Breaking News: White House Leakers Identified

[Freewill]

All of them do it.

Do you really believe that there were no other attacks on Diplomatic mission during the Obama administration? Do you really? Do a google you will see there were. What makes Benghazi different? The lies and the sheer stupidity of allowing our ambassador in the country we just bombed the crap out of without proper protection. On top of that having him supply arms to the opposition sealed his fate. Then they lied.

Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: ‘You Have To Prioritize Things’
Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things' | HuffPost




November 21, 2014

A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.


Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.


....Many of its findings echo those of six previous investigations by various congressional committees and a State Department panel.

The eighth Benghazi investigation is being carried out by a House Select Committee appointed in May.
House Intelligence Committee investigation debunks many Benghazi theories



Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say


In the month before attackers stormed U.S. facilities in Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum

Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say

I am never quite sure what side the person who posts this BS is on. Are you trying to make the case that there was good reason for Stephens not to be in Benghazi because his security was cut by Congress? Sure seems like that is what you are saying. Truth is, Stephens had no business being in Benghazi, except to supply weapons to the opposition.

NOW the right wing switches up the premise to the US mission where Stevens was at, should have been abandoned?


State Department Accountability Review Board (ARB) reported that Stevens went to Benghazi on Sept. 10, with plans to stay until Sept. 14, to “reconnect with local contacts,” as well as “fill the staffing gaps,” because a principal officer there had left, and “to open an American Corners [library for U.S. books and other materials] at a local school.”


.....Hicks indicated to the House committee that Stevens originally planned to go to Benghazi in October, but by going in September he might get fiscal 2012 funds to upgrade the Benghazi compound.


...Clinton said Stevens “believed that it was important for him to go to Benghazi. . . . He was someone who really believed strongly he had to get out there.”

Stevens was aware of the danger.
Benghazi was familiar ground for Amb. J. Christopher Stevens



Chris Stevens's Family: Don't Blame Hillary Clinton for Benghazi


"I do not blame Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta. They were balancing security efforts at embassies and missions around the world. And their staffs were doing their best to provide what they could with the resources they had. The Benghazi Mission was understaffed. We know that now. But, again, Chris knew that. It wasn’t a secret to him. He decided to take the risk to go there. It is not something they did to him. It is something he took on himself." SISTER




Knowing Its Dangers, Chris Stevens Still Chose to Travel to Benghazi

Absolutely it should have been abandoned if they didn't have the means to protect it properly. Certainly a target such as our ambassador should not have been put in harms way. Especially since they didn't have the funds to protect him, as YOU are saying.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

All of them do it.

Do you really believe that there were no other attacks on Diplomatic mission during the Obama administration? Do you really? Do a google you will see there were. What makes Benghazi different? The lies and the sheer stupidity of allowing our ambassador in the country we just bombed the crap out of without proper protection. On top of that having him supply arms to the opposition sealed his fate. Then they lied.

Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: ‘You Have To Prioritize Things’
Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things' | HuffPost




November 21, 2014

A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.


Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.


....Many of its findings echo those of six previous investigations by various congressional committees and a State Department panel.

The eighth Benghazi investigation is being carried out by a House Select Committee appointed in May.
House Intelligence Committee investigation debunks many Benghazi theories



Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say


In the month before attackers stormed U.S. facilities in Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum

Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say

But who gave the order for the rescue team who was ready to go to 'Stand Down'?

ONCE AGAIN CUPCAKE:


November 21, 2014

A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.


Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.


....Many of its findings echo those of six previous investigations by various congressional committees and a State Department panel.

The eighth Benghazi investigation is being carried out by a House Select Committee appointed in May.

House Intelligence Committee investigation debunks many Benghazi theories

Obama and Hillary let them die.

 

[JonKoch]

Do you really believe that there were no other attacks on Diplomatic mission during the Obama administration? Do you really? Do a google you will see there were. What makes Benghazi different? The lies and the sheer stupidity of allowing our ambassador in the country we just bombed the crap out of without proper protection. On top of that having him supply arms to the opposition sealed his fate. Then they lied.

Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: ‘You Have To Prioritize Things’
Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things' | HuffPost




November 21, 2014

A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.


Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.


....Many of its findings echo those of six previous investigations by various congressional committees and a State Department panel.

The eighth Benghazi investigation is being carried out by a House Select Committee appointed in May.
House Intelligence Committee investigation debunks many Benghazi theories



Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say


In the month before attackers stormed U.S. facilities in Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum

Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say

I am never quite sure what side the person who posts this BS is on. Are you trying to make the case that there was good reason for Stephens not to be in Benghazi because his security was cut by Congress? Sure seems like that is what you are saying. Truth is, Stephens had no business being in Benghazi, except to supply weapons to the opposition.

NOW the right wing switches up the premise to the US mission where Stevens was at, should have been abandoned?


State Department Accountability Review Board (ARB) reported that Stevens went to Benghazi on Sept. 10, with plans to stay until Sept. 14, to “reconnect with local contacts,” as well as “fill the staffing gaps,” because a principal officer there had left, and “to open an American Corners [library for U.S. books and other materials] at a local school.”


.....Hicks indicated to the House committee that Stevens originally planned to go to Benghazi in October, but by going in September he might get fiscal 2012 funds to upgrade the Benghazi compound.


...Clinton said Stevens “believed that it was important for him to go to Benghazi. . . . He was someone who really believed strongly he had to get out there.”

Stevens was aware of the danger.
Benghazi was familiar ground for Amb. J. Christopher Stevens



Chris Stevens's Family: Don't Blame Hillary Clinton for Benghazi


"I do not blame Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta. They were balancing security efforts at embassies and missions around the world. And their staffs were doing their best to provide what they could with the resources they had. The Benghazi Mission was understaffed. We know that now. But, again, Chris knew that. It wasn’t a secret to him. He decided to take the risk to go there. It is not something they did to him. It is something he took on himself." SISTER




Knowing Its Dangers, Chris Stevens Still Chose to Travel to Benghazi

Absolutely it should have been abandoned if they didn't have the means to protect it properly. Certainly a target such as our ambassador should not have been put in harms way. Especially since they didn't have the funds to protect him, as YOU are saying.

Got it, you'll ignore EVERYTHING and stick with right wing talking points cupcake *shaking head*

 

[JonKoch]

Do you really believe that there were no other attacks on Diplomatic mission during the Obama administration? Do you really? Do a google you will see there were. What makes Benghazi different? The lies and the sheer stupidity of allowing our ambassador in the country we just bombed the crap out of without proper protection. On top of that having him supply arms to the opposition sealed his fate. Then they lied.

Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: ‘You Have To Prioritize Things’
Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things' | HuffPost




November 21, 2014

A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.


Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.


....Many of its findings echo those of six previous investigations by various congressional committees and a State Department panel.

The eighth Benghazi investigation is being carried out by a House Select Committee appointed in May.
House Intelligence Committee investigation debunks many Benghazi theories



Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say


In the month before attackers stormed U.S. facilities in Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum

Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say

But who gave the order for the rescue team who was ready to go to 'Stand Down'?

ONCE AGAIN CUPCAKE:


November 21, 2014

A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.


Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.


....Many of its findings echo those of six previous investigations by various congressional committees and a State Department panel.

The eighth Benghazi investigation is being carried out by a House Select Committee appointed in May.

House Intelligence Committee investigation debunks many Benghazi theories

Obama and Hillary let them die.

NOT according to at least 8 GOP Committee reports Cupcake


....All the evidence suggests that if the phrase "stand down" was used by officials — and there's debate about that — it was said only once in an effort to buy time to get intelligence information and equipment to a security team that was justifiably chomping at the bit to respond.

Testimony in the House Select Committee on Benghazi report shows there was no stand-down order to defy because there was never an order to not intervene in the unfolding disaster.

The "stand-down" story contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
Evidence shows no Benghazi stand-down order to defy

 

[Freewill]

Do you really believe that there were no other attacks on Diplomatic mission during the Obama administration? Do you really? Do a google you will see there were. What makes Benghazi different? The lies and the sheer stupidity of allowing our ambassador in the country we just bombed the crap out of without proper protection. On top of that having him supply arms to the opposition sealed his fate. Then they lied.

Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: ‘You Have To Prioritize Things’
Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things' | HuffPost




November 21, 2014

A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.


Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.


....Many of its findings echo those of six previous investigations by various congressional committees and a State Department panel.

The eighth Benghazi investigation is being carried out by a House Select Committee appointed in May.
House Intelligence Committee investigation debunks many Benghazi theories



Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say


In the month before attackers stormed U.S. facilities in Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum

Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say

I am never quite sure what side the person who posts this BS is on. Are you trying to make the case that there was good reason for Stephens not to be in Benghazi because his security was cut by Congress? Sure seems like that is what you are saying. Truth is, Stephens had no business being in Benghazi, except to supply weapons to the opposition.

NOW the right wing switches up the premise to the US mission where Stevens was at, should have been abandoned?


State Department Accountability Review Board (ARB) reported that Stevens went to Benghazi on Sept. 10, with plans to stay until Sept. 14, to “reconnect with local contacts,” as well as “fill the staffing gaps,” because a principal officer there had left, and “to open an American Corners [library for U.S. books and other materials] at a local school.”


.....Hicks indicated to the House committee that Stevens originally planned to go to Benghazi in October, but by going in September he might get fiscal 2012 funds to upgrade the Benghazi compound.


...Clinton said Stevens “believed that it was important for him to go to Benghazi. . . . He was someone who really believed strongly he had to get out there.”

Stevens was aware of the danger.
Benghazi was familiar ground for Amb. J. Christopher Stevens



Chris Stevens's Family: Don't Blame Hillary Clinton for Benghazi


"I do not blame Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta. They were balancing security efforts at embassies and missions around the world. And their staffs were doing their best to provide what they could with the resources they had. The Benghazi Mission was understaffed. We know that now. But, again, Chris knew that. It wasn’t a secret to him. He decided to take the risk to go there. It is not something they did to him. It is something he took on himself." SISTER




Knowing Its Dangers, Chris Stevens Still Chose to Travel to Benghazi

Absolutely it should have been abandoned if they didn't have the means to protect it properly. Certainly a target such as our ambassador should not have been put in harms way. Especially since they didn't have the funds to protect him, as YOU are saying.

Got it, you'll ignore EVERYTHING and stick with right wing talking points cupcake *shaking head*

What am I ignoring? You said that there is a lack of funding, I didn't disagree. You are the one who is repeating talking points. Rice, Obama and Hillary lied, you just refuse to see it. The security at Benghazi wasn't good enough and you tried to provide a reason why, and I did not disagree.

 

[BlindBoo]

Do you really believe that there were no other attacks on Diplomatic mission during the Obama administration? Do you really? Do a google you will see there were. What makes Benghazi different? The lies and the sheer stupidity of allowing our ambassador in the country we just bombed the crap out of without proper protection. On top of that having him supply arms to the opposition sealed his fate. Then they lied.

Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: ‘You Have To Prioritize Things’
Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things' | HuffPost




November 21, 2014

A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.


Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.


....Many of its findings echo those of six previous investigations by various congressional committees and a State Department panel.

The eighth Benghazi investigation is being carried out by a House Select Committee appointed in May.
House Intelligence Committee investigation debunks many Benghazi theories



Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say


In the month before attackers stormed U.S. facilities in Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum

Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say

I am never quite sure what side the person who posts this BS is on. Are you trying to make the case that there was good reason for Stephens not to be in Benghazi because his security was cut by Congress? Sure seems like that is what you are saying. Truth is, Stephens had no business being in Benghazi, except to supply weapons to the opposition.

NOW the right wing switches up the premise to the US mission where Stevens was at, should have been abandoned?


State Department Accountability Review Board (ARB) reported that Stevens went to Benghazi on Sept. 10, with plans to stay until Sept. 14, to “reconnect with local contacts,” as well as “fill the staffing gaps,” because a principal officer there had left, and “to open an American Corners [library for U.S. books and other materials] at a local school.”


.....Hicks indicated to the House committee that Stevens originally planned to go to Benghazi in October, but by going in September he might get fiscal 2012 funds to upgrade the Benghazi compound.


...Clinton said Stevens “believed that it was important for him to go to Benghazi. . . . He was someone who really believed strongly he had to get out there.”

Stevens was aware of the danger.
Benghazi was familiar ground for Amb. J. Christopher Stevens



Chris Stevens's Family: Don't Blame Hillary Clinton for Benghazi


"I do not blame Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta. They were balancing security efforts at embassies and missions around the world. And their staffs were doing their best to provide what they could with the resources they had. The Benghazi Mission was understaffed. We know that now. But, again, Chris knew that. It wasn’t a secret to him. He decided to take the risk to go there. It is not something they did to him. It is something he took on himself." SISTER




Knowing Its Dangers, Chris Stevens Still Chose to Travel to Benghazi

Absolutely it should have been abandoned if they didn't have the means to protect it properly. Certainly a target such as our ambassador should not have been put in harms way. Especially since they didn't have the funds to protect him, as YOU are saying.

Stephens came into Libya through Benghazi. That's where he made his initial contacts. Ah for fucsake here.

The facts of what happened and why were clearly established by the Accountability Review Board:

• Ambassador Chris Stevens was responsible for the decision to travel to Benghazi. In-country travel is solely at the discretion of the ambassador, and he did not need to seek Department of State approval.
• He traveled to Benghazi knowing full well that his physical and personnel security concerns had not been adequately addressed by the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security. Despite the security concerns, he traveled nonetheless due to personnel rotation in Benghazi and to re-establish contacts in Benghazi.
• He left Benghazi on November 17, 2011, and returned as ambassador to Libya on September 10, 2012. In that intervening time, and in the six months prior to September 11, there had been 20 security incidents. Despite a CIA presence in Benghazi, Stevens was unaware of the evolution of the militias that subsequently killed him and his colleagues.

We have served as ambassadors or chargés d’affaires in war zones: in the civil war in El Salvador, in the drug war in Bolivia and both in Bosnia. In-country travel is an issue of risk management versus strategic purpose. The regional security officer, the CIA station chief, the defense attaché and other embassy staff all have input and make recommendations.

In the end, it is the ambassador or chargé’s judgment and call. As the Accountability Review Board documented, Ambassador Stevens made the decision to travel.

Knowing Its Dangers, Chris Stevens Still Chose to Travel to Benghazi

 

[BlindBoo]

Do you really believe that there were no other attacks on Diplomatic mission during the Obama administration? Do you really? Do a google you will see there were. What makes Benghazi different? The lies and the sheer stupidity of allowing our ambassador in the country we just bombed the crap out of without proper protection. On top of that having him supply arms to the opposition sealed his fate. Then they lied.

Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: ‘You Have To Prioritize Things’
Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things' | HuffPost




November 21, 2014

A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.


Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.


....Many of its findings echo those of six previous investigations by various congressional committees and a State Department panel.

The eighth Benghazi investigation is being carried out by a House Select Committee appointed in May.
House Intelligence Committee investigation debunks many Benghazi theories



Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say


In the month before attackers stormed U.S. facilities in Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum

Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say

But who gave the order for the rescue team who was ready to go to 'Stand Down'?

ONCE AGAIN CUPCAKE:


November 21, 2014

A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.


Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.


....Many of its findings echo those of six previous investigations by various congressional committees and a State Department panel.

The eighth Benghazi investigation is being carried out by a House Select Committee appointed in May.

House Intelligence Committee investigation debunks many Benghazi theories

Obama and Hillary let them die.

I understand they had ISIS wait for the kill shot until Hillary microwaved some more popcorn. Obama hogged all the butter too. When she found out I hear she went ballistic.

</sarcasm>

 

[westwall]

No names?

Patience!

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?!?!

Good question. It's been months and nothing has been presented in the trumpster case. NOTHING. Says they have nothing.

"......CIA director John Brennan bluntly told lawmakers that during the 2016 election, he reviewed intelligence that showed “contacts and interactions” between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump campaign. By the summer of 2016, Brennan said, he was “convinced” that Russia was engaged in an “aggressive” and “multifaceted” effort to interfere in our election — and as a result, he believed “there was a sufficient basis of information and intelligence that required further investigation” by the FBI.

With this testimony, Brennan just made it a whole lot harder — politically, at least — for the GOP to continue in its efforts to protect Trump, even as scrutiny of his campaign intensifies on the part of the FBI, and now, special counsel Robert Mueller. Yet if Tuesday’s hearing is any guide, congressional Republicans are still intent on shielding Trump by undermining the investigation in the mind of the public.

And so, again and again, Republican members of the committee, particularly South Carolina’s Trey Gowdy, tried to get Brennan to say that no evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russian meddling in the election exists. But Brennan repeatedly refused to render a judgment on whether there was collusion. Instead, he only repeated his refrain that, because the CIA is not a law enforcement agency, he turned over its intelligence gathering about contacts between the Trump camp and Russians to the FBI, so that the FBI could conduct its investigation into whether there was collusion."

Opinion | Brennan’s explosive testimony just made it harder for the GOP to protect Trump

Looks like it's all with the FBI. No wonder Grabby is trying to obstruct the FBI's investigation.

And he has refused to present his "evidence" to the oversight committees. Which means he is making it up. In other words, he is a good political hack, doing the dictates of his boss. In other words he's lying.

 

[JonKoch]

Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: ‘You Have To Prioritize Things’
Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things' | HuffPost




November 21, 2014

A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.


Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.


....Many of its findings echo those of six previous investigations by various congressional committees and a State Department panel.

The eighth Benghazi investigation is being carried out by a House Select Committee appointed in May.
House Intelligence Committee investigation debunks many Benghazi theories



Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say


In the month before attackers stormed U.S. facilities in Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum

Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say

I am never quite sure what side the person who posts this BS is on. Are you trying to make the case that there was good reason for Stephens not to be in Benghazi because his security was cut by Congress? Sure seems like that is what you are saying. Truth is, Stephens had no business being in Benghazi, except to supply weapons to the opposition.

NOW the right wing switches up the premise to the US mission where Stevens was at, should have been abandoned?


State Department Accountability Review Board (ARB) reported that Stevens went to Benghazi on Sept. 10, with plans to stay until Sept. 14, to “reconnect with local contacts,” as well as “fill the staffing gaps,” because a principal officer there had left, and “to open an American Corners [library for U.S. books and other materials] at a local school.”


.....Hicks indicated to the House committee that Stevens originally planned to go to Benghazi in October, but by going in September he might get fiscal 2012 funds to upgrade the Benghazi compound.


...Clinton said Stevens “believed that it was important for him to go to Benghazi. . . . He was someone who really believed strongly he had to get out there.”

Stevens was aware of the danger.
Benghazi was familiar ground for Amb. J. Christopher Stevens



Chris Stevens's Family: Don't Blame Hillary Clinton for Benghazi


"I do not blame Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta. They were balancing security efforts at embassies and missions around the world. And their staffs were doing their best to provide what they could with the resources they had. The Benghazi Mission was understaffed. We know that now. But, again, Chris knew that. It wasn’t a secret to him. He decided to take the risk to go there. It is not something they did to him. It is something he took on himself." SISTER




Knowing Its Dangers, Chris Stevens Still Chose to Travel to Benghazi

Absolutely it should have been abandoned if they didn't have the means to protect it properly. Certainly a target such as our ambassador should not have been put in harms way. Especially since they didn't have the funds to protect him, as YOU are saying.

Got it, you'll ignore EVERYTHING and stick with right wing talking points cupcake *shaking head*

What am I ignoring? You said that there is a lack of funding, I didn't disagree. You are the one who is repeating talking points. Rice, Obama and Hillary lied, you just refuse to see it. The security at Benghazi wasn't good enough and you tried to provide a reason why, and I did not disagree.

Sorry cupcake, I said GOP Congress gutted $500 million from State Dept security.

But you keep using 4 US citizens deaths as a political weapon as 8 GOP "investigations" did and uncovered no lies from Rice, Obama or Hil....

 

[Slade3200]

No names?

Patience!

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?!?!

Good question. It's been months and nothing has been presented in the trumpster case. NOTHING. Says they have nothing.

"......CIA director John Brennan bluntly told lawmakers that during the 2016 election, he reviewed intelligence that showed “contacts and interactions” between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump campaign. By the summer of 2016, Brennan said, he was “convinced” that Russia was engaged in an “aggressive” and “multifaceted” effort to interfere in our election — and as a result, he believed “there was a sufficient basis of information and intelligence that required further investigation” by the FBI.

With this testimony, Brennan just made it a whole lot harder — politically, at least — for the GOP to continue in its efforts to protect Trump, even as scrutiny of his campaign intensifies on the part of the FBI, and now, special counsel Robert Mueller. Yet if Tuesday’s hearing is any guide, congressional Republicans are still intent on shielding Trump by undermining the investigation in the mind of the public.

And so, again and again, Republican members of the committee, particularly South Carolina’s Trey Gowdy, tried to get Brennan to say that no evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russian meddling in the election exists. But Brennan repeatedly refused to render a judgment on whether there was collusion. Instead, he only repeated his refrain that, because the CIA is not a law enforcement agency, he turned over its intelligence gathering about contacts between the Trump camp and Russians to the FBI, so that the FBI could conduct its investigation into whether there was collusion."

Opinion | Brennan’s explosive testimony just made it harder for the GOP to protect Trump

Looks like it's all with the FBI. No wonder Grabby is trying to obstruct the FBI's investigation.

And he has refused to present his "evidence" to the oversight committees. Which means he is making it up. In other words, he is a good political hack, doing the dictates of his boss. In other words he'e lying.

When did he refuse to present evidence? When he was asked about the specifics in the open hearing he said that he would disclose the details in the classified hearing.

 

[BlindBoo]

Which means he is making it up. In other words, he is a good political hack, doing the dictates of his boss. In other words he'e lying.

Or it's sensitive material that he knows can't be released in a pubic hearing.

In other words...Can they impeach 'Old Grabby' with nothing but classified data?

I guess we'll just have to wait till the FBI finishes, well that is if the 'Great Grabber' doesn't quit first.

 

[westwall]

Which means he is making it up. In other words, he is a good political hack, doing the dictates of his boss. In other words he'e lying.

Or it's sensitive material that he knows can't be released in a pubic hearing.

In other words...Can they impeach 'Old Grabby' with nothing but classified data?

I guess we'll just have to wait till the FBI finishes, well that is if the 'Great Grabber' doesn't quit first.

The oversight committee is NOT public. Thus anything that is classified is safe to reveal. The only reason to refuse to present it is because there is none to present.

 

[westwall]

Patience!

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?!?!

Good question. It's been months and nothing has been presented in the trumpster case. NOTHING. Says they have nothing.

"......CIA director John Brennan bluntly told lawmakers that during the 2016 election, he reviewed intelligence that showed “contacts and interactions” between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump campaign. By the summer of 2016, Brennan said, he was “convinced” that Russia was engaged in an “aggressive” and “multifaceted” effort to interfere in our election — and as a result, he believed “there was a sufficient basis of information and intelligence that required further investigation” by the FBI.

With this testimony, Brennan just made it a whole lot harder — politically, at least — for the GOP to continue in its efforts to protect Trump, even as scrutiny of his campaign intensifies on the part of the FBI, and now, special counsel Robert Mueller. Yet if Tuesday’s hearing is any guide, congressional Republicans are still intent on shielding Trump by undermining the investigation in the mind of the public.

And so, again and again, Republican members of the committee, particularly South Carolina’s Trey Gowdy, tried to get Brennan to say that no evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russian meddling in the election exists. But Brennan repeatedly refused to render a judgment on whether there was collusion. Instead, he only repeated his refrain that, because the CIA is not a law enforcement agency, he turned over its intelligence gathering about contacts between the Trump camp and Russians to the FBI, so that the FBI could conduct its investigation into whether there was collusion."

Opinion | Brennan’s explosive testimony just made it harder for the GOP to protect Trump

Looks like it's all with the FBI. No wonder Grabby is trying to obstruct the FBI's investigation.

And he has refused to present his "evidence" to the oversight committees. Which means he is making it up. In other words, he is a good political hack, doing the dictates of his boss. In other words he'e lying.

When did he refuse to present evidence? When he was asked about the specifics in the open hearing he said that he would disclose the details in the classified hearing.

Google is your friend. That and actually paying attention to the world around you.. The excuse to not present the evidence doesn't even rate flimsy.


Intel agencies reject request for House committee briefing, citing larger probe
Intel agencies reject request for House committee briefing, citing larger probe

 

[westwall]

Which means he is making it up. In other words, he is a good political hack, doing the dictates of his boss. In other words he'e lying.

Or it's sensitive material that he knows can't be released in a pubic hearing.

In other words...Can they impeach 'Old Grabby' with nothing but classified data?

I guess we'll just have to wait till the FBI finishes, well that is if the 'Great Grabber' doesn't quit first.

For impeachment to occur there has to be a crime committed. Want to know something.....even if they could show that trump colluded with the rooski's, that is not a crime. Thus it is not an impeachable offence. The only way that trump can be impeached is if he directed the russki's to hack the US intel agency's for dirt on hilary, and that we know for certain did not happen. We DO know that the DNC LEAK was an inside job. Of that there is also no doubt, no matter what propaganda you are listening to, that is a fact.

Thus, no crime equals no grounds for impeachment no matter how much you wish it were so.

 

[Slade3200]

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?!?!

Good question. It's been months and nothing has been presented in the trumpster case. NOTHING. Says they have nothing.

"......CIA director John Brennan bluntly told lawmakers that during the 2016 election, he reviewed intelligence that showed “contacts and interactions” between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump campaign. By the summer of 2016, Brennan said, he was “convinced” that Russia was engaged in an “aggressive” and “multifaceted” effort to interfere in our election — and as a result, he believed “there was a sufficient basis of information and intelligence that required further investigation” by the FBI.

With this testimony, Brennan just made it a whole lot harder — politically, at least — for the GOP to continue in its efforts to protect Trump, even as scrutiny of his campaign intensifies on the part of the FBI, and now, special counsel Robert Mueller. Yet if Tuesday’s hearing is any guide, congressional Republicans are still intent on shielding Trump by undermining the investigation in the mind of the public.

And so, again and again, Republican members of the committee, particularly South Carolina’s Trey Gowdy, tried to get Brennan to say that no evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russian meddling in the election exists. But Brennan repeatedly refused to render a judgment on whether there was collusion. Instead, he only repeated his refrain that, because the CIA is not a law enforcement agency, he turned over its intelligence gathering about contacts between the Trump camp and Russians to the FBI, so that the FBI could conduct its investigation into whether there was collusion."

Opinion | Brennan’s explosive testimony just made it harder for the GOP to protect Trump

Looks like it's all with the FBI. No wonder Grabby is trying to obstruct the FBI's investigation.

And he has refused to present his "evidence" to the oversight committees. Which means he is making it up. In other words, he is a good political hack, doing the dictates of his boss. In other words he'e lying.

When did he refuse to present evidence? When he was asked about the specifics in the open hearing he said that he would disclose the details in the classified hearing.

Google is your friend. That and actually paying attention to the world around you.. The excuse to not present the evidence doesn't even rate flimsy.


Intel agencies reject request for House committee briefing, citing larger probe
Intel agencies reject request for House committee briefing, citing larger probe

So what is your point? The intelligence agencies wanted to finish their investigation prior to reporting their findings to an overly politicized congress. Did they update congress after they concluded their investigation and Obama applied the sanctions?

 

[westwall]

Good question. It's been months and nothing has been presented in the trumpster case. NOTHING. Says they have nothing.

"......CIA director John Brennan bluntly told lawmakers that during the 2016 election, he reviewed intelligence that showed “contacts and interactions” between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump campaign. By the summer of 2016, Brennan said, he was “convinced” that Russia was engaged in an “aggressive” and “multifaceted” effort to interfere in our election — and as a result, he believed “there was a sufficient basis of information and intelligence that required further investigation” by the FBI.

With this testimony, Brennan just made it a whole lot harder — politically, at least — for the GOP to continue in its efforts to protect Trump, even as scrutiny of his campaign intensifies on the part of the FBI, and now, special counsel Robert Mueller. Yet if Tuesday’s hearing is any guide, congressional Republicans are still intent on shielding Trump by undermining the investigation in the mind of the public.

And so, again and again, Republican members of the committee, particularly South Carolina’s Trey Gowdy, tried to get Brennan to say that no evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russian meddling in the election exists. But Brennan repeatedly refused to render a judgment on whether there was collusion. Instead, he only repeated his refrain that, because the CIA is not a law enforcement agency, he turned over its intelligence gathering about contacts between the Trump camp and Russians to the FBI, so that the FBI could conduct its investigation into whether there was collusion."

Opinion | Brennan’s explosive testimony just made it harder for the GOP to protect Trump

Looks like it's all with the FBI. No wonder Grabby is trying to obstruct the FBI's investigation.

And he has refused to present his "evidence" to the oversight committees. Which means he is making it up. In other words, he is a good political hack, doing the dictates of his boss. In other words he'e lying.

When did he refuse to present evidence? When he was asked about the specifics in the open hearing he said that he would disclose the details in the classified hearing.

Google is your friend. That and actually paying attention to the world around you.. The excuse to not present the evidence doesn't even rate flimsy.


Intel agencies reject request for House committee briefing, citing larger probe
Intel agencies reject request for House committee briefing, citing larger probe

So what is your point? The intelligence agencies wanted to finish their investigation prior to updating an overly politicized congress

That excuse is as flimsy as you can get. There is no reason to not present the evidence you have, if indeed it truly exists, to the oversight committee. In fact it is stupid not to as they may have some other information that would help your so called "investigation". So the excuse fails on multiple levels. The only reason to not present, is because it doesn't exist.

 

[bendog]

Good question. It's been months and nothing has been presented in the trumpster case. NOTHING. Says they have nothing.

"......CIA director John Brennan bluntly told lawmakers that during the 2016 election, he reviewed intelligence that showed “contacts and interactions” between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump campaign. By the summer of 2016, Brennan said, he was “convinced” that Russia was engaged in an “aggressive” and “multifaceted” effort to interfere in our election — and as a result, he believed “there was a sufficient basis of information and intelligence that required further investigation” by the FBI.

With this testimony, Brennan just made it a whole lot harder — politically, at least — for the GOP to continue in its efforts to protect Trump, even as scrutiny of his campaign intensifies on the part of the FBI, and now, special counsel Robert Mueller. Yet if Tuesday’s hearing is any guide, congressional Republicans are still intent on shielding Trump by undermining the investigation in the mind of the public.

And so, again and again, Republican members of the committee, particularly South Carolina’s Trey Gowdy, tried to get Brennan to say that no evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russian meddling in the election exists. But Brennan repeatedly refused to render a judgment on whether there was collusion. Instead, he only repeated his refrain that, because the CIA is not a law enforcement agency, he turned over its intelligence gathering about contacts between the Trump camp and Russians to the FBI, so that the FBI could conduct its investigation into whether there was collusion."

Opinion | Brennan’s explosive testimony just made it harder for the GOP to protect Trump

Looks like it's all with the FBI. No wonder Grabby is trying to obstruct the FBI's investigation.

And he has refused to present his "evidence" to the oversight committees. Which means he is making it up. In other words, he is a good political hack, doing the dictates of his boss. In other words he'e lying.

When did he refuse to present evidence? When he was asked about the specifics in the open hearing he said that he would disclose the details in the classified hearing.

Google is your friend. That and actually paying attention to the world around you.. The excuse to not present the evidence doesn't even rate flimsy.


Intel agencies reject request for House committee briefing, citing larger probe
Intel agencies reject request for House committee briefing, citing larger probe

So what is your point? The intelligence agencies wanted to finish their investigation prior to reporting their findings to an overly politicized congress. Did they update congress after they concluded their investigation and Obama applied the sanctions?

High crimes and misdemeanors are not defined in the const. but if it gets bad enough to show Trump had inside information from 'Russia about what hacked or fabricated info the Russians were going to spread, I cannot imagine why the dems would want to get rid of him.

 

[Slade3200]

"......CIA director John Brennan bluntly told lawmakers that during the 2016 election, he reviewed intelligence that showed “contacts and interactions” between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump campaign. By the summer of 2016, Brennan said, he was “convinced” that Russia was engaged in an “aggressive” and “multifaceted” effort to interfere in our election — and as a result, he believed “there was a sufficient basis of information and intelligence that required further investigation” by the FBI.

With this testimony, Brennan just made it a whole lot harder — politically, at least — for the GOP to continue in its efforts to protect Trump, even as scrutiny of his campaign intensifies on the part of the FBI, and now, special counsel Robert Mueller. Yet if Tuesday’s hearing is any guide, congressional Republicans are still intent on shielding Trump by undermining the investigation in the mind of the public.

And so, again and again, Republican members of the committee, particularly South Carolina’s Trey Gowdy, tried to get Brennan to say that no evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russian meddling in the election exists. But Brennan repeatedly refused to render a judgment on whether there was collusion. Instead, he only repeated his refrain that, because the CIA is not a law enforcement agency, he turned over its intelligence gathering about contacts between the Trump camp and Russians to the FBI, so that the FBI could conduct its investigation into whether there was collusion."

Opinion | Brennan’s explosive testimony just made it harder for the GOP to protect Trump

Looks like it's all with the FBI. No wonder Grabby is trying to obstruct the FBI's investigation.

And he has refused to present his "evidence" to the oversight committees. Which means he is making it up. In other words, he is a good political hack, doing the dictates of his boss. In other words he'e lying.

When did he refuse to present evidence? When he was asked about the specifics in the open hearing he said that he would disclose the details in the classified hearing.

Google is your friend. That and actually paying attention to the world around you.. The excuse to not present the evidence doesn't even rate flimsy.


Intel agencies reject request for House committee briefing, citing larger probe
Intel agencies reject request for House committee briefing, citing larger probe

So what is your point? The intelligence agencies wanted to finish their investigation prior to updating an overly politicized congress

That excuse is as flimsy as you can get. There is no reason to not present the evidence you have, if indeed it truly exists, to the oversight committee. In fact it is stupid not to as they may have some other information that would help your so called "investigation". So the excuse fails on multiple levels. The only reason to not present, is because it doesn't exist.

They were days away from reporting their findings to the white house which resulted in Obama placing sanctions against the Russians. I'm fine if you are objecting to their actions, i just disagree... but your comment that his refusal to give intel means he is lying is just ridiculous

 

[BlindBoo]

Which means he is making it up. In other words, he is a good political hack, doing the dictates of his boss. In other words he'e lying.

Or it's sensitive material that he knows can't be released in a pubic hearing.

In other words...Can they impeach 'Old Grabby' with nothing but classified data?

I guess we'll just have to wait till the FBI finishes, well that is if the 'Great Grabber' doesn't quit first.

The oversight committee is NOT public. Thus anything that is classified is safe to reveal. The only reason to refuse to present it is because there is none to present.

Then you have a link to his testimony that was not public?

 

[Slade3200]

Which means he is making it up. In other words, he is a good political hack, doing the dictates of his boss. In other words he'e lying.

Or it's sensitive material that he knows can't be released in a pubic hearing.

In other words...Can they impeach 'Old Grabby' with nothing but classified data?

I guess we'll just have to wait till the FBI finishes, well that is if the 'Great Grabber' doesn't quit first.

The oversight committee is NOT public. Thus anything that is classified is safe to reveal. The only reason to refuse to present it is because there is none to present.

Really, thats the only reason you can think of? You seriously lack imagination and basic skills of deduction... Like the more obvious scenario where the agencies were wrapping up an investigation and working with the white house to institute a response in the form of a punishment towards a nuclear armed advisory. I think they had bigger fish to fry then to throw this out to the over politicized congress before all the facts were gathered.