Hillary at Benghazi Hearings

jeffl

Oct 22, 2015 at 7:09am

Like her or not, she's wicked smart and articulate and convincing. If she faces Trump in the general election, she should skewer him in debates. Sadly, at least 45% of the population will vote for Trump even if he just rocks and sucks him thumb during the debates.

jamie

Oct 22, 2015 at 7:15am

Elijah Cummings for VP!

This committee is really helping Hillary. What a waste of time.

mjh

Oct 22, 2015 at 7:23am

jamie said:
Elijah Cummings for VP!

Yes! I like him a lot.

noo2wood

Oct 22, 2015 at 8:08am Edited

Isn't the simple story that those that are specifically responsible for security, those that have been delegated that task by the Secretary of State, are responsible for security oversights or failures, if those oversights and failures could have been avoided. Or should the top person always be investigated, held accountable and put on trial for every death.

Have all Secretary's of State been put on trial like this for every security oversight or failure that has ever occurred at the diplomatic level or otherwise "on their watch"?

Does the Commander in Chief have to go on trial for every soldier killed, and does an investigation have to occur to see if those deaths could have been avoided if the Commander in Chief had made some decisions differently?

If Hillary Clinton ever said in broad terms "We should ensure the security of our diplomats," isn't she then off the hook because that was the order she gave to her subordinates?

It seems that the answer to the "buck stops here" line of prosecution is in a micro-managing vs delegating line of defense.

mumstheword

Oct 22, 2015 at 8:11am

Watching Lawrence O'Donnell last night he showed how, during Watergate, the Congress had professional lawyers at the hearings, treated all of the witnesses with respect and asked professional, detailed questions. These jokers at the Benghazi hearings are exactly the opposite. Can anyone speak to her without yelling? Is it any wonder Secretary Clinton considers the Republicans her enemies?

jamie

Oct 22, 2015 at 8:53am

wow - just wow. I think we can stick a fork in this committee.

jeffhandy

Oct 22, 2015 at 8:55am Edited

Gowdy is looking like a fool.

So I guess the truth is coming out.

noo2wood

Oct 22, 2015 at 8:59am Edited

If there is no smoking gun that points directly to any communication where Hillary Clinton herself was sent an official request for more security, and flat out officially denied that request, isn't this whole thing a wash as far as the role of the Secretary of State is concerned?

And even if there was that smoking gun, couldn't her response simply be to give her reasons why she officially denied that official request? If that at all occurred, which it probably didn't, what could possibly be her personal motivation for making a decision to deny security? Frugality? The desire to have people killed? It doesn't make any sense.

noo2wood

Oct 22, 2015 at 9:06am Edited

On the other hand, if the accusation is that she "should have known" wouldn't we have to start applying that indictment to, say, everyone up the chain including the President. Wouldn't we need to apply that to Ronald Reagan and the illegality of the Iran/Contra deal, or George W. Bush and the intelligence failures that led to the decision to invade Iraq?

George W. Bush's was given a pass because his reasoning was that it was the best decision he could make based upon the information given. Wouldn't that be, at it's very worst, the defense for any decision the Secretary of State would have made. Where's the logic of this line of inquiry?

yahooyahoo

Oct 22, 2015 at 9:06am

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/benghazi-committee-chairman-trey-gowdy-tells-hillary-clinton-this-is-not-about-you/

"The congressional investigation into Benghazi attack has been cast by Democrats as a political witch hunt against Clinton. However, at the start of Thursday's hearing, House Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy told the former secretary of state and 2016 presidential candidate on Thursday that the investigation is not about her.

"Madame Secretary, I understand some people -- frankly in both parties -- have suggested this investigation is about you. Let me assure you it is not," Gowdy said ahead of Clinton's testimony."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

noo2wood

Oct 22, 2015 at 9:14am

It's funny that Gowdy's opening remarks were about justifying the committee's existence based on the fact that they've done a lot of work. He didn't open the hearing by outlining any NEW information that might have been produced from all that work, in order to justify the purpose or need for this hearing. It's like the guy in the office who is always running around all day, and when you ask him if he got anything accomplished today, his answer is "No."

ParticleMan

Oct 22, 2015 at 9:21am

mumstheword said:
Watching Lawrence O'Donnell last night he showed how, during Watergate, the Congress had professional lawyers at the hearings, treated all of the witnesses with respect and asked professional, detailed questions. These jokers at the Benghazi hearings are exactly the opposite. Can anyone speak to her without yelling? Is it any wonder Secretary Clinton considers the Republicans her enemies?

That's because the Watergate hearings involved an actual crime, not the made up stuff of these hearings. It's not about investigating or even the truth. It's about tarring.

jamie

Oct 22, 2015 at 9:27am

At the end of the day - Gowdy will claim that they're still missing a lot of email.

noo2wood

Oct 22, 2015 at 9:45am

I find it hard to believe that there exists a smoking gun email where she was given a specific official request for more security, and then specifically officially denied it. And even on the slightest chance that there were, I'm sure an email is not the official protocol for either requesting or denying requests for more security or anything else.

tom

Oct 22, 2015 at 9:52am

The Republicans vote not to release Blumenthal's testimony.

Because Benghazi!!1!! that's why.

LOST

Oct 22, 2015 at 10:03am

Is there a link to where I can watch this live on-line?

ridski

Oct 22, 2015 at 10:08am

LOST said:
Is there a link to where I can watch this live on-line?

Cspan is carrying it

ridski

Oct 22, 2015 at 10:14am

I can't watch it here, unfortunately, so I'm relying on the WSJ live blog.

LOST

Oct 22, 2015 at 10:16am

I can't remember my user ID or password. I guess I'll have to go back to work. oh oh

mjh

Oct 22, 2015 at 10:16am

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

mumstheword

Oct 22, 2015 at 10:23am

LOST said:
I can't remember my user ID or password. I guess I'll have to go back to work. ">

It's on MSNBC on cable and online

JLJohn

Oct 22, 2015 at 10:24am

It's live on NYTIMES.com.

mumstheword

Oct 22, 2015 at 10:24am

ParticleMan said:

mumstheword said:
Watching Lawrence O'Donnell last night he showed how, during Watergate, the Congress had professional lawyers at the hearings, treated all of the witnesses with respect and asked professional, detailed questions. These jokers at the Benghazi hearings are exactly the opposite. Can anyone speak to her without yelling? Is it any wonder Secretary Clinton considers the Republicans her enemies?
That's because the Watergate hearings involved an actual crime, not the made up stuff of these hearings. It's not about investigating or even the truth. It's about tarring.

Exactly!

I just love Lawrence O'Donnell -- so calm, so smart, intelligent, etc, etc.

tom

Oct 22, 2015 at 10:34am

The GOP is stepping up their prosecutorial tone in the afternoon session, baiting Hillary to try and get her to snap. The badly need another two second clip that can be taken out-of-context to run in campaign ads, but she's not giving it up.

She's clearly sick of this crap, but is holding back.

TarheelsInNj

Oct 22, 2015 at 10:41am

noo2wood said:
I find it hard to believe that there exists a smoking gun email where she was given a specific official request for more security, and then specifically officially denied it. And even on the slightest chance that there were, I'm sure an email is not the official protocol for either requesting or denying requests for more security or anything else.

Especially because that email would have been sent TO someone. That's how email works. Her server would have sent it to another server, presumably not one in her basement.