Bengaaaazzziiiiiiiii. !!!!!!!!

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

Curious as to why 7 previous investigations didn't find any gaps. Perhaps it's because the initial Daily Caller piece that made the accusation more recently ended up walking it back.

The top House Republican Benghazi investigator says the emails Hillary Clinton has handed over for review have “huge gaps” that challenge her credibility over what happened in the 2012 attacks in Libya.
“There are gaps of months and months and months,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said on Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...#ixzz3opmwSLSg

Originally Posted by spence

The DOJ has made a statement her use of private email and choosing which emails to file was within the law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us...uiry.html?_r=0

“I don’t think it posed a national security problem,” Mr. Obama said Sunday on CBS’s “60 Minutes.” He said it had been a mistake for Mrs. Clinton to use a private email account when she was secretary of state, but his conclusion was unmistakable: “This is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”


Those statements angered F.B.I. agents who have been working for months to determine whether Mrs. Clinton’s email setup did in fact put any of the nation’s secrets at risk, according to current and former law enforcement officials.


.......

“Injecting politics into what is supposed to be a fact-finding inquiry leaves a foul taste in the F.B.I.’s mouth and makes them fear that no matter what they find, the Justice Department will take the president’s signal and not bring a case,” said Mr. Hosko, who maintains close contact with current agents.

Originally Posted by spence

The Blumenthal thing doesn't appear to implicate her. The one incident of him passing along a CIA source could get him in trouble but I don't see how she is tarnished.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...y%20Blumenthal

What? A former journalist, Blumenthal was a top aide in the second term of the Bill Clinton administration and helped on messaging during the bad old days. He served as an adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, and when she took over the State Department, she sought to hire Blumenthal. Obama aides, apparently still smarting over his role in attacks on candidate Obama, refused the request, so Clinton just sought out his counsel informally. At the same time, Blumenthal was drawing a check from the Clinton Foundation. (Jr - emphasis mine)

How serious is it? Some of the damage is already done. Blumenthal was apparently the source of the idea that the Benghazi attacks were spontaneous, a notion that proved incorrect and provided a political bludgeon against Clinton and Obama. He also advised the secretary on a wide range of other issues, from Northern Ireland to China, and passed along analysis from his son Max, a staunch critic of the Israeli government (and conservative bête noire). But emails released so far show even Clinton’s top foreign-policy guru, Jake Sullivan, rejecting Blumenthal’s analysis, raising questions about her judgment in trusting him.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us...uiry.html?_r=0

This is from March. How many more have been released? How many stories of missing emails have been pulled back? Reading online quite a few.

And given the revelations of the last week as to the true nature of the investigation I'm not sure I'd believe anything Trey Gowdy says. How much of the poor reporting do you think came from misleading leaks from his investigation?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us...uiry.html?_r=0

This is a completely different topic. I said the DOJ remarked it was legal. Your post is that Obama's remarks rankeled the FBI if there was a possible security breech.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...y%20Blumenthal

I'm shocked, shocked that Clinton would have any communication with a longtime friend and confidant.

About the only thing here that could have legs is the naming of a covert CIA agent, but the source of that leak at the CIA is now deceased. Otherwise all you've got is a lot of shoulda coulda woulda.

[JohnR]

And that, Spence, is why the FBI does its investigation - hopefully without external pressures.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

And that, Spence, is why the FBI does its investigation - hopefully without external pressures.

Such as Obama saying the accusation is politically motivated, rather than valid. I'm sure the FBI loved that. The guy can't ever shut his yap - always wrong, yet never in doubt.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Such as Obama saying the accusation is politically motivated, rather than valid. I'm sure the FBI loved that. The guy can't ever shut his yap - always wrong, yet never in doubt.

The fact that you and other republicans are so interested in this investigation proves at the very least that your interest is politically motivated.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

The fact that you and other republicans are so interested in this investigation proves at the very least that your interest is politically motivated.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe, i don't beleieve she has testified under oath, yet, abiytthe attack. I am interested in hearing her side of the story. Is that political? I don't think so.

My side doesn't need manufactured evidence of why she's nowhere near fit to be POTUS, the facts speak for themselves.

She claimed that Bill didn't cheat on her, but rather, he was the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

Consider that. If she genuinely believes that Bill was framed by the GOP, she's too stupid for the job. If she doesn't believe it, but said it for political purposes, then she's too dishonest for the job.

If there's a 3rd possibility, well, I am all ears.

Then there's that whole "on a trip to Bosnia, I had to DIVE into the trucks because I came under sniper fire."

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Nebe, i don't beleieve she has testified under oath, yet, abiytthe attack. I am interested in hearing her side of the story. Is that political? I don't think so.

My side doesn't need manufactured evidence of why she's nowhere near fit to be POTUS, the facts speak for themselves.

She claimed that Bill didn't cheat on her, but rather, he was the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

Consider that. If she genuinely believes that Bill was framed by the GOP, she's too stupid for the job. If she doesn't believe it, but said it for political purposes, then she's too dishonest for the job.

If there's a 3rd possibility, well, I am all ears.

Then there's that whole "on a trip to Bosnia, I had to DIVE into the trucks because I came under sniper fire."

In regards to her saying that he didn't cheat on her and it was a conspiracy- maybe a better way of saying it would have been that he was seduced. I'm with you though..I don't think she would make a good president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by spence

About the only thing here that could have legs is the naming of a covert CIA agent, but the source of that leak at the CIA is now deceased. Otherwise all you've got is a lot of shoulda coulda woulda.

Or not. This weekend we learned the CIA said the name wasn't even classified. Why would Gowdy redact it from the email unless they were trying to give the impression ... ... ...