GOP lawmaker: Benghazi panel "designed to go after" Hillary Clinton

Another Republican lawmaker is suggesting the House Select Committee investigating Benghazi is targeting presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in a political takedown, just weeks after House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy drew fire from the GOP over similar remarks.

"Sometimes the biggest sin you can commit in D.C. is to tell the truth," Rep. Richard Hanna, R-New York, said Wednesday in a radio interview with WIBX 950. "This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton."

"After what Kevin McCarthy said, it's difficult to accept at least a part of it was not," Hanna added. "I think that's the way Washington works. But you'd like to expect more from a committee that's spent millions of dollars and tons of time."

Last month, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy invoked the 2016 election when touting the panel's work, tying Clinton's dipping poll numbers to the Benghazi probe.

"Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?" said McCarthy, then a strong candidate for the House Speaker position. "But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's un-trustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen.

But House Republicans condemned McCarthy's remarks, saying that the committee only ever intended to investigate the facts, rather than engage in partisan attacks.

Responding to Hanna's recent comments, Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon issued a harsh denunciation of the committee and its chair, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-South Carolina.

"House Republicans aren't even shy anymore about admitting that the Benghazi Committee is a partisan farce," Fallon said in a statement. "Hillary Clinton will still attend next week's hearing, but at this point, Trey Gowdy's inquiry has zero credibility left."

Ranking committee member Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, repeated his call to end the committee's investigation "for the illegitimate purpose of trying to damage Hillary Clinton's bid for president."

"Over the past two weeks, we have heard the truth from the Republican House Majority Leader, one of Chairman Gowdy's own handpicked 'conservative Republican' investigators, and now yet another Republican Member of Congress, all saying what is crystal clear to those of us who have been working inside the Committee on a daily basis," Cummings said in a statement to CBS News.

Hanna's remarks come just as Huma Abedin, Clinton's deputy chief of staff and longtime family confidante, is set to be interviewed by the committee behind closed doors Friday. The former secretary of state is scheduled to appear before the panel on October 22.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Well when your top secret server is next to a toilet I guess shit happens...

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Well when your top secret server is next to a toilet I guess shit happens...

To clarify, is it your stance that the Benghazi investigations are on the up and up?  Now that we have exhausted these investigations to the degree that this  is the most heavily investigated "scandal" in US history, and now that we have had two republicans concede that this was a political stunt meant to attack Clinton, is it still your stance that Benghazi is a legitimate scandal that need be investigated further?

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Well when your top secret server is next to a toilet I guess shit happens...

To clarify, is it your stance that the Benghazi investigations are on the up and up?  Now that we have exhausted these investigations to the degree that this  is the most heavily investigated "scandal" in US history, and now that we have had two republicans concede that this was a political stunt meant to attack Clinton, is it still your stance that Benghazi is a legitimate scandal that need be investigated further?

Well of course it's still relevant if the dame is going to run for president. She's a loose canon, a criminal, at best sloppy in her housekeeping and you want to hand over the country to the broad ?

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Well when your top secret server is next to a toilet I guess shit happens...

To clarify, is it your stance that the Benghazi investigations are on the up and up?  Now that we have exhausted these investigations to the degree that this  is the most heavily investigated "scandal" in US history, and now that we have had two republicans concede that this was a political stunt meant to attack Clinton, is it still your stance that Benghazi is a legitimate scandal that need be investigated further?

Well of course it's still relevant if the dame is going to run for president. She's a loose canon, a criminal, at best sloppy in her housekeeping and you want to hand over the country to the broad ?

Here again, this has been investigated more than any other "scandal" in US history and every investigation has concluded that there was no wrongdoing, and now we have two republicans conceding that it is a political stunt meant to attack Clinton.

This sentence that I just wrote, do you comprehend it?

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Well when your top secret server is next to a toilet I guess shit happens...

To clarify, is it your stance that the Benghazi investigations are on the up and up?  Now that we have exhausted these investigations to the degree that this  is the most heavily investigated "scandal" in US history, and now that we have had two republicans concede that this was a political stunt meant to attack Clinton, is it still your stance that Benghazi is a legitimate scandal that need be investigated further?

Well of course it's still relevant if the dame is going to run for president. She's a loose canon, a criminal, at best sloppy in her housekeeping and you want to hand over the country to the broad ?

Here again, this has been investigated more than any other "scandal" in US history and every investigation has concluded that there was no wrongdoing, and now we have two republicans conceding that it is a political stunt meant to attack Clinton.

This sentence that I just wrote, do you comprehend it?

Well let the wench defend herself, see what she's made of..."What difference does it make now", leaves me wanting a better explanation.

PkrBum wrote:We still don't have all of the related emails comrade. In the last few weeks hundreds have trickled out. The dod turned over emails after she signed an affidavit that she had complied with the court orders and subpoenas. The fbi just confiscated services from the dos and another it company. We know you don't care, that literally nothing matters... literally nothing... because she is your candidate for dear leader. Why don't you just say that?

PkrBum wrote:She was the official in charge. There had been attacks on the red cross, british, and even the infamous compound.

Enemy flags were being openly displayed, attempted assassination of british ambassador, hole blown in benghazi wall.

The red cross and british evacuated... hillary refused to send reinforcements dispite repeats requests.

At this point she was still taking credit for overthrowing gaddafi. She was either naive or incompetent.

This is also when we've found out that she was exchanging emails with blumenthal... some not turned over until he was forced to supply emails. He was also pushing for the intervention in libya so that he could pursue business interests.

All of this could've been acknowledged and the truth told (except the blumenthal conflict of interest) but she decided to lie and conceal the evidence for political purposes right before an election... and obviously to conceal the ideologic idiocy.

I'm glad there has been an investigation and that it persevered. Without it there would've been no disclosure from her... no transparency... no accountability. I know that's to your chagrin because she's a democrat... tough shit.

PkrBum wrote:Normal critical thinking people require all of the information possible/available before drawing conclusions.

I don't know why I wasted those words on you though... it's obvious that you have no idea what that means.

PkrBum wrote:She lied and obstructed our rightful access to the public records. Only a useful idiot excuses that from any politician.

gatorfan wrote:This Benghazi marathon would have been over long long ago if there had been even a modicum of honesty and cooperation from the administration in general and HRC in particular. There wasn't; that would tend to cause suspicion on the part of any intelligent person but that doesn't include HRC apologists.

Of course that's the way this administration in general, and HRC specifically, operate - lie, obfuscate, delay, whine, cry, point fingers, throw every available body under the bus - and most importantly - DENY RESPONSIBILITY at all costs.

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:This Benghazi marathon would have been over long long ago if there had been even a modicum of honesty and cooperation from the administration in general and HRC in particular. There wasn't; that would tend to cause suspicion on the part of any intelligent person but that doesn't include HRC apologists.

Of course that's the way this administration in general, and HRC specifically, operate - lie, obfuscate, delay, whine, cry, point fingers, throw every available body under the bus - and most importantly - DENY RESPONSIBILITY at all costs.

The marathon would have been over long ago if the true intent were anything other than "Attack the Clinton campaign".  Being it the case that we now have two republicans conceding that the driving factor behind these investigations is in fact "Attack the Clinton campaign", they will inevitably continue throughout the election season.  

Well, either through then or until this entire charade blows up in the republicans' faces - which is what appears to be happening.

GOP 2016!

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:This Benghazi marathon would have been over long long ago if there had been even a modicum of honesty and cooperation from the administration in general and HRC in particular. There wasn't; that would tend to cause suspicion on the part of any intelligent person but that doesn't include HRC apologists.

Of course that's the way this administration in general, and HRC specifically, operate - lie, obfuscate, delay, whine, cry, point fingers, throw every available body under the bus - and most importantly - DENY RESPONSIBILITY at all costs.

The marathon would have been over long ago if the true intent were anything other than "Attack the Clinton campaign".  Being it the case that we now have two republicans conceding that the driving factor behind these investigations is in fact "Attack the Clinton campaign", they will inevitably continue throughout the election season.  

Well, either through then or until this entire charade blows up in the republicans' faces - which is what appears to be happening.

GOP 2016!

I suspect it started for the "official reason" but has evolved into a political football - after all HRC wasn't even "officially" campaigning when it started. Be that as it may they should call it a day. It's already well established the administration and HRC lied through their teeth about the incident after it occurred. However if the DOJ started locking up politicians for lying there wouldn't be anyone in office.

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:This Benghazi marathon would have been over long long ago if there had been even a modicum of honesty and cooperation from the administration in general and HRC in particular. There wasn't; that would tend to cause suspicion on the part of any intelligent person but that doesn't include HRC apologists.

Of course that's the way this administration in general, and HRC specifically, operate - lie, obfuscate, delay, whine, cry, point fingers, throw every available body under the bus - and most importantly - DENY RESPONSIBILITY at all costs.

!

I suspect it started for the "official reason" but has evolved into a political football - after all HRC wasn't even "officially" campaigning when it started. Be that as it may they should call it a day. It's already well established the administration and HRC lied through their teeth about the incident (how and why it started) after it occurred. However if the DOJ started locking up politicians for lying there wouldn't be anyone in office.

Actually, the exact opposite has been well established.  .

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:This Benghazi marathon would have been over long long ago if there had been even a modicum of honesty and cooperation from the administration in general and HRC in particular. There wasn't; that would tend to cause suspicion on the part of any intelligent person but that doesn't include HRC apologists.

Of course that's the way this administration in general, and HRC specifically, operate - lie, obfuscate, delay, whine, cry, point fingers, throw every available body under the bus - and most importantly - DENY RESPONSIBILITY at all costs.

!

I suspect it started for the "official reason" but has evolved into a political football - after all HRC wasn't even "officially" campaigning when it started. Be that as it may they should call it a day. It's already well established the administration and HRC lied through their teeth about the incident (how and why it started) after it occurred. However if the DOJ started locking up politicians for lying there wouldn't be anyone in office.

Actually, the exact opposite has been well established.  .

What was it someone on here said about you? Oh yes, "willful ignorance".

I highlighted the pertinent point in red. Disprove, if you can, that they didn't lie about the incident after it occurred. You won't be able to so you will throw some more willfully ignorant BoFshit up here. As usual.

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:This Benghazi marathon would have been over long long ago if there had been even a modicum of honesty and cooperation from the administration in general and HRC in particular. There wasn't; that would tend to cause suspicion on the part of any intelligent person but that doesn't include HRC apologists.

Of course that's the way this administration in general, and HRC specifically, operate - lie, obfuscate, delay, whine, cry, point fingers, throw every available body under the bus - and most importantly - DENY RESPONSIBILITY at all costs.

!

I suspect it started for the "official reason" but has evolved into a political football - after all HRC wasn't even "officially" campaigning when it started. Be that as it may they should call it a day. It's already well established the administration and HRC lied through their teeth about the incident (how and why it started) after it occurred. However if the DOJ started locking up politicians for lying there wouldn't be anyone in office.

Actually, the exact opposite has been well established.  .

What was it someone on here said about you? Oh yes, "willful ignorance".

I highlighted the pertinent point in red. Disprove, if you can, that they didn't lie about the incident after it occurred. You won't be able to so you will throw some more willfully ignorant BoFshit up here. As usual.

It isn't my responsibility to disprove your bullshit.  It is your responsibility to prove your bullshit.  You made an assertion.  Can you support that assertion or can you not?   Because I can certainly prove that this "scandal" has been investigated more than any other in US history and that the conclusion from those investigations was that no wrongdoing took place.  That is fairly easy.  If your assertion is well established, it should also be fairly easy for you to support it.

It's amazing that someone can reach adulthood and yet still not grasp the concept of "burden of proof".  Were you homeschooled, gatorfan?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:This Benghazi marathon would have been over long long ago if there had been even a modicum of honesty and cooperation from the administration in general and HRC in particular. There wasn't; that would tend to cause suspicion on the part of any intelligent person but that doesn't include HRC apologists.

Of course that's the way this administration in general, and HRC specifically, operate - lie, obfuscate, delay, whine, cry, point fingers, throw every available body under the bus - and most importantly - DENY RESPONSIBILITY at all costs.

!

I suspect it started for the "official reason" but has evolved into a political football - after all HRC wasn't even "officially" campaigning when it started. Be that as it may they should call it a day. It's already well established the administration and HRC lied through their teeth about the incident (how and why it started) after it occurred. However if the DOJ started locking up politicians for lying there wouldn't be anyone in office.

Actually, the exact opposite has been well established.  .

What was it someone on here said about you? Oh yes, "willful ignorance".

I highlighted the pertinent point in red. Disprove, if you can, that they didn't lie about the incident after it occurred. You won't be able to so you will throw some more willfully ignorant BoFshit up here. As usual.

It isn't my responsibility to disprove your bullshit.  It is your responsibility to prove your bullshit.  You made an assertion.  Can you support that assertion or can you not?   Because I can certainly prove that this "scandal" has been investigated more than any other in US history and that the conclusion from those investigations was that no wrongdoing took place.  That is fairly easy.  If your assertion is well established, it should also be fairly easy for you to support it.

It's amazing that someone can reach adulthood and yet still not grasp the concept of "burden of proof".  Were you homeschooled, gatorfan?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

Like I said, more BoFshit. What a tool......so predictable and childish....