A question for my Democrat friends

[Juan de Fuca]

What part of nothing don't you understand?

What part of "wrongdoing" don't you understand? That there weren't criminal charges does not equate with there was no wrongdoing when we know there was wrongdoing. They LIED. That is wrongdoing regardless of whether or not there was an indictable offense. And there was obstruction through the process and, obstruction is wrongdoing regardless of whether they could indict them for it or not

Clearly you are in denial. The House Select Committee on Intelligence was the sixth report that came to the same conclusions

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, intelligence about who carried it out and why was contradictory, the report found. That led Susan Rice, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to inaccurately assert that the attack had evolved from a protest, when in fact there had been no protest. But it was intelligence analysts, not political appointees, who made the wrong call, the committee found. The report did not conclude that Rice or any other government official acted in bad faith or intentionally misled the American people. http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi Report.pdf

What a load of crap, they were still saying it a week and a half later

Just because they were wrong doesn't mean they lied . It was a surprise attack ! You act as if they knew everything instantly .

People thought the 911 anthrax attacks were done by alqueda . Turns out it wasn't .

So there is no proof of lying .

Everyone else knew it, Timmy!

Obama wasn't very well connected, was he?

Funny how some people still swear they know the truth even after 7 full investigations tell us otherwise.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

None of the investigations have come up with an iota of wrongdoing. Eight separate investigations, 33 hearings and nothing. Not a single referral to the DOJ, nothing.

Begging the question, you still aren't responding to my points, just repeating your inane claim

What part of nothing don't you understand?

What part of "wrongdoing" don't you understand? That there weren't criminal charges does not equate with there was no wrongdoing when we know there was wrongdoing. They LIED. That is wrongdoing regardless of whether or not there was an indictable offense. And there was obstruction through the process and, obstruction is wrongdoing regardless of whether they could indict them for it or not

After a two year multiple investigation, If there weren't any criminal charges then I suggest you are getting worked up over nothing.

Nope, the administration being caught lying and obstructing justice should always be investigated. You agree, but only when a Republican is involved

I never said that Kaz, If there is evidence of genuine fault it should be investigated. But in this case, you're still holding on to debunked hope that they would have found something.

 

[kaz]

What part of "wrongdoing" don't you understand? That there weren't criminal charges does not equate with there was no wrongdoing when we know there was wrongdoing. They LIED. That is wrongdoing regardless of whether or not there was an indictable offense. And there was obstruction through the process and, obstruction is wrongdoing regardless of whether they could indict them for it or not

Clearly you are in denial. The House Select Committee on Intelligence was the sixth report that came to the same conclusions

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, intelligence about who carried it out and why was contradictory, the report found. That led Susan Rice, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to inaccurately assert that the attack had evolved from a protest, when in fact there had been no protest. But it was intelligence analysts, not political appointees, who made the wrong call, the committee found. The report did not conclude that Rice or any other government official acted in bad faith or intentionally misled the American people. http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi Report.pdf

What a load of crap, they were still saying it a week and a half later

Just because they were wrong doesn't mean they lied . It was a surprise attack ! You act as if they knew everything instantly .

People thought the 911 anthrax attacks were done by alqueda . Turns out it wasn't .

So there is no proof of lying .

Everyone else knew it, Timmy!

Obama wasn't very well connected, was he?

Funny how some people still swear they know the truth even after 7 full investigations tell us otherwise.

Funny how some people are too stupid to read the English language. You don't know what "wrongdoing" means. You keep making up that word when no one found there was no "wrongdoing," they just didn't find prosecutable crimes. What is so complicated about that you still don't understand it after all this discussion

 

[kaz]

Begging the question, you still aren't responding to my points, just repeating your inane claim

What part of nothing don't you understand?

What part of "wrongdoing" don't you understand? That there weren't criminal charges does not equate with there was no wrongdoing when we know there was wrongdoing. They LIED. That is wrongdoing regardless of whether or not there was an indictable offense. And there was obstruction through the process and, obstruction is wrongdoing regardless of whether they could indict them for it or not

After a two year multiple investigation, If there weren't any criminal charges then I suggest you are getting worked up over nothing.

Nope, the administration being caught lying and obstructing justice should always be investigated. You agree, but only when a Republican is involved

I never said that Kaz, If there is evidence of genuine fault it should be investigated. But in this case, you're still holding on to debunked hope that they would have found something.

We knew before the investigation they lied, that isn't just hoping. And they immediately obstructed the investigation, which was clear reason to continue

 

[EriktheRed]

What part of nothing don't you understand?

What part of "wrongdoing" don't you understand? That there weren't criminal charges does not equate with there was no wrongdoing when we know there was wrongdoing. They LIED. That is wrongdoing regardless of whether or not there was an indictable offense. And there was obstruction through the process and, obstruction is wrongdoing regardless of whether they could indict them for it or not

Clearly you are in denial. The House Select Committee on Intelligence was the sixth report that came to the same conclusions

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, intelligence about who carried it out and why was contradictory, the report found. That led Susan Rice, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to inaccurately assert that the attack had evolved from a protest, when in fact there had been no protest. But it was intelligence analysts, not political appointees, who made the wrong call, the committee found. The report did not conclude that Rice or any other government official acted in bad faith or intentionally misled the American people. http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi Report.pdf

What a load of crap, they were still saying it a week and a half later

Just because they were wrong doesn't mean they lied . It was a surprise attack ! You act as if they knew everything instantly .

People thought the 911 anthrax attacks were done by alqueda . Turns out it wasn't .

So there is no proof of lying .

Everyone else knew it, Timmy!

Obama wasn't very well connected, was he?

I can remember not too long after this Ben Gahzi guy started being a thing SoS Clinton went before some Senate dickhe...er.... Republicans and said the immortal words, "What difference does it make?" when asked about what she and others said in the immediate aftermath of the attack. I'm sure we all can remember the conniption ODS nutters all over the country had over those words.

Fast forward a few years to the House kangaroo court Benghazi hearings and this time she didn't say those words, but others on here and elsewhere pushed the question, "what difference dose it make?" and guess what: the people getting vapors about it really didn't have an answer anyway.

That hasn't stopped kaz here, though. He's just gonna keep on saying "she lied" and "why did she lie" because that's really about all that's left. Simple fact of the matter is, though, even the "Hillary lied" angle he and others keep harping has been shown to be debatable at best.

IOW, when it comes to the Ben Ghazi issue, wingnuts really do have bupkis.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

Clearly you are in denial. The House Select Committee on Intelligence was the sixth report that came to the same conclusions

What a load of crap, they were still saying it a week and a half later

Just because they were wrong doesn't mean they lied . It was a surprise attack ! You act as if they knew everything instantly .

People thought the 911 anthrax attacks were done by alqueda . Turns out it wasn't .

So there is no proof of lying .

Everyone else knew it, Timmy!

Obama wasn't very well connected, was he?

Funny how some people still swear they know the truth even after 7 full investigations tell us otherwise.

Funny how some people are too stupid to read the English language. You don't know what "wrongdoing" means. You keep making up that word when no one found there was no "wrongdoing," they just didn't find prosecutable crimes. What is so complicated about that you still don't understand it after all this discussion

What's funny Kaz, is your inability to take any part of the 7 Congressional Investigations seriously. The final investigation due out in a month or so, will not add one single thing to all of the investigations, questions, testimony, or change the ultimate conclusion. You however, will be there in your cheerleading outfit and pom poms screaming wrongdoing from the rafters. I'm almost sad that no one will hear you for all the cheering for the end of this mess.

 

[kaz]

What part of "wrongdoing" don't you understand? That there weren't criminal charges does not equate with there was no wrongdoing when we know there was wrongdoing. They LIED. That is wrongdoing regardless of whether or not there was an indictable offense. And there was obstruction through the process and, obstruction is wrongdoing regardless of whether they could indict them for it or not

Clearly you are in denial. The House Select Committee on Intelligence was the sixth report that came to the same conclusions

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, intelligence about who carried it out and why was contradictory, the report found. That led Susan Rice, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to inaccurately assert that the attack had evolved from a protest, when in fact there had been no protest. But it was intelligence analysts, not political appointees, who made the wrong call, the committee found. The report did not conclude that Rice or any other government official acted in bad faith or intentionally misled the American people. http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi Report.pdf

What a load of crap, they were still saying it a week and a half later

Just because they were wrong doesn't mean they lied . It was a surprise attack ! You act as if they knew everything instantly .

People thought the 911 anthrax attacks were done by alqueda . Turns out it wasn't .

So there is no proof of lying .

Everyone else knew it, Timmy!

Obama wasn't very well connected, was he?

I can remember not too long after this Ben Gahzi guy started being a thing SoS Clinton went before some Senate dickhe...er.... Republicans and said the immortal words, "What difference does it make?" when asked about what she and others said in the immediate aftermath of the attack. I'm sure we all can remember the conniption ODS nutters all over the country had over those words.

Fast forward a few years to the House kangaroo court Benghazi hearings and this time she didn't say those words, but others on here and elsewhere pushed the question, "what difference dose it make?" and guess what: the people getting vapors about it really didn't have an answer anyway.

That hasn't stopped kaz here, though. He's just gonna keep on saying "she lied" and "why did she lie" because that's really about all that's left. Simple fact of the matter is, though, even the "Hillary lied" angle he and others keep harping has been shown to be debatable at best.

IOW, when it comes to the Ben Ghazi issue, wingnuts really do have bupkis.

The Obama administration lies about what the attack was and obstruction of the investigation were both seriously wrong even if they did nothing else wrong.

Ask Nixon how covering up worked out for him. Spoiler alert, here's how it turned out for him. The standard for Democrats has changed since then ...

 

[kaz]

What a load of crap, they were still saying it a week and a half later

Just because they were wrong doesn't mean they lied . It was a surprise attack ! You act as if they knew everything instantly .

People thought the 911 anthrax attacks were done by alqueda . Turns out it wasn't .

So there is no proof of lying .

Everyone else knew it, Timmy!

Obama wasn't very well connected, was he?

Funny how some people still swear they know the truth even after 7 full investigations tell us otherwise.

Funny how some people are too stupid to read the English language. You don't know what "wrongdoing" means. You keep making up that word when no one found there was no "wrongdoing," they just didn't find prosecutable crimes. What is so complicated about that you still don't understand it after all this discussion

What's funny Kaz, is your inability to take any part of the 7 Congressional Investigations seriously. The final investigation due out in a month or so, will not add one single thing to all of the investigations, questions, testimony, or change the ultimate conclusion. You however, will be there in your cheerleading outfit and pom poms screaming wrongdoing from the rafters. I'm almost sad that no one will hear you for all the cheering for the end of this mess.

You are lying about what those investigations found and keep repeating that lie. They did not find he did nothing wrong, they only found they could not prosecute him, or at least they weren't willing to go that far

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Aren't you fed up with the lies, the scandals, the secrecy, the duplicity?

Please no "the GOP does it to" , yes of course, but that isn't what THIS thread is about, so kindly go start your own.

THIS thread is about all the scandals and lies and deceptive tactics we've seen since one Barrack Obama took office.

And if all you're going to do is come in here and deny these things occurred, please go elsewhere. I'm looking for serious comments from people who are mature enough to admit what there own party has been up to these last 7 1/2 years and almost certainly would continue to do under one Hillary Clinton.

In this coming election there will be two candidates with the possibility of winning.

One Republican and one Democrat.

I choose between the two candidates- and I find Trump to have ore scandals, lies and deceptive tactics than Clinton.

I find that the Republican Party is more likely to engage in scandals, lies and deceptive tactics than the Democratic Party.

But yes- I agree with you- both parties are guilty of engaging in them.

By any objective measure, actual corruption (illegal/unethical conduct in return for personal benefit) has been far more common among Democrats than Republicans.

For example, the three most celebrated GOP "scandals" (Watergate, Iran-Contra and WMDs) did not involve any personal benefit to Nixon, Reagan or Bush. Compare those with the Clinton scandals, all of which involve personal benefit to the Clintons.

Oh please spare me your cherry picking.

There are no examples of the Clinton's being found guilty of anything that involved personal gain- despite years and years of Republicans attempt to prove such a thing.

Watergate was all about 'personal gain' for Nixon- he wanted to rig the election in his favor. And you amazing leave out Spiro Agnew

In 1973, Agnew was investigated by the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland on charges of extortion, tax fraud, bribery, and conspiracy. He was charged with having accepted bribes totaling more than $100,000 while holding office as Baltimore County Executive, Governor of Maryland, and Vice President. On October 10 that same year, Agnew was allowed to plead no contest to a single charge that he had failed to report $29,500 of income received in 1967, with the condition that he resign the office of Vice President.

Try again with that 'objective measure'- because all you have done is cite gossip and ignore Republican convictions.

Let's not forget the $39.5 billion that Dick Cheney was able to shovel into the coffers of Haliburton over the Iraq debacle either.

Go start your own thread.

Stupid.

Republicans don't want anybody in their threads but people who agree with them .. dumb people.

They don't want anyone injecting truth, facts, evidence, or common sense into their mindless banter.

Stupid

 

[Juan de Fuca]

Clearly you are in denial. The House Select Committee on Intelligence was the sixth report that came to the same conclusions

What a load of crap, they were still saying it a week and a half later

Just because they were wrong doesn't mean they lied . It was a surprise attack ! You act as if they knew everything instantly .

People thought the 911 anthrax attacks were done by alqueda . Turns out it wasn't .

So there is no proof of lying .

Everyone else knew it, Timmy!

Obama wasn't very well connected, was he?

I can remember not too long after this Ben Gahzi guy started being a thing SoS Clinton went before some Senate dickhe...er.... Republicans and said the immortal words, "What difference does it make?" when asked about what she and others said in the immediate aftermath of the attack. I'm sure we all can remember the conniption ODS nutters all over the country had over those words.

Fast forward a few years to the House kangaroo court Benghazi hearings and this time she didn't say those words, but others on here and elsewhere pushed the question, "what difference dose it make?" and guess what: the people getting vapors about it really didn't have an answer anyway.

That hasn't stopped kaz here, though. He's just gonna keep on saying "she lied" and "why did she lie" because that's really about all that's left. Simple fact of the matter is, though, even the "Hillary lied" angle he and others keep harping has been shown to be debatable at best.

IOW, when it comes to the Ben Ghazi issue, wingnuts really do have bupkis.

The Obama administration lies about what the attack was and obstruction of the investigation were both seriously wrong even if they did nothing else wrong.

Ask Nixon how covering up worked out for him. Spoiler alert, here's how it turned out for him ...

Gee, where is your evidence of that? 8 full Congressional Investigations, 33 Congressional Committee Hearings, $22 million spent on digging up evidence, 11 formal published reports. All say we are done. There is no more. There was no evidence. We have concluded. No evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing. That's All Folks.

 

[Syriusly]

What a load of crap, they were still saying it a week and a half later

Just because they were wrong doesn't mean they lied . It was a surprise attack ! You act as if they knew everything instantly .

People thought the 911 anthrax attacks were done by alqueda . Turns out it wasn't .

So there is no proof of lying .

Everyone else knew it, Timmy!

Obama wasn't very well connected, was he?

Funny how some people still swear they know the truth even after 7 full investigations tell us otherwise.

Funny how some people are too stupid to read the English language. You don't know what "wrongdoing" means. You keep making up that word when no one found there was no "wrongdoing," they just didn't find prosecutable crimes. What is so complicated about that you still don't understand it after all this discussion

What's funny Kaz, is your inability to take any part of the 7 Congressional Investigations seriously. The final investigation due out in a month or so, will not add one single thing to all of the investigations, questions, testimony, or change the ultimate conclusion. You however, will be there in your cheerleading outfit and pom poms screaming wrongdoing from the rafters. I'm almost sad that no one will hear you for all the cheering for the end of this mess.

One of the first things you need to know about Kaz is that he lies.

And then he lies about his lies.

 

[EriktheRed]

Clearly you are in denial. The House Select Committee on Intelligence was the sixth report that came to the same conclusions

What a load of crap, they were still saying it a week and a half later

Just because they were wrong doesn't mean they lied . It was a surprise attack ! You act as if they knew everything instantly .

People thought the 911 anthrax attacks were done by alqueda . Turns out it wasn't .

So there is no proof of lying .

Everyone else knew it, Timmy!

Obama wasn't very well connected, was he?

I can remember not too long after this Ben Gahzi guy started being a thing SoS Clinton went before some Senate dickhe...er.... Republicans and said the immortal words, "What difference does it make?" when asked about what she and others said in the immediate aftermath of the attack. I'm sure we all can remember the conniption ODS nutters all over the country had over those words.

Fast forward a few years to the House kangaroo court Benghazi hearings and this time she didn't say those words, but others on here and elsewhere pushed the question, "what difference dose it make?" and guess what: the people getting vapors about it really didn't have an answer anyway.

That hasn't stopped kaz here, though. He's just gonna keep on saying "she lied" and "why did she lie" because that's really about all that's left. Simple fact of the matter is, though, even the "Hillary lied" angle he and others keep harping has been shown to be debatable at best.

IOW, when it comes to the Ben Ghazi issue, wingnuts really do have bupkis.

The Obama administration lies about what the attack was and obstruction of the investigation were both seriously wrong even if they did nothing else wrong.

Ask Nixon how covering up worked out for him. Spoiler alert, here's how it turned out for him. The standard for Democrats has changed since then ...

And I repeat: bupkis.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

Just because they were wrong doesn't mean they lied . It was a surprise attack ! You act as if they knew everything instantly .

People thought the 911 anthrax attacks were done by alqueda . Turns out it wasn't .

So there is no proof of lying .

Everyone else knew it, Timmy!

Obama wasn't very well connected, was he?

Funny how some people still swear they know the truth even after 7 full investigations tell us otherwise.

Funny how some people are too stupid to read the English language. You don't know what "wrongdoing" means. You keep making up that word when no one found there was no "wrongdoing," they just didn't find prosecutable crimes. What is so complicated about that you still don't understand it after all this discussion

What's funny Kaz, is your inability to take any part of the 7 Congressional Investigations seriously. The final investigation due out in a month or so, will not add one single thing to all of the investigations, questions, testimony, or change the ultimate conclusion. You however, will be there in your cheerleading outfit and pom poms screaming wrongdoing from the rafters. I'm almost sad that no one will hear you for all the cheering for the end of this mess.

One of the first things you need to know about Kaz is that he lies.

And then he lies about his lies.

Kaz is in denial and cannot accept the facts. We are 120 days from a 4 year investigation, the only fault that can be handed out is to the Benghazi Committee who has failed miserably at their jobs. 4 years and nothing? I would hang my head in shame.

 

[EriktheRed]

Everyone else knew it, Timmy!

Obama wasn't very well connected, was he?

Funny how some people still swear they know the truth even after 7 full investigations tell us otherwise.

Funny how some people are too stupid to read the English language. You don't know what "wrongdoing" means. You keep making up that word when no one found there was no "wrongdoing," they just didn't find prosecutable crimes. What is so complicated about that you still don't understand it after all this discussion

What's funny Kaz, is your inability to take any part of the 7 Congressional Investigations seriously. The final investigation due out in a month or so, will not add one single thing to all of the investigations, questions, testimony, or change the ultimate conclusion. You however, will be there in your cheerleading outfit and pom poms screaming wrongdoing from the rafters. I'm almost sad that no one will hear you for all the cheering for the end of this mess.

One of the first things you need to know about Kaz is that he lies.

And then he lies about his lies.

Kaz is in denial and cannot accept the facts. We are 120 days from a 4 year investigation, the only fault that can be handed out is to the Benghazi Committee who has failed miserably at their jobs. 4 years and nothing? I would hang my head in shame.

Plus there's that wonderful depantsing Preside...er...Mrs. Clinton gave to said committee. The wingnuts think it wasn't, but outside of their bubble most people know it was.

 

[Elvis Obama]

This thread is a tragedy. Corruption is bi-partisan. Discussing Republican corruption in isolation is a waste of time. Discussing Democratic corruption in isolation is a waste of time. Why the hell doesn't anyone care about the government, of by and for the people? Corruption has killed the concept of representative government, and no one gives a damn. Not Republican corruption and not Democratic corruption. CORRUPTION. When you ONLY care about the corruption on one side you are playing right into the hands of the true puppet masters.

What stupid people care about: People who disagree with them.
What smart people care about: Gerrymandering, electoral corruption, voter ignorance.

 

[francoHFW]

ACTUALLY, all the corruption and lies are the GOP's. S+L, Iraq War, Real Estate bubble. All they have is lies, phony scandals, and silly dupes and racists. Great job!

 

[francoHFW]

Also all the disasters...

 

[Elvis Obama]

ACTUALLY, all the corruption and lies are the GOP's. S+L, Iraq War, Real Estate bubble. All they have is lies, phony scandals, and silly dupes and racists. Great job!

I'm not going to claim that the corruption is equal on both sides, because it isn't. The Republicans are much worse, but that's why the Republican electorate is in complete revolt and the Democratic electorate is only in partial revolt. Why did Bernie do so well? Because the Democratic voters who are fed up with systemic corruption saw that the Republicans were really rejecting all the establishment candidates and were clearly on their way to getting an outsider candidate, and the Dems were not. Then they (too late) started to get on the Bern train. Pure insurgent candidate jealousy.

But really. New York is a blue state and it's the most corrupt in the union. Illinois is a blue state and it's a close #2. If the Democrats supported corruption reform, we'd have corruption reform. Corruption reform efforts have come from the right, the left and through bi-partisan bills and all such efforts have met with equal resistance from both sides of the aisle. Corrupt people do not vote to end their own corrupt practices. They must be forced to do so.

 

[oreo]

Aren't you fed up with the lies, the scandals, the secrecy, the duplicity?

Please no "the GOP does it to" , yes of course, but that isn't what THIS thread is about, so kindly go start your own.

THIS thread is about all the scandals and lies and deceptive tactics we've seen since one Barrack Obama took office.

And if all you're going to do is come in here and deny these things occurred, please go elsewhere. I'm looking for serious comments from people who are mature enough to admit what there own party has been up to these last 7 1/2 years and almost certainly would continue to do under one Hillary Clinton.

Then maybe you should put up some links to your accusations for discussion, instead of posting a thread on this board that looks more like a tabloid magazine.

 

[kaz]

In this coming election there will be two candidates with the possibility of winning.

One Republican and one Democrat.

I choose between the two candidates- and I find Trump to have ore scandals, lies and deceptive tactics than Clinton.

I find that the Republican Party is more likely to engage in scandals, lies and deceptive tactics than the Democratic Party.

But yes- I agree with you- both parties are guilty of engaging in them.

By any objective measure, actual corruption (illegal/unethical conduct in return for personal benefit) has been far more common among Democrats than Republicans.

For example, the three most celebrated GOP "scandals" (Watergate, Iran-Contra and WMDs) did not involve any personal benefit to Nixon, Reagan or Bush. Compare those with the Clinton scandals, all of which involve personal benefit to the Clintons.

Oh please spare me your cherry picking.

There are no examples of the Clinton's being found guilty of anything that involved personal gain- despite years and years of Republicans attempt to prove such a thing.

Watergate was all about 'personal gain' for Nixon- he wanted to rig the election in his favor. And you amazing leave out Spiro Agnew

In 1973, Agnew was investigated by the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland on charges of extortion, tax fraud, bribery, and conspiracy. He was charged with having accepted bribes totaling more than $100,000 while holding office as Baltimore County Executive, Governor of Maryland, and Vice President. On October 10 that same year, Agnew was allowed to plead no contest to a single charge that he had failed to report $29,500 of income received in 1967, with the condition that he resign the office of Vice President.

Try again with that 'objective measure'- because all you have done is cite gossip and ignore Republican convictions.

Let's not forget the $39.5 billion that Dick Cheney was able to shovel into the coffers of Haliburton over the Iraq debacle either.

Go start your own thread.

Stupid.

Republicans don't want anybody in their threads but people who agree with them .. dumb people.

They don't want anyone injecting truth, facts, evidence, or common sense into their mindless banter.

Stupid

Um ...