Hillary

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Benghazi is coming back to hang her and this administration. She perjured herself and there now documents with her signature on it proving it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Or so the partisan investgation limited to the House GOP via FOX News has told you? Interesting how the non-partisan group investigating the same thing came to a different conclusion.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Or so the partisan investgation limited to the House GOP via FOX News has told you? Interesting how the non-partisan group investigating the same thing came to a different conclusion.

-spence

Wrong again. i didn't hear it from Fox. Her signature is on some pretty relevant papers Spence. Perjury is ok with you I take it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Wrong again. i didn't hear it from Fox. Her signature is on some pretty relevant papers Spence. Perjury is ok with you I take it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

From what I understand it's typical for a lot of communications coming from the State department to be sent as they were from the Secretary...it's just a matter of business. I doubt you have any new information that indicates Hillary was personally aware of this...as previous non-partisan investigations have already concluded.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

From what I understand it's typical for a lot of communications coming from the State department to be sent as they were from the Secretary...it's just a matter of business. I doubt you have any new information that indicates Hillary was personally aware of this...as previous non-partisan investigations have already concluded.

-spence

CBS no doubt Did I just hear a Jay Carney echo ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

previous non-partisan investigations have already concluded.

-spence

of course, because investigations always reach the right conclusion

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

From what I understand...

This and similar other phrases always preface your replies that are full of spin or unsubstantiated opinions.

[justplugit]

Amazing how our President said the victims and their families
in Boston deserve answers and justice, and yet Tyrone Wood's Dad is still
fighting for, and waiting to get all the answers and justice for his son in Benghazi for how long now?

[JohnR]

I just want to see the truth, without the spin from the left or right. I have not been believing convinced of what has been printed in the mainstream

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

This and similar other phrases always preface your replies that are full of spin or unsubstantiated opinions.

LMAO, exactly correct. When he gets all of his "news" from The Huffington Post and The Daily Worker, his "understanding" is a tad askew.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

This and similar other phrases always preface your replies that are full of spin or unsubstantiated opinions.

Do some homework, you'll see plenty of substantiation.

It's not clear who in the State Department sent the April 19 response. But as a general rule, "every single cable sent from Washington to the field is sent over the secretary of state's name," a former State Department official noted, adding, "Though they are trying to make this new, it's not. After 30+ hearings and briefings, thousands of pages, this has all been addressed."

http://ering.foreignpolicy.com/posts...ghazi_security

GOP report faults State Department on Libya security | The Salt Lake Tribune

House GOP report says Clinton rejected plea for more security in Libya - The Washington Post

Same old story...let's rehash a sensitive subject just to create more confusion because it suits our purpose. Defeating Clinton in 2016.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

plea for more security in Libya - The Washington Post[/url]

Same old story...let's rehash a sensitive subject just to create more confusion because it suits our purpose. Defeating Clinton in 2016.

-spence

I don't believe anyone previously claimed to have physical evidence that the Secretary of State lied under oath. So if this wasn't talked about before, that means this is a breaking story, and thus it's not a "re-hashing" of anything...

Spence, this is not a closed case. The administration has done everything they can to thwart attempts to figure out what happened.

"it suits our purpose. Defeating Clinton in 2016."

That's one way of looking at it. Another (more accurate) way of looking at it, is that your side is desperately trying to make this go away, in order to elect Clinton in 2016.

Spence, please answer one simple question...If it turns out there are documents signed by her that reject requests for security, do you think that's worth discussing, given that she denied that under oath?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Or so the partisan investgation limited to the House GOP via FOX News has told you? Interesting how the non-partisan group investigating the same thing came to a different conclusion.

-spence

Spence, wrong as usual...she said, under oath, that she never personally saw any requests for any extra security from the diplomats. There is physical, tangible proof that she lied through her teeth.

Sorry this comes from Fox. Not many other outlets are reporting on this, you see..

Darrell Issa: Hillary Clinton ?wrong? on Benghazi - Kevin Cirilli - POLITICO.com

4 people are dead Spence. Fair to say that the administration bungled this from start to finish (denied the extra security, blamed the attack on a youtibe video, now doing everything to avoid talkingbaout it.

They'll rake her over the coals a bit, but it won't hurt her approval ratings much, there are too many people like you out there who don't care when a liberal is guilty of incompetence (which at least contributed to the deaths of 4 superb Americans) and perjury.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, wrong as usual...she said, under oath, that she never personally saw any requests for any extra security from the diplomats. There is physical, tangible proof that she lied through her teeth.

Where's the proof?

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Where's the proof?

-spence

I assume you ignored my link.

(1) there is video of her saying, during testimony to Congress, that she didn't personally reject any requests for increased security from her employees in Libya.

(2) it is coming out that some in Congress have memos, signed by her, that rejected the requests for security.

I'll say this...if those congressmen (mostly conservatives) who say they have those documents are lying, they should be kicked out. If they are telling the truth, she should be charged with perjury.

There is no reason for them to lie about having documents signed by her...it's too easy to show that as a lie, and they would be attacked, justly, in the media. And if it matters, I haven't seen any liberals deny that those signed documents exist...rather, the liberals are just ignoring this.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I assume you ignored my link.

(1) there is video of her saying, during testimony to Congress, that she didn't personally reject any requests for increased security from her employees in Libya.

(2) it is coming out that some in Congress have memos, signed by her, that rejected the requests for security.

I'll say this...if those congressmen (mostly conservatives) who say they have those documents are lying, they should be kicked out. If they are telling the truth, she should be charged with perjury.

There is no reason for them to lie about having documents signed by her...it's too easy to show that as a lie, and they would be attacked, justly, in the media. And if it matters, I haven't seen any liberals deny that those signed documents exist...rather, the liberals are just ignoring this.

You should read this...

Issa’s absurd claim that Clinton’s ‘signature’ means she personally approved it - The Washington Post

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You should read this...

Issa’s absurd claim that Clinton’s ‘signature’ means she personally approved it - The Washington Post

-spence

OK. So just because her signature is on something, doesn't mean she actually saw it, or was aware of it.

If that's true, she didn't perjure herself. If she signed those documents herself, it means she did perjure herself.

What's her history? Does she have a history of lying to our faces? I seem to remember her telling a fantasy tale of her falling under sniper fire on a trip overseas, which turned out to be 100% fabricated. Her excuse? She was "tired". Everyone who has ever had a baby has been tired. That exhaustion never led me to claim someone was shooting at me. Whhat's your take on that, Spence?

If you want to give her the benefit of the doubt, that's your right. But this is someone who (along with her husband) has shown a willingness to look her constituents right in the face, and lie.

Am I wrong?

And your source, the Post, is as biased as it gets. That doesn't mean they are wrong...but they have an abvious bias.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK. So just because her signature is on something, doesn't mean she actually saw it, or was aware of it.

If that's true, she didn't perjure herself. If she signed those documents herself, it means she did perjure herself.

What's her history? Does she have a history of lying to our faces? I seem to remember her telling a fantasy tale of her falling under sniper fire on a trip overseas, which turned out to be 100% fabricated. Her excuse? She was "tired". Everyone who has ever had a baby has been tired. That exhaustion never led me to claim someone was shooting at me. Whhat's your take on that, Spence?

If you want to give her the benefit of the doubt, that's your right. But this is someone who (along with her husband) has shown a willingness to look her constituents right in the face, and lie.

Am I wrong?

And your source, the Post, is as biased as it gets. That doesn't mean they are wrong...but they have an abvious bias.

You didn't read the link.

-spence