24 thoughts on “Trey Gowdy”

  1. Benghazi Committee member Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA):

    “… we don’t know what this committee’s supposed to look for. Apart from damaging Hillary Clinton, it has no reason for existence.”

    Can’t imagine the frustration that Gowdy is having dealing with outright liars like this one. What about Andrea Mitchell’s attack on Mike Pompeo (R-KS) regarding Blumenthal as the source of Clinton’s information? Was she trying to mis-quote him? Was he correct? I have no way to judge this aside from Mitchell being a partisan Hillary-crat. If he’s allowing the media to discredit him and thus the committee, then he needs to shut up.

  2. It is nakedly partisan to investigate personnel at the State Department, including the head of that department, in the deaths of State Department employees due to State Department incompetence.

  3. No one slings mud like the Clintons. This had to happen, sooner or later. If anything, it means Gowdy and his committee are getting too close to something important.

  4. It was bound to happen. It’s hard to fight pigs without getting mud on you.

    As for the link to the Right Scoop; this whole issue is “why did the Obama Administration start off with a lie to Congress and the American people?” That never needed to happen, yet the Obama Administration wanted us to believe a video caused a spontaneous protest that included mortars and other heavy weapons. Why?

    I don’t think anything could have been done to save the Ambassador, and likely not much to save the 2 operators that died in the second protest assault. Yet, the thing to do is for the government (Administration and Congress) to investigate the Benghazi Attack the way the Space Shuttle Columbia Incident was investigated, so we will know what went right and what went terribly wrong.

    1. I don’t know why Columbia is considered the gold standard for accident investigations. If you want an objective, non-political investigation, you don’t load the investigating committee up with political scientists like Logsdon.

      1. I wouldn’t call the CAIB report a gold standard. I haven’t said it was. However, compared to the Senate Benghazi report, the CAIB was far more useful.

  5. Integrity? Faking CIA redactions to imply that Clinton and/or Blumenthal leaked sources and methods? That’s what passes for integrity these days?

    The Benghazi committee has been a GOP campaign operation from the beginning, as GOP Congressmen have admitted and bragged. There have been 20 Congressional hearings on Benghazi. Clinton’s testimony this week will make 21, with who knows how many to follow. There were only 22 for 9/11. I doubt there were even 10 for the Beirut bombing that killed 241 Marines.

    3. as GOP Congressmen have admitted and bragged

      So now you’re siding with republicans? We know McCarthy spoke against it because he was angry for not getting the Speaker position. But you said, “men”. Let’s see the names, I’m curious.

      And, there wouldn’t be so many hearings if there weren’t so many obstructions.

      1. We know McCarthy spoke against it because he was angry for not getting the Speaker position.

        No, McCarthy made his stupid comment when he was still likely to become Speaker.

        1. Ok, point taken.

          I still find it interesting that Jim relies on republican testimony when it agrees with his point of view.

          1. Standard lawyer move – only mention the opposition’s arguments when they favor your side. I think it’ll be shocking to everyone here, but Jim may not be an entirely unbiased participant in this discussion.

          2. It wasn’t the first time McCarthy had bragged about the damage they were doing to Clinton’s political chances, just the first time it got much media attention (the press was tired of the “Clinton is doomed” story, and ready for a new “Clinton comeback” story). And why would McCarthy lie? Statements against interest are particularly credible.

    4. “Faking CIA redactions to imply that Clinton and/or Blumenthal leaked sources and methods? ”

      Faking redactions? Leaks? Links?

      1. The “sources and methods” redaction story’s been all over the place; here’s one example.

        Read the whole thing; it’s got great tidbits like these about Gowdy’s questioning of Sidney Blumenthal:

        Gowdy and his staff asked Blumenthal more than 50 questions about the Clinton Foundation, the charitable organization established by Bill Clinton and where Blumenthal had worked. Republicans also asked more than 45 questions about David Brock, who operates Media Matters and other related groups, and over 160 questions about Blumenthal’s relationship and contacts with the Clintons.

        No wonder Gowdy won’t release the transcript! Why should anyone think that this is anything other than government-funded opposition research on behalf of the Republican party?

    5. “The Benghazi committee has been a GOP campaign operation from the beginning”

      Pot Kettle syndrome here.

      Is there an element of politics? Sure, they are all politicians but just because it is bad for Hillary doesn’t mean it only motivated by politics. Americans died, the administration lied, and a scapegoat went to jail. Our first black President scapegoated a minority for political gain, oh wait that kind of politics is good, I guess.

      I am sure you will be totally outraged the next time Democrats use congressional investigations for politics. I bet they are doing so at this very minute and not just with the Benghazi scandal.

    6. You see, Jim, when Gowdy’s committee has to put up with this garbage, your cries of foul play are easily shown to be stalling techniques.

      The State Dept *just* delivered nearly 1,300 printed pages of new emails from Ambassador Chris Stevens.

      1. And printed pages, not the original electronic document so a) no metadata and b) not easily searchable. This is continued obstruction and stonewalling, just like when Hillary printed out her emails.

        1. But at least they gave the committee two days to look through it before Clinton’s testimony.

      2. To be fair though, it took so long for the State Department to turn them over because they didn’t know he had a State Department email. They all had his AOL email.

        Also, it would be very un-American to accuse our unelected career public servants of subverting an investigation in the name of politics. These people are servants, they barely even make $200k a year and made a big sacrifice to work for the people, just imagine how much better they would have done in the private sector.

    7. This is because we still haven’t heard the answer to the most important question.

      We know that four Americans died in Benghazi after contacting the US Navy fleet offshore and asking for assistance. We know that the US Navy was assembling a rescue effort, but someone ordered the Navy rescue team to stand down and let those four men die, presumably so as not to “provoke” and “alienate” the “moderate, pro-democracy rebels.”

      What we do not know, and what demands an answer is: who gave that order? Who ordered the Navy rescue mission to stand down and let those four men die? Was it Hillary? Was it Obama? Who? Whoever is responsible is guilty of four counts of manslaughter–depraved indifference to human life.

      One may hope that the Republicans have the moral courage to stand firm in the face of all the usual vitriol and manufactured outrage from the Left and dig until they find the truth. Their track record doesn’t inspire confidence, though.

  6. Kudos to Sharyl Attkisson. The White House got her fired and she responded by re-branding as an independent news source both online and on TV. She could be in a good position to capture shifting preferences in media consumption.

Comments are closed.