Skip to comments.Benghazi Whistleblower Attorney: Congress Must Subpoena Hillary Clinton to Testify Again
Posted on 05/10/2013 7:03:56 PM PDT by Nachum
Earlier today, we learned about a bombshell report that said the CIA´s Benghazi talking points were changed 12 times, with extensive input from the State Department. It comes after State Department whistleblower Gregory Hicks testified Wednesday that he was shocked when he saw Susan Rice blaming a protest for the attack on numerous talk shows. Martha MacCallum discussed the next steps in the investigation of what happened in Benghazi with Hicks´ attorney, Victoria Toensing. At this point, she thinks "it´s about time" that House Republicans start issuing subpoenas,
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnewsinsider.com ...
that is going to take a lot of paper
Any congressional questioning of Hillary is going to meet with the “it’s Jello” response model.
You gotta Love Victoria Toensing! This gal is on our side.
Congress doesn’t have the balls, and Hitlery will stonewall them anyways. Eventually, America yawns and moves onto the next thing or the next American Idol episode.
Zero will claim “executive privilege” like F&F and try to deep 6 it.
May 10, 2013 - Interview Podcast: Victoria Toensing, attorney for Gregory Hicks with Melody Burnes (host) on Talk 1300.
Queue the podcast below at 37:15 minutes:
They need to work their way up to Hillary, starting with that email writer. Build the case so that it really won’t matter what Hillary denies when they finally call her.
She will not be able to testify under oath regarding her last Federal position.
That will remove her from 2016 funding.
If the GOP had a ball between them, they would ride that privilege to a midterm sweep.
Alas they do not. Bhoner will not allow it.
Does anyone believe a House led by John Boehner and Eric Cantor will take on Obama, the Clinton’s, George Soros, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Democrat Party and the mainstream media over this? The Republican establishment is still licking its wounds over the Clinton impeachment and that was over a decade ago. If they couldn’t take on Obama on the budget and win when they have Constitutional power over spending and taxes, why would they fight him on Benghazi?
The #1 issue for the Republican establishment today is getting the amnesty immigration bill passed in 2013. For Republican strategists, Benghazi is an annoying distraction.
so if it is true (which I saw via an article from Mark Levin) she was not sworn in under oath so...............what difference does it make
Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise.
It was those same “strategist” types that Reagan told to pound sand in Iceland. If we could ever find another thoughtful, communicative , DOWN IN HIS HEART , conservative candidate ,that would not differ to the idiot handlers, maybe , just maybe we could undo some this damage. I know the jihadis would freeze in their tracks. If we could find a candidate that they are positive would BRING IT every time a U.S. citizen gets a hangnail in their craphole piece of desert, a lot of this foolishness would stop. Someone that has NO PROBLEM IDENTIFYING WHO THE ENEMY is would be a baby step in the right direction at least.
The GOP morons never put Hillary under oath the first time. These GOP morons are not interested in making anyone pay a price for Bengazi.
They are only interested in using Bengazi as a campaign tool. Why would you not put Hillary under oath the first time?
That is what I call the “Sergeant York Stategy”...pick off the flock of geese starting at the back and work your way up.
Sounds good to me!
Who is that in bed with The Hildabeaste? Is that Huma?