that have served ?

I'm not one of those though I may have made some disparaging comments in the past about his reaction, but I could see the "OH SH1T" look on his face. Looking back, everybody was in shock and confusion and scared to death. Later changing the focus to Saddam was a clear mistake.

As is oftentimes the case with libs, some of you are completely missing the point. GW was supposed to get up and do what? There was no reason to believe the first attack on the towers was a terrorist attack. The second one sealed the deal, but what was he to do about it at that point? Obama and Clinton, on the other hand, had MONTHS of pleas from the ambassador to do something about security and did NOTHING. Then they had hours and hours to respond and try to help and did NOTHING. Clinton was reduced to having nothing more to say than, "What difference at this point does it make?" Easy for her to say since she was still alive and a multi-millionaire.

Cowardice not to have had the ability to respond and not do it

Cowardice not to have had the ability to respond and not do it

I know you love hyperbole, but your double negative above seems so say he would not do what he could not do.

.No Hilliary and Obama did not do what they could do, they could have rapidly responded from Italy, They could have responded from elsewhere in Libya. What happened is they did nothing as they didn't want their blown CIA operation to come out. Remember Mission Impossible. If you are caught we will disavow your actions

No attention to a potential crisis ahead of time. They could have done that. They could have responded to the many calls for help which came before the event. That's their job, to be sure security is provided. They failed to do so. It's also hard to imagine they could not have done something in the seven hours in which the attack took place. They did nothing. Suppose the attack had lasted 17 hours? They had no idea how long it would last, but they did nothing. Not acceptable.

As is oftentimes the case with libs, some of you are completely missing the point. GW was supposed to get up and do what? There was no reason to believe the first attack on the towers was a terrorist attack. The second one sealed the deal, but what was he to do about it at that point? Obama and Clinton, on the other hand, had MONTHS of pleas from the ambassador to do something about security and did NOTHING. Then they had hours and hours to respond and try to help and did NOTHING. Clinton was reduced to having nothing more to say than, "What difference at this point does it make?" Easy for her to say since she was still alive and a multi-millionaire.

Not only was your post debunked but full of inaccuracy so let me correct your conservative memory.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/hillary-clinton-what-difference-does-it-make-rnc-2016-benghazi-a7148706.html



“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,” she said. “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”


You often speak of the 4 killed but never about the other 30 or so that were eventually evacuated. You still have not commented or treated the deaths in Africa or Syria with the same zeal you do with Benghazi. Wonder why?

My post is full of inaccuracies? In what way was it inaccurate? I have learned in the past that you love to post links to articles that have nothing to do with the subject or have nothing to say to back up your allegations. If my post was inaccurate, tell me how. Did HC say what I said she said? Yes, she did. It was entirely accurate. I speak of the 4 killed because they were killed and the fault lies with HC and BO. You might not like that, but it is true.

As to Syria and Africa, what deaths are you referring to? There have been deaths all over the world, and I have no doubt that they are practically all tragic. There have been tens of thousands of deaths in Syria alone, many of them U.S. military personnel. Perhaps we are right to at least start the initial process of withdrawing them.

Did HC say what I said she said? Yes, she did. It was entirely accurate.
But you took it out of context and gave it an entirely different meaning.

But you took it out of context and gave it an entirely different meaning.

In what way?

But you took it out of context and gave it an entirely different meaning.

Thanks WG, that was my point. Conservatives were using her words against her without saying what she was referring to. Not only is that inaccurate, but disingenuous to boot, as you use the death of soldiers to further an anti Hillary agenda yet again, while completely ignoring the soldiers ambushed by militants in Niger, and recently in Syria under the dufus.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/niger-ambush-soldiers-killed-new-details/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/01/16/syria-explosion-us-soldiers-killed-explosion-manjib/2591639002/

Is selective outrage an accurate description of your narrative, or you just did not know of these recent events?

You still haven't shown how my comments were inaccurate. She made a foolish comment. I realize what she was talking about and I listened to that part of the hearing. She was saying that whether it was a spontaneous demonstration (the lie the Obama admin put out) or a terrorist attack, "What difference does it make now?" In context, does that make the comment any less reprehensible? It doesn't to me. It made a LOT of difference to the families of the Americans who were killed, it likely made a difference during the election, and it still makes a lot of difference to me as an American. Perhaps you don't care, but many of us do. I don't say that in any frustration but just to try and provide some clarity and to point out that putting the quote in context does not make it any less foolish. In fact, to me it makes it more foolish in that she seemed to actually believe, at that point in time, that it was unimportant to place responsibility on the people whose inaction led to the disaster.

Your inaccuracies are reflected in the blame YOU assign, and what the actual investigations show. Your emotional yet understandable tirades pale in the face of the findings which are based not on your interpretation of random statements, but all the facts reviewed in proper contexts by knowledgeable and experienced experts, of which you are not sorry to say.

You are entitled to your opinion and feelings which I try to respect, but sometimes you push me to my limits of understanding them.

Your inaccuracies are reflected in the blame YOU assign, and what the actual investigations show. Your emotional yet understandable tirades pale in the face of the findings which are based not on your interpretation of random statements, but all the facts reviewed in proper contexts by knowledgeable and experienced experts, of which you are not sorry to say.

And yet again, you are not able to identify a single specific area where I was inaccurate. Who is responsible for overseas consulates? The Sec. of State. Who did not take action despite many appeals from the people in Benghazi? HC.

And yet again, you are not able to identify a single specific area where I was inaccurate. Who is responsible for overseas consulates? The Sec. of State. Who did not take action despite many appeals from the people in Benghazi? HC.
But but but there was a WALL!!! ...a number of physical security upgrades, such as the installation of concrete barriers to block unused gates, were made during 2012."
https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2016/oct/07/paul-ryan/state-department-under-hillary-clinton-refused-sec/

And the wall was the only reason that those who survived were able to do so.

And thank you for linking that article. Tal, you need to read this from the article linked above. They seemed to have done the absolute minimum they could have done, and disaster resulted.

"There are disagreements about whether State acted reasonably, but that it didn't honor requests for additional security is established fact," said Georgetown University adjunct assistant professor Daveed Gartenstein-Ross (http://www.daveedgr.com/), who is also a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which focuses on foreign policy and national security.
The State Department has acknowledged (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/state-dept-downgraded-security-in-libya-before-deadly-attack-ex-officer-claims/2012/10/10/d7195faa-12e6-11e2-a16b-2c110031514a_story.html) it rejected requests to provide more security personnel in Libya. It also acknowledged (https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/world/middleeast/no-specific-warnings-in-benghazi-attack.html?pagewanted=all) rejecting a request to erect guard towers at the Benghazi mission, but notes that a number of physical security upgrades, such as the installation of concrete barriers to block unused gates, were made during 2012.

And the wall was the only reason that those who survived were able to do so.

And thank you for linking that article. Tal, you need to read this from the article linked above. They seemed to have done the absolute minimum they could have done, and disaster resulted.

"There are disagreements about whether State acted reasonably, but that it didn't honor requests for additional security is established fact," said Georgetown University adjunct assistant professor Daveed Gartenstein-Ross (http://www.daveedgr.com/), who is also a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which focuses on foreign policy and national security.
The State Department has acknowledged (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/state-dept-downgraded-security-in-libya-before-deadly-attack-ex-officer-claims/2012/10/10/d7195faa-12e6-11e2-a16b-2c110031514a_story.html) it rejected requests to provide more security personnel in Libya. It also acknowledged (https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/world/middleeast/no-specific-warnings-in-benghazi-attack.html?pagewanted=all) rejecting a request to erect guard towers at the Benghazi mission, but notes that a number of physical security upgrades, such as the installation of concrete barriers to block unused gates, were made during 2012.
Now read this:

Finally, since no one in the US intelligence community had evidence of an imminent attack, neither Ambassador Stevens nor the State Department made Benghazi security a very high priority. Stevens’ trip to Benghazi on the day of attack wasn’t coordinated with the US security team based with the US embassy in Tripoli, so they didn’t go. The ambassador, according to the review board, “did not see a direct threat of an attack of this nature and scale.”
https://www.vox.com/2018/11/20/17996140/why-didnt-ambassador-chris-stevens-get-the-security-he-requested

If you want to say that Stevens played a part in his own demise, then that's fine, but I don't think Stevens refused to send more security personnel, refused to adequately harden the consulate, or lied about the cause of the attacK afterwards. That would all have been on Obama and Clinton.

Yes, Stevens played a part in his own demise. I read somewhere, and will scare it up again if you wish, that Stevens felt adding more security would be sending the wrong message.

All I can tell you is that according to your Politi Fact site, additional security was repeatedly requested.

And yet again, you are not able to identify a single specific area where I was inaccurate. Who is responsible for overseas consulates? The Sec. of State. Who did not take action despite many appeals from the people in Benghazi? HC.

Show your links to that assertion so I can give you one that the republican congress refused requests for additional funds for the state dept. Specifically they cut the budget for embassy and consulate security.

http://reverbpress.com/politics/gop-busted-benghazi-voted-massive-embassy-security-cuts-starting-2011/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_1954912.html

I understand your feelings but rather rely on the facts. I mean you hold the lives of 4 lost lives in one tragic incident, but mark the lost lives of others as casualties of war. That's illogical, and MASSIVELY inaccurate. Just my own feelings on the whole matter.

Yep. Just devastating cuts. Only in the fantasy world of liberals could this be considered the root cause of Benghazi. Note the cuts that occurred in 09 when the dems were in charge.

49128

Yeah they seem to have gone back up in 2012, wonder why? You know I don't remember anyone saying it was the root cause of the tragedy in Benghazi, but you cannot ignore it as one of many factors either.

Repubs did a great job of politicizing it though.

Spending for 2012 would have been voted in BEFORE the September attack on Benghazi. How do you explain that?

All I can tell you is that according to your Politi Fact site, additional security was repeatedly requested.

Three reasons, basically: bureaucratic confusion, the mission’s unique legal status, and the murky nature of the intelligence warning of potential threats.oreover, the mission’s confusing legal status made meeting its security needs particularly hard. The Benghazi mission wasn’t an embassy or even an official consulate; it was so off-book that the Libyan government was never officially notified of its existence. This strange legal status put the mission outside the normal State Department procedures used to allocate security funding and personnel.
Finally, since no one in the US intelligence community had evidence of an imminent attack, neither Ambassador Stevens nor the State Department made Benghazi security a very high priority. Stevens’ trip to Benghazi on the day of attack wasn’t coordinated with the US security team based with the US embassy in Tripoli, so they didn’t go. The ambassador, according to the review board, “did not see a direct threat of an attack of this nature and scale.” So while Stevens did ask for more security, his requests weren’t taken as urgent enough to overcome the bureaucratic muddle standing in their way.
https://www.vox.com/2018/11/20/17996140/why-didnt-ambassador-chris-stevens-get-the-security-he-requested

So while Stevens did ask for more security, his requests weren’t taken as urgent enough to overcome the bureaucratic muddle standing in their way.

So that's (literally, in this case) the bottom line. And who was responsible for the making sure the "bureaucratic muddle" did not endanger an ambassador's life? If you guess HC, you guess right. Were there other contributing factors? That sure seems to be the case, and if that's your point then consider it made, but HC is ultimately responsible. And who was responsible for doing nothing, nothing, nothing during the hours and hours the assault was underway? Who was responsible for intentionally lying about the reason for the attack?

And where is HC now? Hmmmmm. HC has just finished grocery shopping, has put all the bags into the trunk, and is on her way home.

Yep. Got off scott free. Sad. At least she is not the president, so maybe justice was served after all, at least on a low level.

Yep. Got off scott free. Sad. At least she is not the president, so maybe justice was served after all, at least on a low level.
And I'm sure she is much happier.

If so, then good for her.

If so, then good for her.
So please stop posting about her.

Tell you what. I'll stop posting about her if you'll start treating Trump with the same kind, considerate, and understanding point of view you use with Clinton. The primary reason I bring her up is when some on this board start whining about Trump's supposed lying (and he does do it) when they were perfectly happy to vote for both Clinton and Obama. What's good for the goose...

Tell you what. I'll stop posting about her if you'll start treating Trump with the same kind, considerate, and understanding point of view you use with Clinton. The primary reason I bring her up is when some on this board start whining about Trump's supposed lying (and he does do it) when they were perfectly happy to vote for both Clinton and Obama. What's good for the goose...
I haven't whined nor have I talked about HC -- only when you trash her. You have no idea who I voted for. I have stated on here that I was a fan of tRump's Apprentice tv show and had hopes his business acumen would improve our country in major ways.

Coming back to the theme of the thread, Trump has told his press secretary not to bother with WH press conferences so perhaps he would approve the murder of all journalists

Coming back to the theme of the thread, Trump has told his press secretary not to bother with WH press conferences so perhaps he would approve the murder of all journalists
What if tRump holds a press conference and no one shows up?

when some on this board

That was not necessarily a reference to you. However, you do jump to her defense rather quickly. If you don't believe that, look at your last ten or so posts. I don't mean that in a critical manner, but just making an observation.

That was not necessarily a reference to you. However, you do jump to her defense rather quickly. If you don't believe that, look at your last ten or so posts. I don't mean that in a critical manner, but just making an observation.
I looked. My "last ten or so posts" did not defend her. I did try to get you away from posting about her (*cough* she's history!) and misrepresenting her and what she said.

Three reasons, basically: bureaucratic confusion, the mission’s unique legal status, and the murky nature of the intelligence warning of potential threats.oreover, the mission’s confusing legal status made meeting its security needs particularly hard. The Benghazi mission wasn’t an embassy or even an official consulate; it was so off-book that the Libyan government was never officially notified of its existence. This strange legal status put the mission outside the normal State Department procedures used to allocate security funding and personnel.
Finally, since no one in the US intelligence community had evidence of an imminent attack, neither Ambassador Stevens nor the State Department made Benghazi security a very high priority. Stevens’ trip to Benghazi on the day of attack wasn’t coordinated with the US security team based with the US embassy in Tripoli, so they didn’t go. The ambassador, according to the review board, “did not see a direct threat of an attack of this nature and scale.” So while Stevens did ask for more security, his requests weren’t taken as urgent enough to overcome the bureaucratic muddle standing in their way.

OK then. What was the purpose of this??

OK then. What was the purpose of this??
It was a response to what you had said. I had quoted you in that post.

A response for the purpose of NOT defending HC? Oh well.

A response for the purpose of NOT defending HC? Oh well.
The topic was Stevens and why security wasn't up to snuff.

What if tRump holds a press conference and no one shows up?

Well he might hold a State of the Union address and no one will show up

The topic was Stevens and why security wasn't up to snuff.

And how HC was responsible for it, so you leaped to her defense. If that is not the case, then what was the purpose of your remarks?

If you blame Hillary for deaths on her watch, then what's the rationale for not blaming the dufus and his SOS for deaths on their watch, like a journalist for example.

That's a valid complaint against Trump, but not even close to being on the same level. Trump had no advance notice of potential trouble concerning the journalist, and certainly had no opportunity to help him once the trouble started. BTW, did your hero Mr. Obama ever hold anyone responsible for the debacle in Benghazi?? We both know the answer to that one. That would have required holding HC responsible, and good luck with that one.

Not even the repub lead investigations brought or recommended charges against HC in regard to Benghazi so blame them too, right?

No. I don't know that she broke a law in regard to Benghazi. Being incompetent is not a violation of a law. Now as to her toy email server and her destroying evidence on it, yes the FBI should have charged her, but your buddy Comey saluted and obeyed his master's command, in my view at least.

Again for the umpteenth time, repubs had a chance to prosecute, censure, or whatever else, when they took over the government which they certainly had the last two years at least, so either they got NOTHING, or they were feckless and incompetent, or likely BOTH!

yeah that was going to happen with emperor's bots running the show at justice .

What happened after they fired the bots?

they are still running it and will until he gets rid of Rosenstein .

they were feckless and incompetent, or likely BOTH!

I would vote for both.

they are still running it and will until he gets rid of Rosenstein .

Set to retire when they confirm the new guy. The new guy will be to busy keeping the dufus out of jail to worry about Hillary.

He has to clean his own house .First move I believe will be to act on the IG's report . He also has to get rid of the Mueller investigation Did you actually read the indictment of Stone ? Stone ,Corsi and Credico were performing a 3 stooges act and Stone lied about it . Basically they wanted to know what Assange had and when he was going to release it to the press. But Stone went further and publicly bragged that he had an insiders view of Assange's operation (completely false ….all he did was make some fishing phone calls to Wiki). Stone then tells a friend in the Trump campaign (Bannon) that Wiki has stuff about Evita . So Stone is asked to give the campaign any info Wiki is planning on revealing . Again ;if Trump's campaign was involved in any of the espionage surrounding the hacking ,they would've known the info Wiki had and would not have bothered listened to Stone . They were completely in the dark . They turned to Stone for info that came to him from Wiki that came to Wiki probably from Ruskie hackers with names like Guccifer2 . Stone ;not knowing jack about what Wiki had ,but wanting to get an in with Trump , hinted about POTENTIAL future Wiki releases . So Stone was a best the 3rd person in the telephone game that was being played and most likely 4th because he was getting some of his stuff from Credico who had interviewed Assange and presumed therefore to have an in with him. Mueller knows this and has not charged Stone with conspiracy with Wiki ……..and forget about a conspiracy with the Ruskies. The judge would laugh that charge out of court . So instead Mueller did a gestapo raid on Stone for 'misleading Congressional investigators ' .He also tried to direct Credico in his testimony so additional charges of witness tampering are added . Serious charges ? Yes . Anything in all of this that imperils the President ? No. It is not illegal to seek or obtain damaging information on your political opponent . With all the people that have been taken down with process crime in the course of this investigation ,not one charge links the Trump campaign in a collusion conspiracy . The Justice Department and the FBI went out of their way to portray Donald Trump as a suspect in what would have been the most abhorrent crime in the nation’s history. It has been more than two years. Is it too much to ask that the Justice Department withdraw its public suggestion that the president of the United States might be a clandestine agent of Russia?

That's why we wait and get the whole report before we stop Mueller's investigation. Indicting and convicting close associates of dufus certainly does imperil the dufus I would think and he certainly is hiring lawyers for his inevitable defense 40 so far. Has it not occurred to you that shooting off ones mouth may have the consequences of a closer look?

Dumb entitled criminals. We wouldn't be here if not for the lies, but they all know the TRUTH will not set them free. I find it amusing you defend the wrong doing of these career criminals and con men, yet like JL, still want to prosecute the so called process crimes of Hillary.

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/inspector-general-report-clinton-email-investigation-2018-06-14-live-updates/



However, the report found that political bias did not affect the investigation and it gave support to the decision not to prosecute Clinton.

yet like JL, still want to prosecute the so called process crimes of Hillary.

Seems hypocritical of you to be so happy and enthusiastic to see these guys prosecuted, and yet when we know without question that HC destroyed evidence, you are fine with letting her walk. Strange. As I frequently say, it's all about politics.

Evidence of what exactly? You don't know do you?

I know exactly what it was and so does everyone else not blinded by liberal bias. She destroyed, by great effort, half of the data on her toy email server which the feds wanted. It could not be any plainer.

I know exactly what it was and so does everyone else not blinded by liberal bias. She destroyed, by great effort, half of the data on her toy email server which the feds wanted. It could not be any plainer.
She destroyed evidence of what?

She destroyed evidence of what?

Well, since she destroyed it, then it would be kind of hard to know what it would have been evidence of. I'm sure it was OK since, after all, she said it was. So we'll never know, will we? But they were able to recover enough to know that she had classified material on her toy server, which is a violation of federal law. I'm sure that when AG Lynch met with Bill Clinton for nearly an hour in private, they did not discuss any of those issues, and the decision to not charge HC four days later had no connection with the meeting.

How much of this garbage are you prepared to put up with?? Once again, it's all about politics. She supported gay marriage and abortion, so most libs did not care what she did wrong.

I find it amusing you defend the wrong doing of these career criminals and con men, yet like JL, still want to prosecute the so called process crimes of Hillary


destroying State dept classified material is not in the league of a process crime . It is more like treason .



She destroyed evidence of what? Since we haven't seen the classified emails she destroyed then that would be hard to answer. That she destroyed emails that belonged to the State Dept from a server she was illegally using is in itself a felony . But if I was to guess ,it was probably evidence of the pay to play scheme she was using in her position as Sec State enriching the Clinton crime family and laundering the bribes through the Clinton Foundation. That would be a good guess. Under the radar ;multiple FBI offices have been running a pay for play investigation for about a year now .

tal ;revelations about Comey admittedly watering down his report about Evita's server and conduct at State ;and that he came to a conclusion before any witnesses were questioned will undoubtedly be revisiting by the new Justice Dept regime now that the old guard is finally being shown the door . At this point Evita will probably argue the statute of limitations has passed .

Well, since she destroyed it, then it would be kind of hard to know what it would have been evidence of.

Another unbelievable comment from one who so prizes evidence.




She supported gay marriage and abortion.

Ahhh, the REAL reason HC is so hated by the loony right.

Another unbelievable comment from one who so prizes evidence.

You're not thinking. Yes, I prize evidence, which is why it is alarming that HC destroyed evidence.

If supporting life and traditional marriage makes me a loon, then I'm loon, but I suspect the shoe is actually on the other foot.

What I don't understand is why we are discussing old accusations against Hilliary, proven or otherwise, when this thread is about Trump attitude to journalists

That's what conservatives do here Clete, when they cannot discuss or debate current issues they dredge up old ones. They have been slinging mud at Hillary so long they just can't stop. They fear the pace of a rapidly changing world. I certainly can understand them being overwhelmed right now.

Evita's past is still relevent in this case since it was her campaign that fabricated the allegations .

That's what conservatives do here Clete, when they cannot discuss or debate current issues they dredge up old ones. They have been slinging mud at Hillary so long they just can't stop. They fear the pace of a rapidly changing world. I certainly can understand them being overwhelmed right now.

It's takes a mud-slinger to know a mud-slinger! (<:

Thank you JL. So true.

https://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_30/1639641/160726-putin-hrc-apec-mbe-422p_76560162e30c1c7d83c6e89a8c8508e3.fit-760w.jpg (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj9sf2uqY_gAhVtUt8KHZspAvkQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fnews%2Fus-news%2Fwhy-putin-hates-hillary-clinton-n617236&psig=AOvVaw14MHdR7-rMWQpx0hYWa_cq&ust=1548725271459482)

I'll have more flexibility once you win the election. How's the dossier sellingwith the FISA court ?

That's pretty good Tom, but didn't conservatives pay to get that dossier started against the dufus before the HC picked it up?

That's pretty good Tom, but didn't conservatives pay to get that dossier started against the dufus before the HC picked it up?

Where did you get that from? And if you link an article, please make it an accurate and pertinent one.

Where did you get that from? And if you link an article, please make it an accurate and pertinent one.

Hello the thought police have arrived, thou shat have no opinion but mine

Hello the thought police have arrived, thou shat have no opinion but mine

Just shooting for accuracy. You should try it yourself!

Just shooting for accuracy. You should try it yourself!

No I prefer the shotgun approach

No I prefer the shotgun approach

Great answer! It does tend to guarantee at least hitting something.

At worst it changes the subjest

Where did you get that from? And if you link an article, please make it an accurate and pertinent one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier


In October 2015, Fusion GPS was contracted by conservative political website The Washington Free Beacon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Free_Beacon)to provide political opposition research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_research) against Trump. In April 2016, attorney Marc Elias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Elias)

separately hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump on behalf of Hillary Clinton's campaign (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2016) and the DNC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee). The Free Beacon stopped its backing when Trump became the presumptive Republican Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)) presidential nominee.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier#cite_note-Shane_Confessore_Rosenberg_1/12/2017-2) In June 2016, Fusion GPS subcontracted Steele's firm to compile the dossier. His instructions were to seek answers to why Trump would "repeatedly seek to do deals in a notoriously corrupt police state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia)

".[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier#cite_note-Simpson_Fritsch_1/2/2018-9)
Clinton campaign officials were reportedly unaware that Fusion GPS had subcontracted Steele, and he was not told that the Clinton campaign was the recipient of his research.
[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier#cite_note-Entous_Barrett_Helderman_10/24/2017-10)[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier#cite_note-Mayer_3/12/2018-11)
Following Trump's election as president, funding from Clinton and the DNC ceased, but Steele continued his research and was reportedly paid directly by Fusion GPS co-founder
Glenn R. Simpson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_R._Simpson).[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier#cite_note-Sampathkumar_8/23/2017-12) The completed dossier was then handed to British and American intelligence services.[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier#cite_note-Perez_Prokupecz_Raju_4/18/2017-13)

In April 2016, attorney Marc Elias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Elias) separately hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump on behalf of
Hillary Clinton's campaign (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2016) and the
DNC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee)


So rather clearly the Clinton campaign's attempt to smear Trump was a completely separate undertaking not related to anything the conservative political website The Washington Free Beacon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Free_Beacon) did. So your own article shows that when you said, "didn't conservatives pay to get that dossier started against the dufus before the HC picked it up?", you were simply not correct. One had nothing to do with the other. Also, your article stated the WFB "contacted" Fusion GPS, but nothing was said about contracting with them or paying them, so that also does not support your allegation.

I often wonder how carefully you read your own material.

My statement is accurate as posted and what difference does it make? Your nitpicking AGAIN.

My statement is accurate as posted and what difference does it make? Your nitpicking AGAIN.

Depends. If what you were saying was that there was a largely inconsequential contact by a conservative newspaper with Fusion GPS that amounted basically to nothing, followed by an enormous and completely unrelated (to the conservative contact) investigation funded by the dems using FGPS, then I would agree with you. That is certainly what the Wiki article reported.

I agree the contact would be unrelated to both sides. That was obvious. FGPS must not be that bad if both sides turned to them. According to Wiki,


Fusion GPS is a commercial research and strategic intelligence firm based in Washington, D.C. The company conducts open-source investigations and provides research and strategic advice for businesses, law firms and investors, as well as for political inquiries, such as opposition research. The "GPS" initialism is derived from "Global research, Political analysis, Strategic insight".