I forgot what the liberal action was to the Benghazi lie. Did they admit that it was a lie?

[Faun]

Just like liberals all of a sudden deny they ever said anything about collusion, they claim the obama administration never said anything about a spontaneous attack due to a video.



They deny all of it.

The big difference between the liberals claiming collusion or "OBSTRUCTION" is there is ZERO EVIDENCE of collusion OR OBSTRUCTION.

Nothing.

There is plenty of evidence of every crime we accuse the democrats of doing. More than enough. In fact it is beyond clear.

Comey, like most assholes that work in Washington are not FBI AGENTS. They are LAWYERS appointed by THE PRESIDENT. Which means they are POLITICIANS. Which means they are THE SWAMP.

They are all liars and scumbags. No need AS I HAVE SAID, to even have (attempt to have) a constructive conversation with the losers on the left. You would have an easier time trying to reason with a cobra.

Nope, Susan Rise did not lie. The liar is you. We know this from the 8 GOP-led investigations.

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012.


http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi Report.pdf​

The funny thing is how you brain-dead cons refuse to acknowledge the finding from 8 investigations led by Republicans, though you boasted about them while they were happening. Indeed, had they actually found something bad on Obama or Clinton, y'all would be quoting them. Since they didn't, y'all run and hide from them instead.

Quite revealing, actually.

Clinton's emails tell a different story than the white wash by congress.

No, they don't, actually. Her email shows the intelligence was changing throughout the night. At first, it was believed to be an Al Qaeda type attack. By the morning, she sent out another email saying it was the video that spurred the attack. The story kept changing until the CIA narrowed it down to the video. Which is the story they maintained for two weeks until getting their hands on surveillance video.

The GOP-led investigations determined all of this. They concluded there was no lie told. It's no one else's problem that rightards can't accept it.

 

[12icer]

Just like liberals all of a sudden deny they ever said anything about collusion, they claim the obama administration never said anything about a spontaneous attack due to a video.



They deny all of it.

The big difference between the liberals claiming collusion or "OBSTRUCTION" is there is ZERO EVIDENCE of collusion OR OBSTRUCTION.

Nothing.

There is plenty of evidence of every crime we accuse the democrats of doing. More than enough. In fact it is beyond clear.

Comey, like most assholes that work in Washington are not FBI AGENTS. They are LAWYERS appointed by THE PRESIDENT. Which means they are POLITICIANS. Which means they are THE SWAMP.

They are all liars and scumbags. No need AS I HAVE SAID, to even have (attempt to have) a constructive conversation with the losers on the left. You would have an easier time trying to reason with a cobra.

Nope, Susan Rise did not lie. The liar is you. We know this from the 8 GOP-led investigations.

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012.


http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi Report.pdf​

The funny thing is how you brain-dead cons refuse to acknowledge the finding from 8 investigations led by Republicans, though you boasted about them while they were happening. Indeed, had they actually found something bad on Obama or Clinton, y'all would be quoting them. Since they didn't, y'all run and hide from them instead.

Quite revealing, actually.

Clinton's emails tell a different story than the white wash by congress.

No, they don't, actually. Her email shows the intelligence was changing throughout the night. At first, it was believed to be an Al Qaeda type attack. By the morning, she sent out another email saying it was the video that spurred the attack. The story kept changing until the CIA narrowed it down to the video. Which is the story they maintained for two weeks until getting their hands on surveillance video.

The GOP-led investigations determined all of this. They concluded there was no lie told. It's no one else's problem that rightards can't accept it.

Same disproven liberal lying narrative that was debunked shortly after the lies were pumped out.

 

[Faun]

Just like liberals all of a sudden deny they ever said anything about collusion, they claim the obama administration never said anything about a spontaneous attack due to a video.



They deny all of it.

The big difference between the liberals claiming collusion or "OBSTRUCTION" is there is ZERO EVIDENCE of collusion OR OBSTRUCTION.

Nothing.

There is plenty of evidence of every crime we accuse the democrats of doing. More than enough. In fact it is beyond clear.

Comey, like most assholes that work in Washington are not FBI AGENTS. They are LAWYERS appointed by THE PRESIDENT. Which means they are POLITICIANS. Which means they are THE SWAMP.

They are all liars and scumbags. No need AS I HAVE SAID, to even have (attempt to have) a constructive conversation with the losers on the left. You would have an easier time trying to reason with a cobra.

Nope, Susan Rise did not lie. The liar is you. We know this from the 8 GOP-led investigations.

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012.


http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi Report.pdf​

The funny thing is how you brain-dead cons refuse to acknowledge the finding from 8 investigations led by Republicans, though you boasted about them while they were happening. Indeed, had they actually found something bad on Obama or Clinton, y'all would be quoting them. Since they didn't, y'all run and hide from them instead.

Quite revealing, actually.

Clinton's emails tell a different story than the white wash by congress.

No, they don't, actually. Her email shows the intelligence was changing throughout the night. At first, it was believed to be an Al Qaeda type attack. By the morning, she sent out another email saying it was the video that spurred the attack. The story kept changing until the CIA narrowed it down to the video. Which is the story they maintained for two weeks until getting their hands on surveillance video.

The GOP-led investigations determined all of this. They concluded there was no lie told. It's no one else's problem that rightards can't accept it.

Same disproven liberal lying narrative that was debunked shortly after the lies were pumped out.

LOLOLOL

And by "disproven liberal lying narrative," you mean 8 investigations in Benghazi, led by the GOP, which led to this -->

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012.

http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi Report.pdf​

 

[JBond]

Just like liberals all of a sudden deny they ever said anything about collusion, they claim the obama administration never said anything about a spontaneous attack due to a video.



They deny all of it.

The big difference between the liberals claiming collusion or "OBSTRUCTION" is there is ZERO EVIDENCE of collusion OR OBSTRUCTION.

Nothing.

There is plenty of evidence of every crime we accuse the democrats of doing. More than enough. In fact it is beyond clear.

Comey, like most assholes that work in Washington are not FBI AGENTS. They are LAWYERS appointed by THE PRESIDENT. Which means they are POLITICIANS. Which means they are THE SWAMP.

They are all liars and scumbags. No need AS I HAVE SAID, to even have (attempt to have) a constructive conversation with the losers on the left. You would have an easier time trying to reason with a cobra.

Nope, Susan Rise did not lie. The liar is you. We know this from the 8 GOP-led investigations.

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012.


http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi Report.pdf​

The funny thing is how you brain-dead cons refuse to acknowledge the finding from 8 investigations led by Republicans, though you boasted about them while they were happening. Indeed, had they actually found something bad on Obama or Clinton, y'all would be quoting them. Since they didn't, y'all run and hide from them instead.

Quite revealing, actually.

Clinton's emails tell a different story than the white wash by congress.

No, they don't, actually. Her email shows the intelligence was changing throughout the night. At first, it was believed to be an Al Qaeda type attack. By the morning, she sent out another email saying it was the video that spurred the attack. The story kept changing until the CIA narrowed it down to the video. Which is the story they maintained for two weeks until getting their hands on surveillance video.

The GOP-led investigations determined all of this. They concluded there was no lie told. It's no one else's problem that rightards can't accept it.

Since you have the report, remind us what exactly Chris Stevens was doing there.

 

[BlindBoo]

Our Ambassadors set their own itineraries. Ambassador Stevens entered Libya through Benghazi and had many contacts there. He thought he and his party were safe travelling back to his port of entry.

The lies all came from the Republican's and their Right Wing Echo Chamber. Such as:

President Obama didn't care, went home and went to bed cause he had to jet off to Las Vegas the next day for a fundraiser.

Sec. Clinton didn't care either, went home too.

Watched as the battle rages for 7 hours.

Stand Down Order.

Republican Candidate for President politicized the event within hours of the riots in Cairo by attacking the President. Americans used to come together and rally behind the President when we are attacked. Republicans showed their new true colors that day. Party over Country, always.

oh please.

this one sided shit on both sides has worn itself the fuck out.

I'm still waiting for the quote or transcript or video where they lied. The one zippy linked to did nothing of the sort. Every single one of their claims were false as proven by the numerous investigations.

did they or did they not blame a video for the attack?

No they blamed an extremist elements that came to the consulate. They assumed that a spontaneous protest had started there as a copy cat protest that the militant used as cover for their assault. There was no protest so they were wrong. Being wrong about that doesn't mean they lied about it. They also assessed that the extremist came with heavy weapons, that right there shows pre-planning. It's easy to conflate (or covfefe) the events because there were so many riots over that dumbass video.

funny.

bush was wrong about WMD, as was most of our gov. yet, bush is widely touted as a liar.

we never seem to give the "other side" leeway to be wrong, only our own.

Lets see one side used at best, misleading talking points for over a year to justify an invasion and occupation. On the other side the talking points were explaining a one off assault on the Benghazi Compound where they assumed something that didn't happen. See the difference?

 

[BlindBoo]

Our Ambassadors set their own itineraries. Ambassador Stevens entered Libya through Benghazi and had many contacts there. He thought he and his party were safe travelling back to his port of entry.

The lies all came from the Republican's and their Right Wing Echo Chamber. Such as:

President Obama didn't care, went home and went to bed cause he had to jet off to Las Vegas the next day for a fundraiser.

Sec. Clinton didn't care either, went home too.

Watched as the battle rages for 7 hours.

Stand Down Order.

Republican Candidate for President politicized the event within hours of the riots in Cairo by attacking the President. Americans used to come together and rally behind the President when we are attacked. Republicans showed their new true colors that day. Party over Country, always.

oh please.

this one sided shit on both sides has worn itself the fuck out.

I'm still waiting for the quote or transcript or video where they lied. The one zippy linked to did nothing of the sort. Every single one of their claims were false as proven by the numerous investigations.

did they or did they not blame a video for the attack?

No they blamed an extremist elements that came to the consulate. They assumed that a spontaneous protest had started there as a copy cat protest that the militant used as cover for their assault. There was no protest so they were wrong. Being wrong about that doesn't mean they lied about it. They also assessed that the extremist came with heavy weapons, that right there shows pre-planning. It's easy to conflate (or covfefe) the events because there were so many riots over that dumbass video.

but yes, he did also blame them being mad at a video.

He was obviouisly talking about the two week worth of rioting the Muslin did not Benhazi


Obama’s Speech to the United Nations General Assembly — Text

 

[iceberg]

oh please.

this one sided shit on both sides has worn itself the fuck out.

I'm still waiting for the quote or transcript or video where they lied. The one zippy linked to did nothing of the sort. Every single one of their claims were false as proven by the numerous investigations.

did they or did they not blame a video for the attack?

No they blamed an extremist elements that came to the consulate. They assumed that a spontaneous protest had started there as a copy cat protest that the militant used as cover for their assault. There was no protest so they were wrong. Being wrong about that doesn't mean they lied about it. They also assessed that the extremist came with heavy weapons, that right there shows pre-planning. It's easy to conflate (or covfefe) the events because there were so many riots over that dumbass video.

funny.

bush was wrong about WMD, as was most of our gov. yet, bush is widely touted as a liar.

we never seem to give the "other side" leeway to be wrong, only our own.

Lets see one side used at best, misleading talking points for over a year to justify an invasion and occupation. On the other side the talking points were explaining a one off assault on the Benghazi Compound where they assumed something that didn't happen. See the difference?

wrong is wrong. how come in ensuring bush *stays a liar* vs wrong you forget most of the US Government felt he had them.

see they hypocrisy?

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm still waiting for the quote or transcript or video where they lied. The one zippy linked to did nothing of the sort. Every single one of their claims were false as proven by the numerous investigations.

did they or did they not blame a video for the attack?

No they blamed an extremist elements that came to the consulate. They assumed that a spontaneous protest had started there as a copy cat protest that the militant used as cover for their assault. There was no protest so they were wrong. Being wrong about that doesn't mean they lied about it. They also assessed that the extremist came with heavy weapons, that right there shows pre-planning. It's easy to conflate (or covfefe) the events because there were so many riots over that dumbass video.

funny.

bush was wrong about WMD, as was most of our gov. yet, bush is widely touted as a liar.

we never seem to give the "other side" leeway to be wrong, only our own.

Lets see one side used at best, misleading talking points for over a year to justify an invasion and occupation. On the other side the talking points were explaining a one off assault on the Benghazi Compound where they assumed something that didn't happen. See the difference?

wrong is wrong. how come in ensuring bush *stays a liar* vs wrong you forget most of the US Government felt he had them.

see they hypocrisy?

Of course, one was used to justify sending our troops in to combat. They ignored all other evidence to the contrary because the fix was in. The invasion was going to happen.


On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

 

[iceberg]

and how did that vote go again?

 

[BlindBoo]

and how did that vote go again?

Did Bush meet the criteria?

 

[iceberg]

and how did that vote go again?

Did Bush meet the criteria?

that's not what i asked. you seem to be putting 100% of this on bush but last i checked, it was voted on by everyone.

 

[BlindBoo]

and how did that vote go again?

Did Bush meet the criteria?

that's not what i asked. you seem to be putting 100% of this on bush but last i checked, it was voted on by everyone.

Bush was the decider. Bush lobbied that he needed the authority to force Saddam to accept the UNSC demands. Congress gave him 100% authority to use military force based on 2 criteria. It was not a declaration of war.

 

[ph3iron]

I am still not sure what their collective answer is. I suspect what the reaction may very well be. Hence, the reason I am still confused.

Sort of like how they liked Comey, then they hated Comey, and now they like him again. Especially after Colbert told them how they are suppose to react to Comey.

Oh, did you all see that James Comey all of a sudden became the hottest sex symbol in Washington?

James Comey Is The Sex Symbol America Needs Right Now

Anyway, lets do a poll.

Wasn't 13 committees enough? Sweaty grilled hil for 12 hours and got zero.
Lies? You mean like the video which incited riots all over the Mid East and the only guy in jail said it was the video?
Why don't you worry about the 250 Beirut marines Ronnie got killed?

 

[Faun]

and how did that vote go again?

Did Bush meet the criteria?

that's not what i asked. you seem to be putting 100% of this on bush but last i checked, it was voted on by everyone.

What the Congress voted on was to make Bush the decider. The authorization to use military force had conditions built in which were required to be met before Bush could pull the trigger. The language of the resolution deferred to Bush's discretion as to what constituted determination. The only responsibility placed on Bush was to report his findings within a specified time frame.

Recalling the atmosphere leading up to the passage of H.J.Res.114, Bush was relentlessly beating his war drums over Iraq. Poking at Hussein to illicit a military response to provide him an excuse to deploy troops on the ground. When that failed, he threatened Iraq over their refusal to allow entry to the U.N. inspectors. When that failed, he pushed Congress for the resolution. Congress, about a month out from an election and facing a weary constituency from constant post-9.11 warnings, gave it to him. But make no mistake, that bill would never have been drafted in the first place had Bush not been pushing heavily for it.

To Bush's credit, possibly to his dismay, the bill was successful in scaring the shit out of Hussein, who then acquiesced to re-entry of the U.N. inspectors following a 4 year hiatus. Unfortunately, Bush wanted war, not diplomacy. He seized on the opportunity presented by an inconclusive report by the U.N. which failed to clarify the remoteness of WMD in Iraq. Bush also ignored pleas by the U.N. to allow inspectors to finish the job they were sent in to do. Doing so would have possibly resulted in:

• Some 5,000 American families not mourning the deaths of their brave loved ones.
• More than 100,000 Iraqis would not have been killed, maimed, and/or displaced.
• Saving America trillions of dollars.
• Prevented Iran from becoming the threat they are today.
• Deterred the creation of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, later to become ISIS

Be that as it may, Bush was the decider. He said so himself. Iraq, and everything that has followed -- is on him. He didn't have to take us to war, he chose to.

"As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." ~ George Bush, 12.14.2005​

 

[iceberg]

and how did that vote go again?

Did Bush meet the criteria?

that's not what i asked. you seem to be putting 100% of this on bush but last i checked, it was voted on by everyone.

Bush was the decider. Bush lobbied that he needed the authority to force Saddam to accept the UNSC demands. Congress gave him 100% authority to use military force based on 2 criteria. It was not a declaration of war.

so you are 100% comfortable with this standard being used for all sides - correct - you the "decider" (president) you own all actions for all others.

or as soon as i apply this logic to who you support suddenly there will be a "difference" in the 2.

enough of this. night john boy.

 

[BlindBoo]

and how did that vote go again?

Did Bush meet the criteria?

that's not what i asked. you seem to be putting 100% of this on bush but last i checked, it was voted on by everyone.

Bush was the decider. Bush lobbied that he needed the authority to force Saddam to accept the UNSC demands. Congress gave him 100% authority to use military force based on 2 criteria. It was not a declaration of war.

so you are 100% comfortable with this standard being used for all sides - correct - you the "decider" (president) you own all actions for all others.

or as soon as i apply this logic to who you support suddenly there will be a "difference" in the 2.

enough of this. night john boy.

Um, no it's not a standard, it's in the language of that particular bill. A bill that President Bush lobbied for. Personally I think it was a cop out on their part. They abdicated their Constitutional responsibility.

 

[francoHFW]

Imagine if Trump committed the kind of lies Obama did with Benghazi. It would be shit storm enormous, by the left/MSM.

I would guess some on the left find lying acceptable for D pols, but entirely unacceptable for an R pol. They are blind to the obvious hypocrisy, because they get all their news from the DNC.

No lies at all, except on the RW propaganda machine. Help arrived in 25 minutes, the video almost undoubtedly triggered the poorly planned attack. How many terror attacks have there been, but you superdupes still go nuts over this? Your propaganda machine and congressional witch hunts are a disgrace. So many bs charges on many subjects have been investigated, and NOTHING against any Dem has gone ANYWHERE in the real world. And you hater dupes never find out! LOL argghhh...Poor America.

 

[iceberg]

and how did that vote go again?

Did Bush meet the criteria?

that's not what i asked. you seem to be putting 100% of this on bush but last i checked, it was voted on by everyone.

Bush was the decider. Bush lobbied that he needed the authority to force Saddam to accept the UNSC demands. Congress gave him 100% authority to use military force based on 2 criteria. It was not a declaration of war.

so you are 100% comfortable with this standard being used for all sides - correct - you the "decider" (president) you own all actions for all others.

or as soon as i apply this logic to who you support suddenly there will be a "difference" in the 2.

enough of this. night john boy.

Um, no it's not a standard, it's in the language of that particular bill. A bill that President Bush lobbied for. Personally I think it was a cop out on their part. They abdicated their Constitutional responsibility.

good thing a democrat never did that, huh?

 

[Clementine]

I am still not sure what their collective answer is. I suspect what the reaction may very well be. Hence, the reason I am still confused.

Sort of like how they liked Comey, then they hated Comey, and now they like him again. Especially after Colbert told them how they are suppose to react to Comey.

Oh, did you all see that James Comey all of a sudden became the hottest sex symbol in Washington?

James Comey Is The Sex Symbol America Needs Right Now

Anyway, lets do a poll.

The left's views tend to be contradictory on many things.

-Benghazi was protesters out of control and not planned yet it was planned in response to our foreign policy and it was justified. Hillary still claims she didn't say things that we all watched on video.

-Obamacare isn't a tax so didn't need to go through the House but it is a tax to satisfy SCOTUS.

-Comey is evil and should have been fired by Obama but under Trump is not a bad guy and should not have been fired.

-Vitriol was responsible for Gabby Giffords being shot by a leftwing fan of hers but the left's hate speech is not responsible for the deaths of whites, cops and Republicans.

-All gun owners and the NRA are responsible for all gun deaths but no Muslims are responsible for the countless terrorist attacks where allah's name is screamed. Even the London mayor had said that terrorist attacks were just a part of living in big cities and there wasn't enough money to hire more cops. Now that Muslims were targeted, he announced more cops will be hired after this major attack. Not difficult to see whose lives matter most to some.

-There is no voter fraud when we see 100% or more of the votes going to Dems in some districts but there must be voter fraud by Russia since Hillary lost. Notice that they do not want a close examination of our system that might reveal something amiss among our own poll workers. Like the way the recount was stopped when it was discovered in one area that each ballot was counted up to six times for Hillary when the poll workers kept inserting the ballots into the machines.

I could go on with this but not much point.

The left did their best to immediately stop the Benghazi investigation. It was a few reporters, not our government, who made the trip to the embassy to look around. We did not see interviews with survivors, who suspiciously were treated on a base before being shipped to a secluded area. We didn't see the hard reporting that the media is capable of when they want to get answers. Neither Hillary or Obama admitted that they knowingly and purposely lied in the days following the planned attack, let alone apologize for their dishonesty.

 

[Rambunctious]

Hillary may have won if it were not for her fuck up in Benghazi...yes they lie like dogs...the dems are evil.