Was it over a video or not? Liberals need to pick a story and stick to it.

[easyt65]

What did the actual perpetrators say was their motivation?

There was a KNOWN call to perpetrate terrorist attacks on US Embassies and compounds throughout the Middle East on 9/11/12. On 9/11/12 20 US Embassies and compounds were attacked, 2 overrun.

There was a KNOWN call from an AL QEIDA commander for the assassination of Stevens in retaliation for the US drone strike that killed a Benghazi-born AL QAEIDA member a month earlier.

There had already been 2 TERRORIST ATTACKS against Stevens' compound in the week prior to the final attack on 9/11/12. No mention of a video was made until Hillary and Rice came up with the bullshit story in the midst of the attack.

But let's forget about all of that for a minute...

The CIA said there was NEVER any indication of any 'protest'.

The FBI said there was NEVER any indication of a 'protest'.

The State Dept Reps on the ground testified they notified Hillary and the State Dep within an hour of the attack beginning that it WAS a TERRORIST ATTACK. Later they also testified that there was NEVER any sign of a protest.

It was evident this was a TERRORIST ATTACK rather than a 'protest'. The Liberal LIE has always been that it was a protest rather than a terrorist attack. So now the liberal 'escape route' is to declare the TERRORIST attack was motivated by the video?!

 

[NYcarbineer]

What did the actual perpetrators say was their motivation?

There was a KNOWN call to perpetrate terrorist attacks on US Embassies and compounds throughout the Middle East on 9/11/12. On 9/11/12 20 US Embassies and compounds were attacked, 2 overrun.

There was a KNOWN call from an AL QEIDA commander for the assassination of Stevens in retaliation for the US drone strike that killed a Benghazi-born AL QAEIDA member a month earlier.

There had already been 2 TERRORIST ATTACKS against Stevens' compound in the week prior to the final attack on 9/11/12. No mention of a video was made until Hillary and Rice came up with the bullshit story in the midst of the attack.

But let's forget about all of that for a minute...

The CIA said there was NEVER any indication of any 'protest'.

The FBI said there was NEVER any indication of a 'protest'.

The State Dept Reps on the ground testified they notified Hillary and the State Dep within an hour of the attack beginning that it WAS a TERRORIST ATTACK. Later they also testified that there was NEVER any sign of a protest.

It was evident this was a TERRORIST ATTACK rather than a 'protest'. The Liberal LIE has always been that it was a protest rather than a terrorist attack. So now the liberal 'escape route' is to declare the TERRORIST attack was motivated by the video?!

So if the same exact actions had been taken BECAUSE OF THE VIDEO,

you wouldn't call it terrorism?

lol, are you sure?

 

[Care4all]

Within an hour of the attack in Benghazi beginning the State Department lead in Tripoli, who testified he had talked to Americans on the ground in Benghazi, said he spoke directly with Hillary Clinton and told her it was a terrorist attack.

As Americans fought to survive in Benghazi the State Department and WH changed the CIA's initial report - calling the attack a terrorist attack - 13 times, removing all references to terrorism.

According to Hillary Clinton herself in her own e-mails, on the night of the terrorist attack on Benghazi Hillary told the Egyptian Ambassador, 'We KNOW it was a terrorist attack, that the video had nothing to do with it.'

According to Hillary Clinton herself in her own e-mails, on the night of the terrorist attack on Benghazi Hillary told her own daughter in an e-mail that 'we' had lost 4 Americans in Benghazi due to a terrorist attack.

The next morning Rice and Hillary told the world that Benghazi had been a protest over a video gone wrong. Hillary vowed to make the film maker, who had exercised his 1st Amendment Right, pay, putting him in jail...which they did.

According to Obama HE acknowledged it had been a terrorist attack.

The CIA NEVER said it was a protest.

The FBI said there were NO SIGNS of a protest and called it a terrorist attack.

Hillary told the grieving families, as their loved ones returned home in flag-draped coffins, they had died because of a protest.

Weeks later, after Obama had claimed he knew it was a terrorist attack.

In an interview Hillary called the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack.

Hillary then testified before Congress. During that testimony she declared she had no idea what it was, whether it had been a protest or a 'couple of people out for a walk one night (with ak-47s, rocket launchers, mortars and mortar shells to sustain an attack for approximately 8 - 10 hours) and decided they wanted to kill some Americans..." (She never mentioned the words 'terrorist attack in that false denial.)

When pressed on the issue Hillary finally declared it had been a terrorist attack.

....Hillary supporters still claim - despite the CIA, FBI, Obama, and Hillary declaring it was a terrorist attack - Benghazi was a 'protest'.

The Benghazi Mom came out and declared Hillary told her it had been over a protest.


AGAIN, many liberals are still arguing it WAS a protest. HILLARY, however, came out and denied she ever said that, even called the mom a LIAR.
-- So Hillary is saying it WASN'T a protest?

If it was really a protest then there would be no reason to call the mom a liar, because telling her it was a protest would be telling the truth .... if it had been a protest...right?

Libs, meanwhile, continue to claim it WAS a protest and the mom is a....liar?! Again, the mom is declaring Hillary told her it was a protest. If it was a protest, why are libs attacking the mom for saying Hillary told her that's what it was?!

And finally, stretching the hell out of Slick Willey's defense of 'the definition of the word 'is', part of Hillary's defense regarding Benghazi being a protest hinges on the definition of the words 'Protest' and 'terrorist attack'.

Evidently, according to Dems - whose definition of 'terrorist attack' differs from the CIA, FBI, State department, Obama, etc... - approx. 100 people carrying AK-47s, rocket launchers, mortar tubes, mortars, and enough ammunition to carry out a 'protest' for 8-10 hours, setting fire to and destroying a compound and murdering 4 Americans who fought for their lives for hours and who waited for help that never came is NOT a 'terrorist attack'. It is a 'protest'.

So, with liberals changing their stance whenever it benefits them on this argument, can liberals FINALLY pick one argument or the other - that Benghazi was a protest or a terrorist attack and stick to it?!

Thank you.

that's simply a right wing regurgitated LIE LIE AND LIE....the CIA did have the possibility of it being a protest WAS on the the CIAs assessment list on the attack along with the possibility of being terrorists.

BOTH were in the CIA's/Intelligence Community's list and the IC did not take the video off their list of what happened until 10-12 days later.

From the congressional Benghazi committee:

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, since they were already dead - what difference does it make?

Regarding Hillary and her zombie liberal followers, 'NUFF SAID!

Dead is dead. Video or not won't change that fact. Would they still be alive if Hillary had not said it was because of a video? Please explain...

So why did Hillary lie to the families?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Within an hour of the attack in Benghazi beginning the State Department lead in Tripoli, who testified he had talked to Americans on the ground in Benghazi, said he spoke directly with Hillary Clinton and told her it was a terrorist attack.

As Americans fought to survive in Benghazi the State Department and WH changed the CIA's initial report - calling the attack a terrorist attack - 13 times, removing all references to terrorism.

According to Hillary Clinton herself in her own e-mails, on the night of the terrorist attack on Benghazi Hillary told the Egyptian Ambassador, 'We KNOW it was a terrorist attack, that the video had nothing to do with it.'

According to Hillary Clinton herself in her own e-mails, on the night of the terrorist attack on Benghazi Hillary told her own daughter in an e-mail that 'we' had lost 4 Americans in Benghazi due to a terrorist attack.

The next morning Rice and Hillary told the world that Benghazi had been a protest over a video gone wrong. Hillary vowed to make the film maker, who had exercised his 1st Amendment Right, pay, putting him in jail...which they did.

According to Obama HE acknowledged it had been a terrorist attack.

The CIA NEVER said it was a protest.

The FBI said there were NO SIGNS of a protest and called it a terrorist attack.

Hillary told the grieving families, as their loved ones returned home in flag-draped coffins, they had died because of a protest.

Weeks later, after Obama had claimed he knew it was a terrorist attack.

In an interview Hillary called the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack.

Hillary then testified before Congress. During that testimony she declared she had no idea what it was, whether it had been a protest or a 'couple of people out for a walk one night (with ak-47s, rocket launchers, mortars and mortar shells to sustain an attack for approximately 8 - 10 hours) and decided they wanted to kill some Americans..." (She never mentioned the words 'terrorist attack in that false denial.)

When pressed on the issue Hillary finally declared it had been a terrorist attack.

....Hillary supporters still claim - despite the CIA, FBI, Obama, and Hillary declaring it was a terrorist attack - Benghazi was a 'protest'.

The Benghazi Mom came out and declared Hillary told her it had been over a protest.


AGAIN, many liberals are still arguing it WAS a protest. HILLARY, however, came out and denied she ever said that, even called the mom a LIAR.
-- So Hillary is saying it WASN'T a protest?

If it was really a protest then there would be no reason to call the mom a liar, because telling her it was a protest would be telling the truth .... if it had been a protest...right?

Libs, meanwhile, continue to claim it WAS a protest and the mom is a....liar?! Again, the mom is declaring Hillary told her it was a protest. If it was a protest, why are libs attacking the mom for saying Hillary told her that's what it was?!

And finally, stretching the hell out of Slick Willey's defense of 'the definition of the word 'is', part of Hillary's defense regarding Benghazi being a protest hinges on the definition of the words 'Protest' and 'terrorist attack'.

Evidently, according to Dems - whose definition of 'terrorist attack' differs from the CIA, FBI, State department, Obama, etc... - approx. 100 people carrying AK-47s, rocket launchers, mortar tubes, mortars, and enough ammunition to carry out a 'protest' for 8-10 hours, setting fire to and destroying a compound and murdering 4 Americans who fought for their lives for hours and who waited for help that never came is NOT a 'terrorist attack'. It is a 'protest'.

So, with liberals changing their stance whenever it benefits them on this argument, can liberals FINALLY pick one argument or the other - that Benghazi was a protest or a terrorist attack and stick to it?!

Thank you.

that's simply a right wing regurgitated LIE LIE AND LIE....the CIA did have the possibility of it being a protest WAS on the the CIAs assessment list on the attack along with the possibility of being terrorists.

BOTH were in the CIA's/Intelligence Community's list and the IC did not take the video off their list of what happened until 10-12 days later.

From the congressional Benghazi committee:



View attachment 83927

“We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest" - Hillary Clinton helping Obama cover up a terrorist attack and their operation to provide arms to Islamists through the Benghazi Consulate

 

[easyt65]

that's simply a right wing regurgitated LIE LIE AND LIE....the CIA did have the possibility of it being a protest WAS on the the CIAs assessment list on the attack along with the possibility of being terrorists.

F* You, C4A - suck on the TRUTH!

CIA Head: 'Analysts Never Said the Video was a Factor in the Benghazi Attacks'
CIA Head: 'Analysts Never Said the Video was a Factor in the Benghazi Attacks'

In the course of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s testimony regarding the September 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi, the American people learned that she:

• Told the Libyan President at 6:49 PM ET on the night of the attacks that “Ansar as-Sharia [sic] is claiming responsibility.” She did not reference a video. (Note: Ansar al-Sharia’s senior leader in Benghazi, Ahmed Abu Khatallah, is the only person who has been arrested for the attacks.)

• Told a member of her family at 11:12 PM ET on the night of the attacks that “an Al Queda-like group” was responsible. She did not reference a video.

** The Obama administration has since FREED Ahmed Abu Khatallah, their scapegoat taken into a custody a year later to appease pissed-off Americans who demanded justice.

• Told the Egyptian Prime Minister at 3:04 PM ET the day after the attacks that they “had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack – not a protest. … Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda.”

-------

Evidently you Liberal deniers are calling your 'priestess' Hillary Clinton a LIAR and insinuating she lied under oath / perpetrated Perjury under oath.

-------

LYING BITCH:

• In the hours after the attacks, Secretary Clinton’s private statements never changed, and neither did her public statements. In private, she said terrorists were responsible and the film had nothing to do with the attack. In public, she made no mention of terrorists and repeatedly referred to an internet video.

------

ACCORDING TO THE CIA:

'Analysts Never Said the Video was a Factor in the Benghazi Attacks'...
"the analysts absolutely meant terrorist involvement, because extremist and terrorist are synonyms to terrorism analysts. Indeed, the piece reported, that people with ties to al Qa'ida had been involved in the attack. The bottom line here is important: the analysts thought Benghazi was terrorism from the beginning. And whether or not the assault evolved from a protest, it was still very much a terrorist attack.” (p. 218-219)

- Al Qaeida - Hillary and Obama's allies in the unsanctioned war to help Al Qaeida take over Libya. In this thread Libs claimed that Al Qaeida had nothing to do with the attack, which is also BS!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

that's simply a right wing regurgitated LIE LIE AND LIE....the CIA did have the possibility of it being a protest WAS on the the CIAs assessment list on the attack along with the possibility of being terrorists.

F* You, C4A - suck on the TRUTH!

CIA Head: 'Analysts Never Said the Video was a Factor in the Benghazi Attacks'
CIA Head: 'Analysts Never Said the Video was a Factor in the Benghazi Attacks'

In the course of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s testimony regarding the September 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi, the American people learned that she:

• Told the Libyan President at 6:49 PM ET on the night of the attacks that “Ansar as-Sharia [sic] is claiming responsibility.” She did not reference a video. (Note: Ansar al-Sharia’s senior leader in Benghazi, Ahmed Abu Khatallah, is the only person who has been arrested for the attacks.)

• Told a member of her family at 11:12 PM ET on the night of the attacks that “an Al Queda-like group” was responsible. She did not reference a video.

• Told the Egyptian Prime Minister at 3:04 PM ET the day after the attacks that they “had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack – not a protest. … Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda.”

-------

Evidently you Liberal deniers are calling your 'priestess' Hillary Clinton a LIAR and insinuating she lied under oath / perpetrated Perjury under oath.

-------

LYING BITCH:

• In the hours after the attacks, Secretary Clinton’s private statements never changed, and neither did her public statements. In private, she said terrorists were responsible and the film had nothing to do with the attack. In public, she made no mention of terrorists and repeatedly referred to an internet video.

------

ACCORDING TO THE CIA:

'Analysts Never Said the Video was a Factor in the Benghazi Attacks'...
"the analysts absolutely meant terrorist involvement, because extremist and terrorist are synonyms to terrorism analysts. Indeed, the piece reported, that people with ties to al Qa'ida had been involved in the attack. The bottom line here is important: the analysts thought Benghazi was terrorism from the beginning. And whether or not the assault evolved from a protest, it was still very much a terrorist attack.” (p. 218-219)

- Al Qaeida - Hillary and Obama's allies in the unsanctioned war to help Al Qaeida take over Libya.

But it's not true if Progressives refuse to believe it

 

[BlindBoo]

I bet most militias ( or terrorist organizations) in Benghazi have RPG's and mortars. It not a Egypt.

Yeah, and you are stupid enough to believe all protestors in Libya go out to protest carrying AK-47s, around 30 - 40 rocket launchers, mortars, and enough ammo to keep a 'protest' going for around 8 - 10 hours.

Listening to the voices again?

These were extremist. Here's how Susan Rice delivered the talking point.

"...we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya."

September 16: Benjamin Netanyahu, Susan Rice, Keith Ellison, Peter King, Bob Woodward, Jeffrey Goldberg, Andrea Mitchell

Obviously admitting that it was a planned attack by extremist.

 

[easyt65]

"...we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya."

AGAIN, from the CIA, above:

"the analysts absolutely meant terrorist involvement, because extremist and terrorist are synonyms to terrorism analysts. Indeed, the piece reported, that people with ties to al Qa'ida had been involved in the attack. The bottom line here is important: the analysts thought Benghazi was terrorism from the beginning."

Rice came out and spewed the Bullshit Hillary had concocted the night before. Rice wasn't capable of thinking' - she parroted the lies Hillary wrote for her. The CIA specifically said this was a planned terrorist attack from the start. Period!

 

[hadit]

What difference does it make? Dredging up old, tired stories isn't going to save Trump from free-fall.

It's telling that Trump is your main focus on this. Last I checked, he had nothing to do with it, as opposed to Hillary, who has everything to do with it.

 

[hadit]

I keep asking how does any winger say it was not because of the video? How do you know that?

Because government sources are saying it was not. Have you not been paying attention?

 

[hadit]

What did the actual perpetrators say was their motivation?

There was a KNOWN call to perpetrate terrorist attacks on US Embassies and compounds throughout the Middle East on 9/11/12. On 9/11/12 20 US Embassies and compounds were attacked, 2 overrun.

There was a KNOWN call from an AL QEIDA commander for the assassination of Stevens in retaliation for the US drone strike that killed a Benghazi-born AL QAEIDA member a month earlier.

There had already been 2 TERRORIST ATTACKS against Stevens' compound in the week prior to the final attack on 9/11/12. No mention of a video was made until Hillary and Rice came up with the bullshit story in the midst of the attack.

But let's forget about all of that for a minute...

The CIA said there was NEVER any indication of any 'protest'.

The FBI said there was NEVER any indication of a 'protest'.

The State Dept Reps on the ground testified they notified Hillary and the State Dep within an hour of the attack beginning that it WAS a TERRORIST ATTACK. Later they also testified that there was NEVER any sign of a protest.

It was evident this was a TERRORIST ATTACK rather than a 'protest'. The Liberal LIE has always been that it was a protest rather than a terrorist attack. So now the liberal 'escape route' is to declare the TERRORIST attack was motivated by the video?!

So if the same exact actions had been taken BECAUSE OF THE VIDEO,

you wouldn't call it terrorism?

lol, are you sure?

That's a what-if game, and pointless.

 

[rightwinger]

Why can't it be both?

Those surrounding the embassy and protesting were not terrorists
Those who entered the compound and killed the four Americans were

One would not have happened without the other

 

[easyt65]

All of this raises several important questions:

• First, if the CIA and intelligence analysts never even mentioned the YouTube video, why did Secretary Clinton?

- To save her ass!

• Second, if the first full intelligence assessment of what happened was not available until September 13, how can it be claimed that this assessment influenced Secretary Clinton’s statements on September 11 and 12? She couldn’t have read it before it was written.

- Hillary LIED!

• Third, if intelligence analysts and Secretary Clinton believed from the beginning that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, why did Secretary Clinton not say so publicly until September 21?

HILLARY ADMITTED IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK, NOT A PROTEST OVER A VIDEO! Why can't you liberals?

• Fourth, Secretary Clinton told the Egyptian Prime Minister on September 12 that “It was a planned attack – not a protest,” but when a reporter asked her on September 18 about the Libyan President saying it was a planned attack, she dodged the question, saying, “the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has said we had no actionable intelligence that an attack on our post in Benghazi was planned or imminent.” Why the dodge?

To save her ass!

 

[Care4all]

that's simply a right wing regurgitated LIE LIE AND LIE....the CIA did have the possibility of it being a protest WAS on the the CIAs assessment list on the attack along with the possibility of being terrorists.

F* You, C4A - suck on the TRUTH!

CIA Head: 'Analysts Never Said the Video was a Factor in the Benghazi Attacks'
CIA Head: 'Analysts Never Said the Video was a Factor in the Benghazi Attacks'

In the course of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s testimony regarding the September 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi, the American people learned that she:

• Told the Libyan President at 6:49 PM ET on the night of the attacks that “Ansar as-Sharia [sic] is claiming responsibility.” She did not reference a video. (Note: Ansar al-Sharia’s senior leader in Benghazi, Ahmed Abu Khatallah, is the only person who has been arrested for the attacks.)

• Told a member of her family at 11:12 PM ET on the night of the attacks that “an Al Queda-like group” was responsible. She did not reference a video.

** The Obama administration has since FREED Ahmed Abu Khatallah, their scapegoat taken into a custody a year later to appease pissed-off Americans who demanded justice.

• Told the Egyptian Prime Minister at 3:04 PM ET the day after the attacks that they “had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack – not a protest. … Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda.”

-------

Evidently you Liberal deniers are calling your 'priestess' Hillary Clinton a LIAR and insinuating she lied under oath / perpetrated Perjury under oath.

-------

LYING BITCH:

• In the hours after the attacks, Secretary Clinton’s private statements never changed, and neither did her public statements. In private, she said terrorists were responsible and the film had nothing to do with the attack. In public, she made no mention of terrorists and repeatedly referred to an internet video.

------

ACCORDING TO THE CIA:

'Analysts Never Said the Video was a Factor in the Benghazi Attacks'...
"the analysts absolutely meant terrorist involvement, because extremist and terrorist are synonyms to terrorism analysts. Indeed, the piece reported, that people with ties to al Qa'ida had been involved in the attack. The bottom line here is important: the analysts thought Benghazi was terrorism from the beginning. And whether or not the assault evolved from a protest, it was still very much a terrorist attack.” (p. 218-219)

- Al Qaeida - Hillary and Obama's allies in the unsanctioned war to help Al Qaeida take over Libya. In this thread Libs claimed that Al Qaeida had nothing to do with the attack, which is also BS!

Duke it out with the person who wrote the Blog for the House Select committee and with the House permanent Select Committee on INTELLIGENCE

 

[Lakhota]

Well, since they were already dead - what difference does it make?

Regarding Hillary and her zombie liberal followers, 'NUFF SAID!

Dead is dead. Video or not won't change that fact. Would they still be alive if Hillary had not said it was because of a video? Please explain...

So why did Hillary lie to the families?

Some of the families said she never mentioned the video - so stop your lies.

None of the other family members who agreed to be interviewed said Clinton made any reference to a video. Indeed, other family members have been puzzled by the confident assertions of Woods and Smith.

“It was absolutely never mentioned, and it is totally new to me,” said Jan Stevens, the father of U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens. “She gave us her sympathy. We had a great deal of talk about the problems of the world, the college her daughter attended. It was very small talk, nothing substantive.”

What Benghazi family members say Hillary Clinton said about the video

What did Hillary Clinton tell families in Benghazi case?

 

[easyt65]

Why can't it be both?

Ummm....because the CIA said it was NEVER a protest but a terrorist attack.

The FBI said it was NEVER a protest but was instead a terrorist attack.

The State Department Reps on the ground said it was a terrorist attack and was NEVER a protest.

Hillary Clinton HERSELF declared it was NEVER a protest but was a terrorist attack.

Hillary 'told the Egyptian Prime Minister at 3:04 PM ET the day after the attacks that they “had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack – not a protest. … Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda.”

It's truly amazing, in defense of Hillary liberals are ignoring facts and testimony...they are even refusing to accept the admission by Hillary Clinton herself...that this was never a protest.


"Here is the email in full, which was referenced in the hearing last week and is now being released publicly for the first time, with appropriate redactions:

From: [redacted]

To: [redacted]

Subject: messaging on the attacks in Libya

Date: Friday, September 14, 2012 6:43:39 AM

Colleagues, I mentioned to [redacted] this morning, and want to share with all of you, our view at Embassy Tripoli that we must be cautious in our local messaging with regard to the inflammatory film trailer, adapting it to Libyan conditions. Our monitoring of the Libyan media and conversations with Libyans suggest that the films not as explosive of an issue here as it appears to be in other countries in the region. The overwhelming majority of the FB comments and tweets we’ve received from Libyans since the Ambassador’s death have expressed deep sympathy, sorrow, and regret. They have expressed anger at the attackers, and emphasized that this attack does not represent Libyans or Islam. Relatively few have even mentioned the inflammatory video."

CIA Head: 'Analysts Never Said the Video was a Factor in the Benghazi Attacks'

Hillary's own e-mail confirms / admits the attack was NEVER about the video, was NOT a protest by local Benghazi residents, but was in fact a terrorist attack. Still, publicly, she continued the lie about it being a protest.

 

[easyt65]

Duke it out with the person who wrote the Blog for the House Select committee and with the House permanent Select Committee on INTELLIGENCE

Duke it out with the guy who wrote the BLOG?!



No thanks - I just quoted TESTIMONY and evidence!

 

[easyt65]

Some of the families said she never mentioned the video - so stop your lies.

Ooooo, SOME of the families. Well that settles that then.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

What difference does it make? Dredging up old, tired stories isn't going to save Trump from free-fall.

Copied right from the Hellary comment to the House Oversight committee. Democrats are so good at falling in line like good little soldiers....just check your brain at the door.