Dems want to pack the USSC

[AzogtheDefiler]

In Benghazi the soldiers were witnesses and an ambassador died. They made a movie about it based on their testimony and it was fairly damning. Do you disagree?

Did that require 14 republican investigations to confirm what happened, and that there was no wrong doing.

There was no wrongdoing? Link that please. So we didn’t develop best practices from this?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

All that time, all that money, investigation after investigation, and it didn't result in even so much as a reprimand.

Do you believe it was handled well? Laws may not have been broken but do you believe what happened there could have been avoided or handled differently?

You don't hold investigation after investigation and spend millions after millions after millions of dollars because you didn't like how something was completely legally handled?

What next. Congressional investigations because a football coach chose to run instead of pass on third down?

False conflation. People died and hired soldiers stated things weren’t handled correctly. Did you watch the movie? Pretty disturbing.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

In Benghazi the soldiers were witnesses and an ambassador died. They made a movie about it based on their testimony and it was fairly damning. Do you disagree?

What was the purpose of those investigations. The conclusions they came to showed no laws were broken, and there were no actions congress could have taken as a result.

Limits on Congress

pass ex post facto laws, which outlaw acts after they have already been committed. pass bills of attainder, which punish individuals outside of the court system.

Because it was so damning they decided to do a deep dive investigation. We have other embassies in dangerous places so if best practices were improved that’s a good thing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

People died and hired soldiers stated things weren’t handled correctly.

And some people stated otherwise. And even then, we learn from mistakes. We don't blame our own leaders for the actions of our enemies. Well, unless we are desperate for a partisan attack.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

hey made a movie about it based on their testimony and it was fairly damning.

Loosely based, while ignoring all the other testimony. Drama sells tickets. Ever seen the movie JFK? Don't turn in a history paper based on it, unless you want to fail the class.

I also listened to the direct witness testimony of the privately hired soldiers who survived. The movie was not far off and the fact that Hollywood is 99% leftist, it should tell you something.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

People died and hired soldiers stated things weren’t handled correctly.

And some people stated otherwise. And even then, we learn from mistakes. We don't blame our own leaders for the actions of our enemies. Well, unless we are desperate for a partisan attack.

Who stated otherwise? Link please.

 

[Wyatt earp]

On Thursday, the justices voted 6-3 to uphold Arizona’s voting law, which banned ballot harvesting — the practice of allowing third parties to collect absentee ballots and drop them off for counting — and invalidating votes cast in the incorrect precinct. Democrats argued that both provisions had a disparate impact on racial minorities in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

“Today’s ruling is another blow to voting rights,” tweeted Sen. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat. “We must abolish the filibuster and pass the For the People Act and John Lewis Voting Rights Act. And we must expand the Supreme Court.”

“Can we finally stop pretending it’s radical to expand the Supreme Court, abolish the Electoral College, and end the filibuster?” asked Robert Reich, a liberal activist and former secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. “We do these things, or we let democracy die. It’s really that simple.”

“EXPAND THE COURT OR YOU GET NOTHING,” tweeted the Nation’s Elie Mystal

Supreme Court rulings invite new court-packing chatter on the Left, but Senate votes are lacking - Washington Examiner

A pair of recent Supreme Court rulings has revived left-wing activist chatter about court-packing, but no obvious path toward getting legislation to do so through a closely divided Senate.The situation creates a Catch-22 for the Left: they do not have the votes to pass their most sweeping...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

The Democrat Party is at war against our democracy*.
If they can't win, they change the rules.
The Supreme Court ruled correctly that States have the right to protect their citizen's Right to Vote from the corrupt Democrat Party's election rigging crimes.
So now the Democrats want to pack the court with far left radical and racist Democrat Judges.
The Supreme Court is supposed to protect the citizens, not the corrupt Democrat Party's voter fraud crimes.
If they can get away with packing the court they will be able to get away with anything.

"If they can't win, change the rules"

Yes, but enough about Mitch McConnell.

It is perfectly within the rules for the Democrats to add 4 seats and fill them with liberal judges. If the GQP children have taught them anything, it's that they need to put aside all modicum of maturity and class.

So Harry Reid didn't start this with the nuclear option?



Only a democrat would start a fight and bitch

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I also listened to the direct witness testimony of the privately hired soldiers who survived.

And i also listened to the direct testimony of ranking military men and the Sec of State.

 

[meaner gene]

So you have joesph gerbels (Susan rice) running around on television saying it was because of a movie?

Did you miss the conclusion. No laws broken.
How many Benghazi investigations does it take to come to the same conclusion?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I also listened to the direct witness testimony of the privately hired soldiers who survived.

And i also listened to the direct testimony of ranking military men and the Sec of State.

So this was the first conclusion of the investigations.

The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So Harry Reid didn't start this with the nuclear option?

Nope. Thanks for asking.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

In Benghazi the soldiers were witnesses and an ambassador died. They made a movie about it based on their testimony and it was fairly damning. Do you disagree?

What was the purpose of those investigations. The conclusions they came to showed no laws were broken, and there were no actions congress could have taken as a result.

Limits on Congress

pass ex post facto laws, which outlaw acts after they have already been committed. pass bills of attainder, which punish individuals outside of the court system.

The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").


Pretty damning in my view. Yours?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So this was the first conclusion of the investigations.

No it was not. What you are implying is criminal negligence. Stop being cute.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

So you have joesph gerbels (Susan rice) running around on television saying it was because of a movie?

Did you miss the conclusion. No laws broken.
How many Benghazi investigations does it take to come to the same conclusion?

The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").


How many times should I post this?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

So this was the first conclusion of the investigations.

No it was not. What you are implying is criminal negligence. Stop being cute.

So this is nothing to you?

1. The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").
2. The CIA misread how dangerous Libya was in midst of a revolution after overthrowing Gaddafia year earlier.
3. The Defense Department failed to rescue Americans: U.S. military forces did not reach Benghazi until mid-afternoon the day after the initial attack on the compound. "No U.S. military asset was ever deployed to Benghazi despite the order of the Secretary of Defense at 7 o'clock that night," Gowdy said.
4. The Administration subverted investigation through what Gowdy described as "intentional", "coordinated", and "shameful" stonewalling. Clinton deleted numerous emails on the private server she was using for official business, which the report says "makes it impossible to ever represent to those killed in Benghazi that the record is whole."
5. A Clinton aide influenced the State Department's review: Cheryl Mills, Clinton's former chief of staff has said she offered suggestions on drafts.[71]
6. Americans were transported to Benghazi airport by Khaddafi loyalists, the same group the U.S. had sought to oust earlier. Stated the report: "Some of the very individuals the United States had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution were the only Libyans that came to the assistance of the United States on the night of the Benghazi attack."
7. A White House meeting during the attack generated a list of 10 action items, half of which related to an anti-Muslim YouTube video that sparked protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.[72]

 

[Wyatt earp]

So Harry Reid didn't start this with the nuclear option?

Nope. Thanks for asking.

So youre just a troll

 

[meaner gene]

Did that require 14 republican investigations to confirm what happened, and that there was no wrong doing.

There was no wrongdoing? Link that please. So we didn’t develop best practices from this?

You already confirmed no wrongdoing. Don't you read your own posts?

Do you believe it was handled well? Laws may not have been broken but do you believe what happened there could have been avoided or handled differently?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Did that require 14 republican investigations to confirm what happened, and that there was no wrong doing.

There was no wrongdoing? Link that please. So we didn’t develop best practices from this?

You already confirmed no wrongdoing. Don't you read your own posts?

Do you believe it was handled well? Laws may not have been broken but do you believe what happened there could have been avoided or handled differently?

I said Illegal. Read my posts.

1. The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").
2. The CIA misread how dangerous Libya was in midst of a revolution after overthrowing Gaddafia year earlier.
3. The Defense Department failed to rescue Americans: U.S. military forces did not reach Benghazi until mid-afternoon the day after the initial attack on the compound. "No U.S. military asset was ever deployed to Benghazi despite the order of the Secretary of Defense at 7 o'clock that night," Gowdy said.
4. The Administration subverted investigation through what Gowdy described as "intentional", "coordinated", and "shameful" stonewalling. Clinton deleted numerous emails on the private server she was using for official business, which the report says "makes it impossible to ever represent to those killed in Benghazi that the record is whole."
5. A Clinton aide influenced the State Department's review: Cheryl Mills, Clinton's former chief of staff has said she offered suggestions on drafts.[71]
6. Americans were transported to Benghazi airport by Khaddafi loyalists, the same group the U.S. had sought to oust earlier. Stated the report: "Some of the very individuals the United States had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution were the only Libyans that came to the assistance of the United States on the night of the Benghazi attack."
7. A White House meeting during the attack generated a list of 10 action items, half of which related to an anti-Muslim YouTube video that sparked protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.[72]

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

So you have joesph gerbels (Susan rice) running around on television saying it was because of a movie?

Did you miss the conclusion. No laws broken.
How many Benghazi investigations does it take to come to the same conclusion?

But only because Clinton deleted the evidence and more than likely it cost her the election. You’re such a leftist sycophant it’s pathetic.

 

[meaner gene]

Because it was so damning they decided to do a deep dive investigation. We have other embassies in dangerous places so if best practices were improved that’s a good thing.

Once again hypocrisy in action.
The NYT's did a documentary (all real footage) of the insurrection of january 6th. We have to protect congress in the future, so they need to do a deep dive investigation?

Yes/no?