 |
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.Quote:
when some on this board
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
OK then. What was the purpose of this??Quote:
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.
It was a response to what you had said. I had quoted you in that post.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
A response for the purpose of NOT defending HC? Oh well.
The topic was Stevens and why security wasn't up to snuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Well he might hold a State of the Union address and no one will show upQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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?Quote:
The topic was Stevens and why security wasn't up to snuff.
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 .
I would vote for both.Quote:
they were feckless and incompetent, or likely BOTH!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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/in...-live-updates/
Quote:
However, the report found that political bias did not affect the investigation and it gave support to the decision not to prosecute Clinton.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:40 AM. |