So maybe we can spend several million more dollars on this. Maybe drag it out to, say, October 2016.

Did they ever find all those emails that GW Bush and his folks deleted? You know, the ones about the WMDs and all that?

Yep, because it certainly can't be for delivering any new answers on Benghazi.... because thus far he hasn't been able to come up with jack.

Like every other serious scandal--Benghazi is just the tip. I don't know what the "there" is, but a very serious infraction at State has been revealed: the classified information on Clinton's server and the cavalier way in which this has been handled by State and the administration. This is a very serious infraction and Petraeus was convicted for much, much less. The fact that State knew there was highly classified material on the thumb drive under the control of Clinton's attorney and did not immediately secure it is a serious departure from SOP. That is just a start. The fact that Hillary had highly classified information on her server and computer,--and, probably Huma, as well, is an egregious infraction. Did Hillary also have this on her phone and Blackberry? Where else was this material?

Hillary is supposed to know what information is classified. She had the right to classify material--and yet she had some of the most highly classified material available on her server--and a thumb drive? HOw many thumb drives are out there with highly classified information on it? The fact that the material was/is not marked is not sufficient. It might pass on "Secret" information--but Hillary should certainly know "top secret" when she sees it.

It is against the rules to put your thumb drive into a government computer. There are reasons for this.

How disgusting it that truth?! I don't understand how any thinking person can see the Benghazi witch-hurt as anything but cheap political theater. I would be ashamed to be a Republican.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is their some basis for their belief in malfeasance? If so, that should be all the evidence they need. The problem is, there doesn't seem to be any solid or meaningful evidence to support their belief in malfeasance.

What is it that they think only exists uniquely on Hillary's email server? Don't they understand that emails typically have a sender and a recipient? For every email that Hillary sent or received, there is a copy in existence with the outside sender or receiver. And where it comes to Benghazi, there would only have been a very limited number of senders and recipients. Hadn't they thought to subpoena those?

Why the fixation on her email server? Do they somehow bizarrely think the smoking gun evidence is hidden in emails that Hillary sent to her self for some reason?

Seriously, a lack of logical or critical thinking manifests itself here...

Bill Kristol just announced to the world that Trey Gowdy is the Republicans' MVP so far this cycle. So I guess we can give up the pretense that the committee is intended for anything other than oppo research.

Yep, because it certainly can't be for delivering any new answers on Benghazi.... because thus far he hasn't been able to come up with jack.

Every time you Republican dead enders bring up Benghazi, I think about this quote and giggle. Keep it up, chuckle-heads.

"I would argue that a suite of Benghazi investigations, rolled out at strategic intervals, would be much more effective than a standing committee which could become old news quickly .... My Permanent Select Committee to Investigate Benghazi is the only way to embed the scandal into our politics. Like Watergate, Benghazi could become synonymous with political disgrace. All future Democratic scandals could end in "ghazi." IRS-ghazi, for instance. Or gay-ghazi or Penta-ghazi .... What we're talking about is our children and our grandchildren and their right to get to the bottom of Benghazi just as we did. Do you want them to grow up in the dark?"

Senator Peg Stanchion (Janel Maloney from Alpha House)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of you seem to have forgotten, or may have never known, that one of the roles of Congress is to conduct oversight of the executive branch:

Through legislative debate and compromise, the U.S. Congress makes laws that influence our daily lives. It holds hearings to inform the legislative process, conducts investigations to oversee the executive branch, and serves as the voice of the people and the states in the federal government.

https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/about-congress

So, in other words, IT IS THEIR JOB!
Of course, their job could be more easily accomplished if the parties involved in this particular investigation cooperated a bit better and provided the documents subpoenaed by the investigating committee.

Hillary has repeatedly offered to appear before them personally and testify. It's Gowdy's panel that's refused that. And meanwhile, there already have been hundreds of hearings, thousands and thousands of documents reviewed, dozens of independent investigations and to date NONE of them support the core allegations made by Gowdy's panel.

Why would they interview her before they have all the evidence that they have requested and not received? They have waited to get the copies of her emails around the time of Benghazi, but have not received them. Since she has agreed only to appear once, they are waiting until they have all the emails (at least those she didn’t destroy).
I don’t blame them for waiting. And, I can see why Hillary might want to testify sooner rather than later.

She already appeared before the committee, a long time ago. This isn't about her emails.

What is the date that she appeared before the Select Committee on Benghazi?

She first appeared before the committee in January 2013.

Hmm. Interesting, since the Select Committee on Benghazi wasn’t formed until May 2, 2014.

She appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Jan. 23, 2013 where she uttered her now famous, "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?" when asked "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans,"

What is it that they think only exists uniquely on Hillary's email server? Don't they understand that emails typically have a sender and a recipient? For every email that Hillary sent or received, there is a copy in existence with the outside sender or receiver. And where it comes to Benghazi, there would only have been a very limited number of senders and recipients. Hadn't they thought to subpoena those?

Well, it turns out that she did not turn over all her Benghazi emails--and we do not necessarily know who else was on her email list--example: she did not turn over Blumenthal emails--possibly because she assumed no one would know she was emailing Blumenthal. Who else was she emailing outside the government? How can we know?

Huma was also on Clintonemail--so those emails might be revealing. It is rumored that Mills was also on it--but that is being denied.

Problem is, that unless you know exactly with whom Hillary was communicating, you don't know which emails to subpoena. That is why her emails should have been on her government server. We don't know who else is involved and where she was getting her advice.

They have been trying to subpoena those related to Benghazi. But, Clinton has not been exactly cooperative. Had she been, this would have been over long ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of you seem to have forgotten, or may have never known, that one of the roles of Congress is to conduct oversight of the executive branch:

Through legislative debate and compromise, the U.S. Congress makes laws that influence our daily lives. It holds hearings to inform the legislative process, conducts investigations to oversee the executive branch, and serves as the voice of the people and the states in the federal government.

https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/about-congress

So, in other words, IT IS THEIR JOB!
Of course, their job could be more easily accomplished if the parties involved in this particular investigation cooperated a bit better and provided the documents subpoenaed by the investigating committee.

Hillary has repeatedly offered to appear before them personally and testify. It's Gowdy's panel that's refused that. And meanwhile, there already have been hundreds of hearings, thousands and thousands of documents reviewed, dozens of independent investigations and to date NONE of them support the core allegations made by Gowdy's panel.

Why would they interview her before they have all the evidence that they have requested and not received? They have waited to get the copies of her emails around the time of Benghazi, but have not received them. Since she has agreed only to appear once, they are waiting until they have all the emails (at least those she didn’t destroy).
I don’t blame them for waiting. And, I can see why Hillary might want to testify sooner rather than later.

She already appeared before the committee, a long time ago. This isn't about her emails.

What is the date that she appeared before the Select Committee on Benghazi?

She first appeared before the committee in January 2013.

Hmm. Interesting, since the Select Committee on Benghazi wasn’t formed until May 2, 2014.

Sorry, it wasn't the committee, it was just her testimony to the Senate. You can probably Google this if you're really interested.

Oh, I am very clear on when she testified and to whom. Not so sure you are, though.
She has NEVER testified to the Select Committee.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of you seem to have forgotten, or may have never known, that one of the roles of Congress is to conduct oversight of the executive branch:

Through legislative debate and compromise, the U.S. Congress makes laws that influence our daily lives. It holds hearings to inform the legislative process, conducts investigations to oversee the executive branch, and serves as the voice of the people and the states in the federal government.

https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/about-congress

So, in other words, IT IS THEIR JOB!
Of course, their job could be more easily accomplished if the parties involved in this particular investigation cooperated a bit better and provided the documents subpoenaed by the investigating committee.

Hillary has repeatedly offered to appear before them personally and testify. It's Gowdy's panel that's refused that. And meanwhile, there already have been hundreds of hearings, thousands and thousands of documents reviewed, dozens of independent investigations and to date NONE of them support the core allegations made by Gowdy's panel.

Why would they interview her before they have all the evidence that they have requested and not received? They have waited to get the copies of her emails around the time of Benghazi, but have not received them. Since she has agreed only to appear once, they are waiting until they have all the emails (at least those she didn’t destroy).
I don’t blame them for waiting. And, I can see why Hillary might want to testify sooner rather than later.

She already appeared before the committee, a long time ago. This isn't about her emails.

What is the date that she appeared before the Select Committee on Benghazi?

She first appeared before the committee in January 2013.

Hmm. Interesting, since the Select Committee on Benghazi wasn’t formed until May 2, 2014.

Sorry, it wasn't the committee, it was just her testimony to the Senate. You can probably Google this if you're really interested.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of you seem to have forgotten, or may have never known, that one of the roles of Congress is to conduct oversight of the executive branch:

Through legislative debate and compromise, the U.S. Congress makes laws that influence our daily lives. It holds hearings to inform the legislative process, conducts investigations to oversee the executive branch, and serves as the voice of the people and the states in the federal government.

https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/about-congress

So, in other words, IT IS THEIR JOB!
Of course, their job could be more easily accomplished if the parties involved in this particular investigation cooperated a bit better and provided the documents subpoenaed by the investigating committee.

Hillary has repeatedly offered to appear before them personally and testify. It's Gowdy's panel that's refused that. And meanwhile, there already have been hundreds of hearings, thousands and thousands of documents reviewed, dozens of independent investigations and to date NONE of them support the core allegations made by Gowdy's panel.

Why would they interview her before they have all the evidence that they have requested and not received? They have waited to get the copies of her emails around the time of Benghazi, but have not received them. Since she has agreed only to appear once, they are waiting until they have all the emails (at least those she didn’t destroy).
I don’t blame them for waiting. And, I can see why Hillary might want to testify sooner rather than later.

She already appeared before the committee, a long time ago. This isn't about her emails.

What is the date that she appeared before the Select Committee on Benghazi?

She first appeared before the committee in January 2013.

Hmm. Interesting, since the Select Committee on Benghazi wasn’t formed until May 2, 2014.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of you seem to have forgotten, or may have never known, that one of the roles of Congress is to conduct oversight of the executive branch:

Through legislative debate and compromise, the U.S. Congress makes laws that influence our daily lives. It holds hearings to inform the legislative process, conducts investigations to oversee the executive branch, and serves as the voice of the people and the states in the federal government.

https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/about-congress

So, in other words, IT IS THEIR JOB!
Of course, their job could be more easily accomplished if the parties involved in this particular investigation cooperated a bit better and provided the documents subpoenaed by the investigating committee.

Hillary has repeatedly offered to appear before them personally and testify. It's Gowdy's panel that's refused that. And meanwhile, there already have been hundreds of hearings, thousands and thousands of documents reviewed, dozens of independent investigations and to date NONE of them support the core allegations made by Gowdy's panel.

Why would they interview her before they have all the evidence that they have requested and not received? They have waited to get the copies of her emails around the time of Benghazi, but have not received them. Since she has agreed only to appear once, they are waiting until they have all the emails (at least those she didn’t destroy).
I don’t blame them for waiting. And, I can see why Hillary might want to testify sooner rather than later.

She already appeared before the committee, a long time ago. This isn't about her emails.

What is the date that she appeared before the Select Committee on Benghazi?

She first appeared before the committee in January 2013.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of you seem to have forgotten, or may have never known, that one of the roles of Congress is to conduct oversight of the executive branch:

Through legislative debate and compromise, the U.S. Congress makes laws that influence our daily lives. It holds hearings to inform the legislative process, conducts investigations to oversee the executive branch, and serves as the voice of the people and the states in the federal government.

https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/about-congress

So, in other words, IT IS THEIR JOB!
Of course, their job could be more easily accomplished if the parties involved in this particular investigation cooperated a bit better and provided the documents subpoenaed by the investigating committee.

Hillary has repeatedly offered to appear before them personally and testify. It's Gowdy's panel that's refused that. And meanwhile, there already have been hundreds of hearings, thousands and thousands of documents reviewed, dozens of independent investigations and to date NONE of them support the core allegations made by Gowdy's panel.

Why would they interview her before they have all the evidence that they have requested and not received? They have waited to get the copies of her emails around the time of Benghazi, but have not received them. Since she has agreed only to appear once, they are waiting until they have all the emails (at least those she didn’t destroy).
I don’t blame them for waiting. And, I can see why Hillary might want to testify sooner rather than later.

She already appeared before the committee, a long time ago. This isn't about her emails.

What is the date that she appeared before the Select Committee on Benghazi?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of you seem to have forgotten, or may have never known, that one of the roles of Congress is to conduct oversight of the executive branch:

Through legislative debate and compromise, the U.S. Congress makes laws that influence our daily lives. It holds hearings to inform the legislative process, conducts investigations to oversee the executive branch, and serves as the voice of the people and the states in the federal government.

https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/about-congress

So, in other words, IT IS THEIR JOB!
Of course, their job could be more easily accomplished if the parties involved in this particular investigation cooperated a bit better and provided the documents subpoenaed by the investigating committee.

Hillary has repeatedly offered to appear before them personally and testify. It's Gowdy's panel that's refused that. And meanwhile, there already have been hundreds of hearings, thousands and thousands of documents reviewed, dozens of independent investigations and to date NONE of them support the core allegations made by Gowdy's panel.

Why would they interview her before they have all the evidence that they have requested and not received? They have waited to get the copies of her emails around the time of Benghazi, but have not received them. Since she has agreed only to appear once, they are waiting until they have all the emails (at least those she didn’t destroy).
I don’t blame them for waiting. And, I can see why Hillary might want to testify sooner rather than later.

She already appeared before the committee, a long time ago. This isn't about her emails.

Anonymous wrote:Is their some basis for their belief in malfeasance? If so, that should be all the evidence they need. The problem is, there doesn't seem to be any solid or meaningful evidence to support their belief in malfeasance.

What is it that they think only exists uniquely on Hillary's email server? Don't they understand that emails typically have a sender and a recipient? For every email that Hillary sent or received, there is a copy in existence with the outside sender or receiver. And where it comes to Benghazi, there would only have been a very limited number of senders and recipients. Hadn't they thought to subpoena those?

Why the fixation on her email server? Do they somehow bizarrely think the smoking gun evidence is hidden in emails that Hillary sent to her self for some reason?

Seriously, a lack of logical or critical thinking manifests itself here...

Bill Kristol just announced to the world that Trey Gowdy is the Republicans' MVP so far this cycle. So I guess we can give up the pretense that the committee is intended for anything other than oppo research.

Is their some basis for their belief in malfeasance? If so, that should be all the evidence they need. The problem is, there doesn't seem to be any solid or meaningful evidence to support their belief in malfeasance.

What is it that they think only exists uniquely on Hillary's email server? Don't they understand that emails typically have a sender and a recipient? For every email that Hillary sent or received, there is a copy in existence with the outside sender or receiver. And where it comes to Benghazi, there would only have been a very limited number of senders and recipients. Hadn't they thought to subpoena those?

Why the fixation on her email server? Do they somehow bizarrely think the smoking gun evidence is hidden in emails that Hillary sent to her self for some reason?

Seriously, a lack of logical or critical thinking manifests itself here...