Skip to comments.Benghazi Is Such a Non-Issue That Hillary’s Democrat Party Enablers Are Meeting About It Tomorrow
Posted on 05/29/2014 7:49:57 PM PDT by smoothsailing
May 29, 2014
Nothing to see here, America. Hillary’s job performance review, AKA Clinton ’16, will be about what she decides it’s about.
Jake Sherman and Maggie Haberman, Politico:
An array of Democrats including Hillary Clintons allies are meeting this week to hammer out a united front on national security issues, including a clear response to Republicans over the Benghazi controversy…
The meeting is one in a series that ["centrist" think tank] Third Way has convened with Democrats since the George W. Bush era to discuss and shape national security policy. But at least some Democrats involved in the upcoming session are hoping it results in a coordinated and strengthened response to the new congressional probe into the deadly Benghazi attack…
Their involvement in the meeting suggests that some Clinton allies and Democrats are concerned about the stain the Benghazi attacks could leave on the former secretary of state if Republican charges go unanswered.
Well, that’s the important thing. Not whether she’s capable of telling the truth. Not whether she’s fit to run a Sunglass Hut, let alone the United States of America. Not whether an abandoned U.S. ambassador’s murder by terrorists on the anniversary of 9/11, and the lies she told to cover it up, say anything about her leadership skills.
No, no, no, no, no. It might leave a stain.
Now she and her creepy pals need to “answer the charges,” much like a child wiping his chocolate-smeared face while “answering the charge” that he broke the cookie jar. Being honest is completely out of the question, of course. But denial, deflection, doublespeak, and denouncing anybody who doesn’t believe Hillary’s horsecrap hasn’t worked. There’s simply too much evidence of her ineptitude and dishonesty.
Well, I’m sure those geniuses will figure something out. Maybe they could try reminding everybody that Hillary is a woman, and therefore it’s her turn to be president, and you’re just not smart enough to get that.
And now I’ll cede the floor to the shrieking #BenghaziDeniers, so they can vigorously and ineptly argue that this doesn’t matter and it really isn’t important and shut up, teabaggers. When normal people think a story isn’t important, they don’t even read about it, let alone scream at the people who do. But then, I’m not talking about normal people. I’m talking about liberals.
Fascism, it’s not just for Europe anymore.
“What does it matter?” morphed into “make it not matter”, but that didn’t work out very well. The next, most obvious step, is “make anyone who mentions it pay.” She’s really like that, you know.
Gowdy would not be chairing this committee unless he has credible witnesses about to give devastating testimony. The only discussion that Hillary’s people are having is how they can insulate her and be sure the blame is given to Obama.
The Clintons would like nothing better than sticking it to Obama.
It’s the first time I’ve ever agreed with them on anything.
I want to see them explain that commercial her and Obama produced and starred in. They used American taxpayer money to do it even though they KNEW that story about the video enraging Moslems was baloney. They used taxpayer money for political coverup.
Reisist the urge.
It's a trap.
Welcome to FR.
Would it be safe to presume the 5 Democrats on the special committee will be there to help plan the strategy?
I want the twofer. Let Clinton nail Obama and then BAM! Gowdy nails Clinton.
She authorized weapons of mass destruction to be given to Al Qaeda (to fight Qaddafi) and then tried to buy them back on 911 because she is so naive and stupid and sent Stevens from Tripoli to Benghazi on a c130 with 31 Cia weapons experts ( who have been threatened if they speak) to pick them up in exchange for over 400 million dollars and it blew to hell. She is a traitor. She should be in prison.
Not to plan it, but maybe to help implement it.
Excellent point, I hope Gowdy will spring that on her.
Unfortunately, now that Gowdey has selected a lobbyist for the Muslim Brotherhood to work with him on the committee, I don’t know if she has a lot to worry about.
Not guns, but some 20,000 shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles. But we have TSA to keep our airlines safe, so not to worry.
Welcome to FR.
“The Clintons would like nothing better than sticking it to Obama. Its the first time Ive ever agreed with them on anything.
Reisist the urge.
It’s a trap.”
I totally agree! It’s a trap. There is nothing Hillary would like more than to run as the candidate that would fix Obama errors and, at he same time, fight those nasty TEA party racist, extremists.
What difference does it make!
I can’t copy links on my phone. Google Phillip Kiko. There was an article about this at Shoebat.com that was posted here at Free Republic a few days ago.
Posted again today.
Republican Party works with Muslim Brotherhood Lobbyist to Investigate Benghazi
At #23. I still haven’t read the article.
But I trust Gowdy’s instincts 175%.
She’s got plenty to worry about.
As for Phil Kiko, he’s a high powered DC lawyer who has done lobbying for all kinds of clients from different ideological backgrounds. It’s what lawyers do. He’s known as a highly regarded Capitol Hill veteran who has a reputation for getting things done.
Any attempt to smear him or Trey Gowdy for picking him is highly misplaced and certainly suspect in my opinion. Shoebat’s article is just that, smear and innuendo.
‘some Clinton allies and Democrats are concerned about the stain the Benghazi attacks could leave on the former secretary of state ‘
Well now, that IS the MOST IMPORTANT aspect of the Benghazi terrorist attack, isn’t it?? HOW DO THESE PEOPLE SLEEP AT NIGHT???
Wouldn’t expect that from Shoebat, unless he’s gone around the bend.
I am a lawyer as well.
My understanding is that Kiko acted as a lobbyist and not an attorney. Either way, he did not have to take the case but chose to do so anyway. Now he is in potential conflict with a client, or at least an ex-client, and this can raise legal ethics concerns.
Regardless of his sympathies for the Muslim Brotherhood, he has put himself into a compromised position. As far as I am concerned, the implication is that he will work to steer the investigation away from motive, and away from exploring involvement by the Muslim Brotherhood unless the evidence is so overwhelming that it can’t be ignored.
Gowdy has tainted the entire committee by bringing him on. Whether it was intetional sabotage or not remains to be seen. Gowdy already sides with the amnesty crowd so I do question his integrity already.
75k of USA tax payer dollars in Pahkeestah for total b.s.
There is no evidence that Shoebat is anything but sincere in his Christianity, meticulous in his writing and temperate in his writing.
Meticulous in his research.
Have you read Shoebat’s article? There’s no substance to it. He mentions Kiko in the beginning and then goes off on tangents about groups and other people but never connects Kiko directly to any of it. It lacks substance, very weak gruel.
I posited that is was sabotage that Gowdy brought him in earlier. And Discovery.
What do you mean by “Discovery”?
OK, now I get it, it’s actually Gowdy you don’t approve of. Kiko is just a way of getting at Gowdy. That’s explains your assertions about both men.
I’ll stick with Gowdy, my gut tells me he’s putting together a solid team.
The 5 assclowns that were picked for the committee will do what they are told to divert this investigation.
No doubt about it.
Stains seem to be a recurring problem for the Clintons.
I am disgusted with Gowdy’s support for amnesty for illegals. I do think he has been doing great work on Lois Lerner, and would have had no problem with his chairing a committee on IRS harassment of conservatives.
I was excited to see him appointed as head of the Benghazi committee gecause he can be a pit bull, he is familiar with the rules of evidence, he is fast on his feet, and he is smart.
Then I read about Kiko. Now I don’t trust Gowdy to get to fundamental questions about the involvement of the Muslim Brotherhood in the murders. It is very sad, because I did believe in his ability to lead the charge on the whole episode.
And, tonight Megyn Kelly made the point that the Clinton camp must be really worried about the Select Committee, 'cuz her people are all huddling together tomorrow, plus she met with 0 today, and that meeting was VERY hush-hush!
From the little I read, there is a connection to the Muslim Brotherhood, but it does not appear to be direct, but twice removed. It bears watching, but it is not a smoking gun.
It is getting interesting, that’s for sure. I expect when this is all over we will have an even higher opinion of Trey Gowdy.
Clinton is squirming. Her “what difference does it make” all of a sudden is changing to “somebody come up with a plan to protect my fat butt”. LOL!
He will lead the charge, he will be successful in getting to the bottom of the whole sordid mess, and you will have the unexpected reward of being pleasantly surprised. :)
What difference does it make?
That’s apparently been replaced by “Somebody come up with a plan to cover my fat lying butt”.
Does this mean that at their private little luncheon yesterday, obama declared the matter of Benghazi dead? That the “investigation” would go down the rabbit hole along with the rest of his and her treasonous actions? I wonder what she threatened him with? Disclosure of his true citizenship, perhaps?
By all means vote conservative, but realize we must also deal with the tyranny and not just the tyrant.
How about not jumping to a FR-style conclusion w/o allowing some facts to leak in to clarify the situation?
What are your facts?