Hey, it wouldn’t be the first time she’s lied under oath. She did it routinely in the nineties.
26 thoughts on “Hillary And Benghazi”
Comments are closed.
Hey, it wouldn’t be the first time she’s lied under oath. She did it routinely in the nineties.
Comments are closed.
The arithmetic is very simple. The concepts are simple.
She and Obama effed up. Lives could have been saved.
They did nothing.
Worse…they don’t feel ashamed.
Let’s say that there is a verified document that directly contradicts her sworn testimony to a Senate and/or House committee. Raise your hand if you believe HRC will be arrested and prosecuted for perjury.
(I think she should be prosecuted. I doubt it will happen. Could clear evidence of perjury before Congress seriously hurt her run for Prez in 2016? It should and I hope it does.)
Perjury only applies under law. They decide what the law is, is, er sumptin.
Perjury is difficult to prove, because it isn’t enough to show that a statement was untrue, or even that the defendant should have known it was untrue: you have to prove that the defendant consciously knew in the moment that it was untrue. All Clinton would have to say is “I didn’t remember signing that cable, I sign lots of cables.”
Remember that Karl Rove twice appeared before a grand jury and in sworn testimony denied having told Time reporter Matt Cooper that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. Then, in his third grand jury appearance, he changed his story, confirming the Cooper conversation (which the prosecutor had known about all along), and claiming that it had previously escaped his memory. He wasn’t charged.
Was that conscious or conscience? I’d settle for unconscious, but evil works for me.
Remember when the Democrats were outraged over a DC socialite who wasn’t a covert operative was revealed to work for the CIA were totally silent when an actual covert CIA operative was outed and is now being subjected to torture worse than waterboarding in a Pakistani prision because Uncle Joe doesn’t know how to keep his mouth shut?
The whole Plame affair was not an effort to wage war against a critical media but yet again when we have a President that is actually waging war against a small minority of critical media we are greeted with silience yet again from Democrats who screamed in the streets for eight years.
House Republicans trying to score political points against a Clinton with accusations of perjury? Very 90s.
Clintons committing perjury? Also very ’90s. Apparently they don’t evolve.
Jim hasn’t evolved either. He’s still trying to score political points off of Plame. When somebody’s assistant commits perjury: bad. When the President or SecState commits perjury: meh. You know Le Affair Plame was all about political theater as the person who actually outted Valerie Plame, Dick Armitage, was never tried.
Armitage didn’t lie to the FBI or a grand jury. Rove and Libby did.
Armitage committed the crime for which Libby and Rove were being investigated, you @#$!!ing brain-dead moron.
Exactly
Is that remark meant to be persuasive to anyone who is not 100% ideologically committed to Mr. Obama, or was it simply meant to “score political points” of its own and make the person making them feel good?
There is a broad spectrum of political opinion represented here at Rand’s fine Web site. Not everyone is committed to a “party line.”
For example, the Right Blogosphere is now hopping up and down about the Brothers Tsarnaev and what the authorities should have known in advance.
Big deel! Intelligence gathering is never perfect and the most vigorous defense net always lets some attacks through. The important thing is that the FBI let the photos out, this “flushed out” the “alleged perpetrators”, the police fought these guys with losses of their own people, Governor Patrick “locked down” Boston, and the last guy was captured.
The Benghazi thing was like none of the end of last week ever happened. It seems as if the Obama people were too afraid of “committing forces” (we had Sec Def Panetta’s weasel words to that effect) that they would suffer casualties and imperil the C in C’s precious reelection bid.
This is kinda like Governor Patrick pleading with the FBI, please don’t let those photos out, it will get two of my police shot with one dead, I can’t take the political fallout.
There is something about Benghazi that stinks. Whatever the outcome of Boston, the political people put their reputations on the line, the people of Boston and Watertown put their comfort and convenience and economic livelihoods on the line, and the police put their lives on the line
Plain and simple, the outcome of Boston was not perfect, civilians died, an officer died, but the people, the political leaders, and the police conducted themselves with dignity, with courage, and with honor. The same cannot be said about the political response to Benghazi, and that stinks, and that anyone defends what happened, that too stinks.
Is that remark meant to be persuasive
I suppose not. But I hope it’s a reminder that the authors of the report aren’t disinterested truth-seekers. They gain political benefits from their allegations, regardless of the truth of those allegations.
It seems as if the Obama people were too afraid
Only if you come to the story with that expectation.
There is something about Benghazi that stinks
Again, only if you start with an assumption that there must be something there that stinks, and/or get your information from people with a political motive to find something that stinks.
Hmm, only if you start with an assumption? Like a certain someone, let’s call him Amabo, who pushed the “assumption” that there was a protest that evolved into a full on attack against our embassy? Who would think that stinks? Maybe the person scapegoated by Amabo, the only person to be punished over Benghazi…
We can make the assumption that guy doesn’t care about the events in Benghazi and the way our government lied about those events.
Whatever the political motivations, Clinton did commit perjury and lost his license to practice law for ten years because of it.
Like with most things, the cover-up is usually what gets people in trouble. Look at Martha Stewart, who went to jail for essentially lying to the feds–there was no insider trading conviction.
Mostly because of the insane amount of power politicians have these days, my attitude is that gotcha moments like what happened to Clinton should mean removal from office as a matter of course. They should be like Caesar’s wife–above suspicion. Instead, we often hold them to lower standards.
The sun rose, a Clinton lied, both are common occurrences.
So the libs insist upon voting in known liars. For example you have Granny Elizabeth Warren of Ma. who claimed she was of Indian descent but no Indian tribe accepts that nor is there any proof. What we can prove is that she used that to gain preferences in selections. And yet…..the libs happily voted her in. i can only surmise it’s because they know she will vote their way on any issue.
But there’s a price to be paid for that……
Don’t they know what happens when you cannot trust someone’s word?
Of course I really should NOT have been surprised…
Because we have, here, the Lioness of Tuzla brazenly lying about being under sniper fire at the Tuzla airport. And yet a lot of the lib-dems wanted her as President…still do. Ohhh so what? She’ll vote my way and that’s all I care about….
But this is what you get when you vote in a known liar…
you get lies. What a shocker!!!!…how unexpected! If they will lie to you about being subjected to sniper fire, they will lie to you about serious mistakes they made in office. Mistakes that directly caused the death of 4 American citizens….. just left out there to die.
THAT is the price that was paid.
So the libs insist upon voting in known liars.
Unlike non-libs, who all refused on principle to vote for Paul “2 hour and 50-something” Ryan?
No not unlike any non-lib who voted for a known GOP liar.
Perjury is exactly like bragging.
Bragging can be true or false, but is always self-flattering. Perjury can be self-flattering or self-deprecating, but is always false. The two things are orthogonal.
Fair enough. Ryan lied about his marathon time and Obama, Hillary, and Bill lied about the deaths of Americans abroad due to poor policy, knowing about warnings ahead of time, and taking sexual advantage of a student.
Totally equivalent.
Everyone lies, either knowingly or unknowingly, but what matters is what they are lying about.
Quite right , Wodun.
And what also matters is how MUCH they lie. We have quite the pile of lies from just Hillary starting with
“oh my god! We found the Vince Foster files! They were just…….just….sitting there on the nightstand!” and proceeding through several decades.
And Lie-awatha has a lifetime of not only lying but USING those lies to screw the very people lib-dems claim to want to help. So the irony there is quite thick.
Obama, Hillary, and Bill lied about the deaths of Americans abroad due to poor policy, knowing about warnings ahead of time, and taking sexual advantage of a student.
You’re welcome to believe that Obama and Hillary lied about Benghazi, but you’d have a hard time proving it. What student did Bill lie about?
Lie-awatha has a lifetime of not only lying
Your contention is that she doesn’t have Native American heritage, and that she’s known that all along? Where’s the proof that she knew?
You’re welcome to believe that Obama and Hillary lied about Benghazi, but you’d have a hard time proving it. What student did Bill lie about?
I imagine Gregg was referring to Lewinski. She graduated from college just prior to accepting an internship from the White House. And of course, B. Clinton actually did lie about his relationship with her.
As to “proving” that Obama and H. Clinton lied about Benghazi, all I can say is that their story isn’t credible. I can’t root around in their minds, but I can use reason and common sense. A common sign of liars is that both they change their stories frequently (often only after the old story has been shown to be in error) and the difference between their stories and reality always favors them.
Your contention is that she doesn’t have Native American heritage, and that she’s known that all along? Where’s the proof that she knew?
Well, what’s the plausible alternate scenario? Let’s keep in mind here that she benefited greatly from this assertion on her part. And she changed her story only when caught making a false claim.