CIA confirms Republican Benghazi committee is lying about Hillary Clinton

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/cia-confirms-republican-benghazi-committee-is-lying-about-hillary-clinton/22865/


And Trey Gowdy is being sued! LOL!

All we heard around here for two years was how this competent Trey Gowdy was going to eat up Hillary. He is an incompetent fool who has been over his head for years. He will be paying on the civil suit, and he has NO immunity. Justice finally. Lies and manipulation for political gain.

The daily news "bin" (do you know what a bin is?) via "as dug up by Daily Kos". Why do y'all read such biased sources?

It's not normal comrades.

It's not normal comrades.


You are right. A military man and die hard Republican told the truth that the committee was a political witch hunt and the worse part, the man said that the investigation was incomplete because its only goal was to go after Hillary. The best Part Gomer stepped in it........he will lose the civil suit, and a patriot will be rewarded for telling the truth.

2seaoat wrote:It's not normal comrades.


You are right. A military man and die hard Republican told the truth that the committee was a political witch hunt and the worse part, the man said that the investigation was incomplete because its only goal was to go after Hillary. The best Part Gomer stepped in it........he will lose the civil suit, and a patriot will be rewarded for telling the truth.

Half-truth, lacking context, cherry picking. What the pub meant was that the hearings resonate true and that is reflected by the public opinion polls. I'm not even sure of the military statement... perhaps you could produce a reliable source?

You know what Pkr? It wouldn't matter if Trey Gowdy came out and admitted they lied about Hillary to damage her chances for the Presidency because you want to believe the worst. There is no reasonable analysis from you on any political position because the liberals are bad no matter what and the govt. is ever badder. This is the mindset of people like you and is what has divided this country.You and Obamasucks,Teo, Markle,Joani and the rest of them there is no meeting in the middle. It's all these extremist views and no rationality at all. It's really sad.

PkrBum wrote:The daily news "bin" (do you know what a bin is?) via "as dug up by Daily Kos". Why do y'all read such biased sources?

It's not normal comrades.

There. Reliable sources. The CIA did in fact confirm that Gowdy flat out lied, and Gowdy is in fact being sued by an "ex-GOP House Benghazi Committee investigator".

Now that we have established these claims as being factual, let me see if I can guess what your response will be: No comment. Right?


http://www.newsweek.com/another-bad-day-benghazi-panel-384592

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/trey-gowdy-sued-brad-podliska-216152

Vikingwoman wrote:You know what Pkr? It wouldn't matter if Trey Gowdy came out and admitted they lied about Hillary to damage her chances for the Presidency because you want to believe the worst. It's really sad.

Hillary lied... and it is sad. Not only because there are so many other lies... but also because you ignore the obvious.

She may well be the most corrupt and compromised dc insider candidate that's ever had a legitimate shot at potus.

So thanks for that mrs. useful.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:The daily news "bin" (do you know what a bin is?) via "as dug up by Daily Kos". Why do y'all read such biased sources?

It's not normal comrades.

There. Reliable sources. The CIA did in fact confirm that Gowdy flat out lied, and Gowdy is in fact being sued by an "ex-GOP House Benghazi Committee investigator".

Now that we have established these claims as being factual, let me see if I can guess what your response will be: No comment. Right?


http://www.newsweek.com/another-bad-day-benghazi-panel-384592

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/trey-gowdy-sued-brad-podliska-216152

She knowingly lied. I know you don't care... that's your character flaw. His duty was the benghazi issue. Not the security designation of hillary's correspondence... is anything he may have erred on the side of caution in his handling of them.

WE didn't even know of her hidden server until last spring... despite numerous requests to the dos. She's slimy... you're gullible.

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:The daily news "bin" (do you know what a bin is?) via "as dug up by Daily Kos". Why do y'all read such biased sources?

It's not normal comrades.

There.  Reliable sources.  The CIA did in fact confirm that Gowdy flat out lied, and Gowdy is in fact being sued by an "ex-GOP House Benghazi Committee investigator".

Now that we have established these claims as being factual, let me see if I can guess what your response will be:  No comment.  Right?


http://www.newsweek.com/another-bad-day-benghazi-panel-384592

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/trey-gowdy-sued-brad-podliska-216152

She knowingly lied. I know you don't care... that's your character flaw. His duty was the benghazi issue. Not the security designation of hillary's correspondence... is anything he may have erred on the side of caution in his handling of them.

WE didn't even know of her hidden server until last spring... despite numerous requests to the dos. She's slimy... you're gullible.

So a thread gets created showing that the CIA has now confirmed that Gowdy lied about a particular series of emails that he said contained classified information, as well as the fact that Gowdy is now being sued by a former investigator; and your response there is to simply write all of this off due to the source that Viking provided. I then provided two reputable sources and your response then changed to "Hillary lied!"

If you're not going to address the underlying subject matter of this thread, why are you posting to this thread? And beyond that, what did Clinton knowingly lie about?

And what evidence do you have Hillary lied? Eight investigations that proved nothing?

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:The daily news "bin" (do you know what a bin is?) via "as dug up by Daily Kos". Why do y'all read such biased sources?

It's not normal comrades.

There.  Reliable sources.  The CIA did in fact confirm that Gowdy flat out lied, and Gowdy is in fact being sued by an "ex-GOP House Benghazi Committee investigator".

Now that we have established these claims as being factual, let me see if I can guess what your response will be:  No comment.  Right?


http://www.newsweek.com/another-bad-day-benghazi-panel-384592

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/trey-gowdy-sued-brad-podliska-216152

She knowingly lied. I know you don't care... that's your character flaw. His duty was the benghazi issue. Not the security designation of hillary's correspondence... is anything he may have erred on the side of caution in his handling of them.

WE didn't even know of her hidden server until last spring... despite numerous requests to the dos. She's slimy... you're gullible.

So a thread gets created showing that the CIA has now confirmed that Gowdy lied about a particular series of emails that he said contained classified information, as well as the fact that Gowdy is now being sued by a former investigator; and your response there is to simply write all of this off due to the source that Viking provided.  I then provided two reputable sources and your response then changed to "Hillary lied!"

If you're not going to address the underlying subject matter of this thread, why are you posting to this thread?  And beyond that, what did Clinton knowingly lie about?

It doesn't matter to him Gowdy lied. That's not important.

Vikingwoman wrote:And what evidence do you have Hillary lied? Eight investigations that proved nothing?

Is this what she told you and me and the families of those that died on her watch? Like my source?

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/23/hillary-clinton-emails-chelsea-during-benghazi-attack-blames-al-qaeda

PkrBum wrote:

Vikingwoman wrote:And what evidence do you have Hillary lied? Eight investigations that proved nothing?

Is this what she told you and me and the families of those that died on her watch? Like my source?

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/23/hillary-clinton-emails-chelsea-during-benghazi-attack-blames-al-qaeda

So after eight investigations, that's it? Your only beef is with the way that the attack was characterized immediately afterwards? Is that really it?

To say that your gripe is petty is an understatement. It is breathtakingly idiotic.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Vikingwoman wrote:And what evidence do you have Hillary lied? Eight investigations that proved nothing?

Is this what she told you and me and the families of those that died on her watch? Like my source?

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/23/hillary-clinton-emails-chelsea-during-benghazi-attack-blames-al-qaeda

So after eight investigations, that's it? Your only beef is with the way that the attack was characterized immediately afterwards? Is that really it?

To say that your gripe is petty is an understatement. It is breathtakingly idiotic.

It's cute that you think we know everything that went down... it only took two and a half years until hillary was forced to comply... lol. Like many corrupt politicians... it isn't usually the first indiscretion that sinks them... it's the coverup and obstruction.

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Vikingwoman wrote:And what evidence do you have Hillary lied? Eight investigations that proved nothing?

Is this what she told you and me and the families of those that died on her watch? Like my source?

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/23/hillary-clinton-emails-chelsea-during-benghazi-attack-blames-al-qaeda

So after eight investigations, that's it?  Your only beef is with the way that the attack was characterized immediately afterwards? Is that really it?

To say that your gripe is petty is an understatement.  It is breathtakingly idiotic.  

It's cute that you think we know everything that went down... it only took two and a half years until hillary was forced to comply... lol. Like many corrupt politicians... it isn't usually the first indiscretion that sinks them... it's the coverup and obstruction.

What don't we know at this point? This event has been investigated eight times now and no wrongdoing has been found. There is no cover up and there is no obstruction. Quite the opposite, in fact. Here we are eight investigations later and the only gripe that you can come up with is ambiguity in the characterization of the event immediately following the event. That's it.

I mean, is that it? Is that really the only thing you can come up with after these exhaustive investigations?

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Vikingwoman wrote:And what evidence do you have Hillary lied? Eight investigations that proved nothing?

Is this what she told you and me and the families of those that died on her watch? Like my source?

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/23/hillary-clinton-emails-chelsea-during-benghazi-attack-blames-al-qaeda

So after eight investigations, that's it?  Your only beef is with the way that the attack was characterized immediately afterwards? Is that really it?

To say that your gripe is petty is an understatement.  It is breathtakingly idiotic.  

It's cute that you think we know everything that went down... it only took two and a half years until hillary was forced to comply... lol. Like many corrupt politicians... it isn't usually the first indiscretion that sinks them... it's the coverup and obstruction.

What don't we know at this point? This event has been investigated eight times now and no wrongdoing has been found. There is no cover up and there is no obstruction. Quite the opposite, in fact. Here we are eight investigations later and the only gripe that you can come up with is ambiguity in the characterization of the event immediately following the event. That's it.

I mean, is that it? Is that really the only thing you can come up with after these exhaustive investigations?

None of the previous committees had information that has been released in the last few months... why is that?

A mystery of the universe to you?

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Vikingwoman wrote:And what evidence do you have Hillary lied? Eight investigations that proved nothing?

Is this what she told you and me and the families of those that died on her watch? Like my source?

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/23/hillary-clinton-emails-chelsea-during-benghazi-attack-blames-al-qaeda

So after eight investigations, that's it?  Your only beef is with the way that the attack was characterized immediately afterwards? Is that really it?

To say that your gripe is petty is an understatement.  It is breathtakingly idiotic.  

It's cute that you think we know everything that went down... it only took two and a half years until hillary was forced to comply... lol. Like many corrupt politicians... it isn't usually the first indiscretion that sinks them... it's the coverup and obstruction.

What don't we know at this point?  This event has been investigated eight times now and no wrongdoing has been found.  There is no cover up and there is no obstruction.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  Here we are eight investigations later and the only gripe that you can come up with is ambiguity in the characterization of the event immediately following the event.  That's it.

I mean, is that it?  Is that really the only thing you can come up with after these exhaustive investigations?

None of the previous committees had information that has been released in the last few months... why is that?

A mystery of the universe to you?

I guess that is kinda what I'm asking you here.  What wrongdoing took place?  Are you saying that information was hidden?  We're eight investigations in and the conclusion is that no wrongdoing took place.  That is reality.  Now you're moving on from your gripe about the ambiguous characterization following the event and you're vaguely suggesting a cover-up.  OK.  Can you be more specific?  Who covered up what?  

And why is any of this so hard for you to put into words?  For example, I don't have to make vague, roundabout suggestions about Gowdy.  I can simply state in plain english that he lied about information being classified when it was not actually classified.  And I gave you the links to support that assertion.  I can also say that these "investigations" have been nothing more than a campaign tool, and I can give you direct quotes from influential republicans plainly stating as much. I even gave you a link showing that Gowdy is now being sued by a former investigator over that very fact.

Vikingwoman wrote:http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/cia-confirms-republican-benghazi-committee-is-lying-about-hillary-clinton/22865/

And Trey Gowdy is being sued! LOL!

The DAILYKOS...when all else faiSUE!ls...



We get it! Progressives will do ANYTHING to drag out the investigations until after the elections. No matter how, no matter why.

If ANYONE of ANY merit at all were running against Hillary Clinton, she would already be a footnote.

Vikingwoman wrote:And what evidence do you have Hillary lied? Eight investigations that proved nothing?

Just goofy.

NONE of the other investigations were able to secure a single page of Hillary Clinton's email's much less know about her illegal hidden servers.

This could be the biggest landslide for Republicans since President Reagan's second term.

When a member of your own party and committee sues you, not for money, but for defamation of character, you might have gone too far.

Hillary lied about her emails.

Hillary lied about her emails.


What did she say which was a lie?

No committee has come to that conclusion, but if you have a quote, I am all ears.

Hillary said....“I never sent or received any classified e-mail, nothing marked classified, and I think it will all sort itself out. ....