Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » WOW! Best person possible appointed to head the Select Committee on Benghazi, Rep. Trey Gowdy

WOW! Best person possible appointed to head the Select Committee on Benghazi, Rep. Trey Gowdy

+3
Wordslinger
ZVUGKTUBM
Markle
7 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Markle

Markle

WOW! Best person possible appointed to head the Select Committee on Benghazi, Rep. Trey Gowdy

Hopefully he will CONTROL the hearings and not allow speeches by the members and only questions.



From the Weekly Standard

House Speaker John Boehner is “seriously considering” appointing a select committee to investigate the attacks on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, according to a senior GOP leadership aide. The move comes after the revelation of an email from a top Obama national security official, Ben Rhodes, instructing Susan Rice to focus on an anti-Muslim internet video to explain the attacks.

“The new emails this week were the straw that broke the camel’s back,” says the aide. “The Speaker was furious to learn that the administration withheld relevant documents from a congressional subpoena. He’s sick and tired of this evasion and obstruction from the administration, and wants a solution to finally force accountability, get to the truth, and provide justice.”

Read more: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/leadership-aide-boehner-seriously-considering-select-committee-benghazi_789000.html

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Don't let your man-crush on Trey Gowdy get the best of you.... PaceDog has a man-crush on Gowdy too, LOL!

WOW! Best person possible appointed to head the Select Committee on Benghazi, Rep. Trey Gowdy Laughi26

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Markle

Markle

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Don't let your man-crush on Trey Gowdy get the best of you.... PaceDog has a man-crush on Gowdy too, LOL!

WOW! Best person possible appointed to head the Select Committee on Benghazi, Rep. Trey Gowdy Laughi26

Not at all surprised that you have thrown in the towel and no longer even try to refute my posts.

I can well understand your, and the other Progressives fear of a prosecutor who really knows what they are doing.

Following law school, he clerked for the late John P. Gardner on the South Carolina Court of Appeals and United States District Court Judge Ross Anderson. He then went into private practice before becoming a federal prosecutor in April 1994. He was awarded the Postal Inspector’s Award for the successful prosecution of J. Mark Allen, one of “America’s Most Wanted” suspects.

In February 2000, he left the United States Attorney’s Office to run for 7th Circuit Solicitor. He defeated incumbent Solicitor Holman Gossett[3] in the Republican primary. No other party even put up a candidate, ensuring his election in November. He was reelected in 2004 and 2008, both times unopposed. During his tenure, he appeared on “Forensic Files” twice, as well as Dateline NBC and SCETV.[4] He prosecuted the full gamut of criminal cases including 7 death penalty cases.


Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Just what are the "impeachable" offenses you figure Mr. Obama committed in relation to the Benghazi attack?

Did Obama himself plan and execute the attack?

Did the President purposefully deny sending aid to the embassy when it came under attack?

Did we actually have military assets that were based close enough to Benghazi to get there and be effective before the ambassador was killed?

Please list the impeachable offenses for us, so we can laugh at you when the impeachment process fails ....

What do your Robber Baron friends want you to do on this issue Herr Markle?




Floridatexan

Floridatexan


http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Trey_Gowdy_Is_Talking_Rot

Gowdy Doody

If you're looking for some good holiday wingnuttery to spice up those leftovers, you can always count on the home office of American sedition to have a steady supply of it. Today, it's Congresscritter Trey Gowdy (R-Boat Basin) who has decided to semi-mansplain to the ladies why the president lied to them about his ability to overcome the irrational sex-panic of slobbering goobers like Trey Gowdy, which causes them to start sweating at the thought of what the ladies will do if you let the ladies have their ladyparts medicine paid for.

"He knows he's not going to win this at the Supreme Court, but he won in 2012, and that was his real objective," Gowdy said in an appearance on Fox News's "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren."... Gowdy pointed towards the Supreme Court's 2012 decision in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, in which the court unanimously ruled that the First Amendment's protection of free exercise prohibits the government from applying anti-discrimination laws to the selection of religious leaders. "It was nine to nothing in a religious liberty case," Gowdy said. "The president knows he's not going to win this case."
First of all, Hobby Lobby isn't a church. Its clerks are not clergy and its owners are not an episcolate and you are an idiot.

Second, by this line of argument, every politician who campaigned for racial justice in the years after the Civil War was a liar because Plessy v. Ferguson eventually was handed down. No, wait, forget I said that.

--------------------------

WOW! Best person possible appointed to head the Select Committee on Benghazi, Rep. Trey Gowdy 4141677722_2e50cef584_z

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Floridatexan wrote:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Trey_Gowdy_Is_Talking_Rot

Gowdy Doody

If you're looking for some good holiday wingnuttery to spice up those leftovers, you can always count on the home office of American sedition to have a steady supply of it. Today, it's Congresscritter Trey Gowdy (R-Boat Basin) who has decided to semi-mansplain to the ladies why the president lied to them about his ability to overcome the irrational sex-panic of slobbering goobers like Trey Gowdy, which causes them to start sweating at the thought of what the ladies will do if you let the ladies have their ladyparts medicine paid for.

"He knows he's not going to win this at the Supreme Court, but he won in 2012, and that was his real objective," Gowdy said in an appearance on Fox News's "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren."... Gowdy pointed towards the Supreme Court's 2012 decision in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, in which the court unanimously ruled that the First Amendment's protection of free exercise prohibits the government from applying anti-discrimination laws to the selection of religious leaders. "It was nine to nothing in a religious liberty case," Gowdy said. "The president knows he's not going to win this case."
First of all, Hobby Lobby isn't a church. Its clerks are not clergy and its owners are not an episcolate and you are an idiot.

Second, by this line of argument, every politician who campaigned for racial justice in the years after the Civil War was a liar because Plessy v. Ferguson eventually was handed down. No, wait, forget I said that.

--------------------------

WOW! Best person possible appointed to head the Select Committee on Benghazi, Rep. Trey Gowdy 4141677722_2e50cef584_z


Golly Floridatexan, you don't sound "desperate" like Herr Markle claimed ... LOL! Nice post!

2seaoat



Hold the hearings. There may be something impeachable, but certainly the cart is before the horse as that is the intention, as we have a fill in the space mentality. The watergate investigation was the last non political special committee which had bipartisan support and especially Tom Railsback who joined by many many other Republicans understood a burglary hatched in the White House was impeachable, yet even in that environment, it was a last resort which with bipartisan support the resignation was achieved.

Clinton's impeachment attempt was misguided, and the American people certainly in the off year elections gave a clear message that political attempts to impeach which distorts the founding fathers intentions, are not acceptable. Here it is embarrassingly transparent that another political attempt to compromise the office of the executive for political purposes is being attempted. There is not crime to exercise the executive role as commander in chief where by accident, negligently, or in cold blooded disregard the commander in chief makes a decision to act or not act where our fighting forces are in harms way. Additionally, whether the underlying cause of an attack on our interests was in part, entirely, or not at all a result of a video, the executive branch has the full discretion to apply their interpretation to the same. If the Republicans were to win the senate in the 2014 mid term elections, and they chose to use any "facts" from the Bengazi attack to draft a bill of impeachment, and if the Senate ruled in favor of such(highly unlikely because there are at least 10 traditional Republicans which would never allow a political impeachment which did not involve treason) the Supreme Court would rule within a week that the bill of impeachment was constitutionally inadequate. These are the simple facts, and this silly exercise is purely to enhance an off year election where the economy, ACA, and continuing success of the Obama administration have made the options quite limited for the Republicans.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

But what matters here is not the mechanics of the legal process.
And Obama may not be guilty of any of those items on slinger's list.

The issue at hand is the same as nixon's circumstances,  "what did the president know and when did he know it?"

The 2nd element is to define whatever the "it" is he's supposed to have done,  and then establish the degree of how unlawful or how unethical and/or immoral it is.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

It's really not unlike the situation chris christy is in.  Including the fact that both led to fatalities.

{edit}  well maybe not the part about the bridge fatalities.  i think they may have said COULD HAVE BEEN FATALITIES.  
So I guess we have to give christie the edge on that one.



Last edited by Bob on 5/3/2014, 2:00 pm; edited 2 times in total

Guest


Guest

It's not known that nixon was involved in watergate... prior to the cover up... or that clinton committed any crime... prior to the cover up. Panetta testified that obama ordered that anything that can be done should. Who did the cover up benefit.

I don't think a full investigation will reach obama... but let the cards and disclosures fall where they may.

I frankly don't care whether you or the other leftists think this matters or whether we have a right to know.

I'd also like to know exactly what the cia was doing there... and who knew the details and approved those actions.

That might cue another executive privilege.

2seaoat



Bob,

Actually the legal and constitutional arguments are all that matters and going off the rail and pulling rabbits out of hats about when he knew or did not know is absurd.

First, if in the exercise of the executive duties a President believes that the national interest is best served by out right lying to congress.....this is not an impeachable offense. If any action by the president fall's within the scope of his enumerated powers and he is exercising the same, he is not meeting the constitutional requirements for impeachment:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors.

So the entire Benghazi proposition that the president knew that an attack was terrorism and chose to make official announcements that it was based on protests over a video, is simply not constitutionally sufficient for a bill of impeachment where the actions of the executive were within the scope of his constitutional power. A president commits no treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors even if he lied or refused to turn over documents. That would require a petition for cert and review by the Supreme Court, and once the court has ruled that he should turn those documents over and be truthful in a response, and then the President did not comply, the would be obstructing justice and his conduct would be ultra vires, and impeachable.

The lack of constitutional and legal knowledge in this country is remarkable as some on these threads take glee that President Obama will be impeached for anything to do with Benghazi when acting as commander in chief. Most intelligent elected officials see the danger of such cavalier misinterpretation and that is why I argue that even if the senate was 51/49 Republican, more than five to ten Senators know the law and certainly would not throw the constitution out and evade the executive powers for a short term political vendetta. The issue of impeachment is dead, unless there was treason. When the differing branches bicker, do not comply with each others requests, and outright lie.....this is not obstruction of justice, rather the Supreme court once defining what action is deemed correct, a deviation from the same may be impeachable.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Go back and read my post again, seaoat. I intentionally did not use the word impeachment.
I'm interested to know whether or not he did something which was really and truly immoral or unethical.

Plus, now you've educated me that, even if we can establish that a president lied to congress, then the president is not culpable for that.
Boy does that ever make me realize how imperfect our laws are.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

seaoat,

Lay out a scenario for me which will make me think lying is better than truth.  lol

Guest


Guest

Considering that this was in the final days of a campaign for potus during which a main theme was his success in destroying terrorists... I don't think any leftist will ever find any fault in a diversion being used. The end there justifies the means.

That said... we've never heard explicitly where the heavy arms these terrorist used came from. That may be the smoking gun.

If it turned out we provided them... that certainly fits the criteria seagoat layed out. Arming an enemy is treason.

But as we've seen in similar scandals... the president almost certainly maintained plausible deniability.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

2seaoat wrote:Bob,

Actually the legal and constitutional arguments are all that matters and going off the rail and pulling rabbits out of hats about when he knew or did not know is absurd.

First, if in the exercise of the executive duties a President believes that the national interest is best served by out right lying to congress.....this is not an impeachable offense.   If any action by the president fall's within the scope of his enumerated powers and he is exercising the same, he is not meeting the constitutional requirements for impeachment:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors.

So the entire Benghazi proposition that the president knew that an attack was terrorism and chose to make official announcements that it was based on protests over a video, is simply not constitutionally sufficient for a bill of impeachment where the actions of the executive were within the scope of his constitutional power.  A president commits no treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors even if he lied or refused to turn over documents.   That would require a petition for cert and review by the Supreme Court, and once the court has ruled that he should turn those documents over and be truthful in a response, and then the President did not comply, the would be obstructing justice and his conduct would be ultra vires, and impeachable.

The lack of constitutional and legal knowledge in this country is remarkable as some on these threads take glee that President Obama will be impeached for anything to do with Benghazi when acting as commander in chief.  Most intelligent elected officials see the danger of such cavalier misinterpretation and that is why I argue that even if the senate was 51/49 Republican, more than five to ten Senators know the law and certainly would not throw the constitution out and evade the executive powers for a short term political vendetta.  The issue of impeachment is dead, unless there was treason.   When the differing branches bicker, do not comply with each others requests, and outright lie.....this is not obstruction of justice, rather the Supreme court once defining what action is deemed correct, a deviation from the same may be impeachable.

Excellent dissertation, Seaoat. It will not stop certain forum posters from continuing to fulminate over Benghazi, however. Razz

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

2seaoat



Bob,
The President has to make line decisions which involve lives who are at risk. If we have CIA operations, the President must protect our national interests and protect those assets. He most certainly has a duty to inform no one as it is unfolding, and may indeed lie to the public, our allies, to congress, and the media. It is entirely within his discretion when those lies protect operations.

Now if the President believes leadership is secure, he may notify leadership in congress, but history has shown that general disclosure to congress is leak city, and certainly we were dealing with active operations in Libya with CIA. I think much of what some are using as tender for cover up of some screw up of the executive branch is far more simple to understand. It was a CIA operation, and once discussing a direct attack on CIA assets, it is always plausible denial. The over reaction to the Church committee finding abuses in CIA in the early 70s has lead to much more common sense respect for the covert nature of those operations. They are most certainly necessary for the protection of this nation, and losing four CIA operatives and bringing a regime change without military loses and emptying our treasury all contribute to the duty of a President not to show all his cards.

Now for the sake of argument, the President or somebody under his command as commander and chief made a tactical error and as a result of that error those actions contributed to the four deaths. I do not want to be callous, but that is what elections are intended to do.......put the best people in office to avoid negligence and poor performance. Negligence and poor performance while executing the duties of the commander and chief are not impeachable. This is really some poor use of propaganda because shortly some people are going to find out how utterly silly it is to presume that intelligent traditional Republicans are going to modify the constitution and risk these abuses in the future. It is like an old rusty gate, there is a lot of squeak as the gate is pushed on way, but that gate goes back the other way and it squeaks as well..........Presidents have a job to do.

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote:Bob,

Actually the legal and constitutional arguments are all that matters and going off the rail and pulling rabbits out of hats about when he knew or did not know is absurd.

First, if in the exercise of the executive duties a President believes that the national interest is best served by out right lying to congress.....this is not an impeachable offense.   If any action by the president fall's within the scope of his enumerated powers and he is exercising the same, he is not meeting the constitutional requirements for impeachment:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors.

So the entire Benghazi proposition that the president knew that an attack was terrorism and chose to make official announcements that it was based on protests over a video, is simply not constitutionally sufficient for a bill of impeachment where the actions of the executive were within the scope of his constitutional power.  A president commits no treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors even if he lied or refused to turn over documents.   That would require a petition for cert and review by the Supreme Court, and once the court has ruled that he should turn those documents over and be truthful in a response, and then the President did not comply, the would be obstructing justice and his conduct would be ultra vires, and impeachable.

The lack of constitutional and legal knowledge in this country is remarkable as some on these threads take glee that President Obama will be impeached for anything to do with Benghazi when acting as commander in chief.  Most intelligent elected officials see the danger of such cavalier misinterpretation and that is why I argue that even if the senate was 51/49 Republican, more than five to ten Senators know the law and certainly would not throw the constitution out and evade the executive powers for a short term political vendetta.  The issue of impeachment is dead, unless there was treason.   When the differing branches bicker, do not comply with each others requests, and outright lie.....this is not obstruction of justice, rather the Supreme court once defining what action is deemed correct, a deviation from the same may be impeachable.

You may want to check with President William Jefferson Clinton who, you may recall, was Impeached.

Explain to us as well what is a misdemeanor and how is lying to Congress NOT a crime.

Sal

Sal

Markle wrote:
You may want to check with President William Jefferson Clinton who, you may recall, was Impeached.




Yeah ....


.... how'd that work out for ya? ....


.... dumbass. 

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Apparently, Congressman Trey Gowdy, R-SC, is all over this looming investigation. Gowdy is a TeaBagger Extraordinaire, and he is hot and bothered over Benghazi.

Gowdy seriously needs a new hairdresser, however, if he is going to keep inserting himself into the limelight....

WOW! Best person possible appointed to head the Select Committee on Benghazi, Rep. Trey Gowdy Treygo10

He looks like a cross of Lil' Abner and Jethro Bodine of the 1960s era television show, The Beverly Hillbillies.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

It doesn't matter what he looks like... or that leftists hate his politics. He's a former federal prosecutor... a damn good one.

That's the real issue you have with him.

But the good news for you is that the obama administration has no intention of cooperating or in transparency of govt.

Dispite what he promised while campaigning for the president of the united states of america. Sounded good didn't it?

2seaoat



He may look a bit goofy, but he is a solid prosecutor.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

There's something of a precedent being established here, I think. Consider: it's a known fact that Bush and Cheney, and Rice and Powell all lied about the threat of WMD in Iraq.

And there was plenty of spin and cover-up by the Bush gang when their lies became obvious.

There was no serious talk of impeaching the President at that time.

But, then again, Bush was a white republican ...

Markle

Markle

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Apparently, Congressman Trey Gowdy, R-SC, is all over this looming investigation. Gowdy is a TeaBagger Extraordinaire, and he is hot and bothered over Benghazi.

Gowdy seriously needs a new hairdresser, however, if he is going to keep inserting himself into the limelight....

WOW! Best person possible appointed to head the Select Committee on Benghazi, Rep. Trey Gowdy Treygo10

He looks like a cross of Lil' Abner and Jethro Bodine of the 1960s era television show, The Beverly Hillbillies.

Wow...I am shocked...SHOCKED I SAY!  All ZVUGKTUBM has is name calling.  I am impressed!

WOW! Best person possible appointed to head the Select Committee on Benghazi, Rep. Trey Gowdy Socratestoo

Keep up the good work!  My Progressive good friends never let me down.  What terrific friends and foils!

Guest


Guest

Wordslinger wrote:There's something of a precedent being established here, I think.  Consider: it's a known fact that Bush and Cheney, and Rice and Powell all lied about the threat of WMD in Iraq.

And there was plenty of spin and cover-up by the Bush gang when their lies became obvious.

There was no serious talk of impeaching the President at that time.

But, then again, Bush was a white republican ...

WOW! Best person possible appointed to head the Select Committee on Benghazi, Rep. Trey Gowdy Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSPeV-NJfGO5OyjjX8pzjfv_ccA3mHslzsauPc6bHobSrBvB940

Bullshit! People like you called for Bush to be tried as a war criminal.

When my response was, and still is... Go ahead and if he's acquitted of such accusations because he can prove misinformation was feed into the White House then let the treason trials begin.

Because if misinformation was being given to the White House at that time I want to know who was doing it and want the penalty for sending our guys and gals in harms way.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diOuUYcenW0

 Smile 

2seaoat



Sorry Mr. Markle.......you need to open the constitution and read it for the first time. The President does not have to attend a congressional hearing, cannot be held in contempt of a congressional committee, and certainly does not have to respond to them at all.....Please explain to me under what spacecraft you determined an Executive under our constitutional system will be guilty of a misdemeanor for lying to congress.........he certainly would not be under oath because he would never subject himself to their jurisdiction.....please revisit Watergate and the constitutional questions raised in the United States Vs Nixon, and you will understand that there was a special prosecutor appointed and in fact it was a common criminal investigation. The Supreme Court was unanimous in an 8-0 decision that the Executive must comply with the courts.

Now let me help you with President Clinton and what he was charged with......obstruction of justice and perjury, and this was again the COURT's jurisdiction.......NOT CONGRESS. An executive lying to congress is not perjury unless that President VOLUNTARILY submitted to the congressional jurisdiction and was sworn in and committed perjury. You do understand that to convict a President of high crimes and misdemeanors it requires a two thirds vote, and even in the Clinton clear case of obstructing justice, five Republicans voted against the impeachment because intelligent people realize this extraordinary remedy that our founding fathers put in the constitution could be used to defeat the democratic will of the people if this became a caviler exercise.

Please Mr. Markle, read the constitution before you fall for the garbage you are being fed. President Obama will never be impeached. It is the realm of the slow witted.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » WOW! Best person possible appointed to head the Select Committee on Benghazi, Rep. Trey Gowdy

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum