https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...88182234_s.jpg Freedom Outpost
The “Phony Scandal” of Benghazi that Just Won’t Go Away : Freedom Outpost http://ow.ly/wt7Mi
https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...&sw=491&sh=257
The “Phony Scandal” of Benghazi that Just Won’t Go Away - Freedom Outpost
In spite of the best efforts of the Obama Administration, and those of the Government Agencies funded by it, the Benghazi tragedy just won't go...
Freedom Outpost
Krauthammer on Benghazi Emails: "The Equivalent of What Was Discovered With The Nixon Tapes"
Video at the Page Link:
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Look, I think what's really happened here is what Mara says, this e-mail has sort of reopened this in the same way that in Watergate it was this sort of quiet, private discovery that there were tapes in the White House. It also died down, and I think Richard Nixon would still be president of the United States today, still hook or by crook, had the tapes not been discovered. And that's what restarted this. And this e-mail from the White House, that's what everybody had said, is there a way to -- is there any involvement here of the White House which makes it obviously a political issue, the reelection of the president overriding the truth. And that's why I think it is all reopened.
And watching Carney today, I have to say again, they don't pay him enough. On the first question, if this was a release of information for a request on Benghazi, how can you tell us it isn't about Benghazi? He simply says, I have no idea, ask the State Department. But then when you point out the fact that this is the only time -- well, it isn't the only. It's one of the rare times when you get a high administration official going on all five shows. It happened only once in the Bush administration. It never happened in the Clinton administration. And if they had not been about Benghazi, does anybody imagine she would have been on the five shows because of a demonstration in Cairo? That's ridiculous.
The briefing, the appearances, it was all about Benghazi. Of course everything in the memo is about Benghazi. And when Carney denies it, he simply looks foolish.
BRET BAIER: I didn't pull the sound bite, but a few weeks ago you said right here on this panel that Republicans should move on, that they should kind of leave benghazi alone, that it was a dead end. Have you changed your perspective?
KRAUTHAMMER: Yes, because of the appearance of this memo. To me, it's the equivalent of what was discovered with the Nixon tapes. The point is that Republicans have done a terrible job in building the case. Even today I have to say, the questioning was disjointed. It was not orgdanized. If they had appointed a special committee a long time ago, the way it was done in Watergate, we would have had answers on this and the country wouldn't be tired.
But what I did say was the reason it would not go anywhere is because the lack of interest of the other media. And what's changed now, and we saw it in the briefing room, is I think the other media are somewhat embarrassed by the fact that, unlike FOX, they allowed themselves to be stoned and spun and rolled for a year and a half and now the memo appears and it's obvious that they missed this story.
Related Videos:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...xon_tapes.html
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...22217924_s.jpgThe Federalist Papers
What do you think, does Judge Pirro have a solid case in calling for Obama's impeachment or she way off base?
https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...&sw=750&sh=393
ABUSE: Judge Jeannine Pirro Calls For Obama's Impeachment; Her Case Is Indisputable!
thefederalistpapers.org
Judge Jeannine Pirro Calls For Obama’s Impeachment; Her Case Is Indisputable!
By Steve Straub On May 4, 2014 · Leave a Comment · In Uncategorized
http://thefederalistpapers.integrate...4-16.59.59.jpg
Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro has launched a scathing, on-air indictment of President Barack Obama, calling for his impeachment from office.
Judge Jeanine Pirro’s ‘Opening Statement’ eviscerates President Barack Obama on his total failure of his promises and duties as the Commander In Chief along with his total lack of leadership and concern over responding to the Benghazi attack.
“Mr. President, it’s called an abrogation of duty,” Pirro said. “You have not taken your oath to honestly and faithfully execute the duties of your office. As commander in chief, you have NOT protected us. This dereliction of duty as commander in chief demands your impeachment.”
Watch the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...;v=3DTzOCfeQK0
What do you think, does Judge Pirro make some good points in calling for Obama’s impeachment or she way off base?
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/u...s-indisputable
https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...&sw=588&sh=308
EPIC: Judge Jeanine Demands Obama Impeachment Over Benghazi Cover-Up
May 04, 2014EPIC: Judge Jeanine Demands Obama Impeachment Over Benghazi Cover-Up
May 04, 2014/RedFlagMay 04, 2014/RedFlag/
redflagnews.com
EPIC: Judge Jeanine Demands Obama Impeachment Over Benghazi Cover-Up
http://static.squarespace.com/static...4/?format=750w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i6-LY-Ipqg0
http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines...ghazi-cover-up
Judge Jeanine’s Smoking Hot Proof Democrats are Scared to Death of Gowdy & the Benghazi Hearings
Video at the Page Link:
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/05/1375...hazi-hearings/
Nobody died as a result of Watergate!
http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content...098.cached.jpg Ibrahim Alaguri/AP
http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/etc/aut...402.cached.jpgEli Lake
Politics
05.14.14
New Benghazi Investigation Spooks GOP Leaders
It’s not just the Democrats who are opposed to a new select committee looking into the Benghazi attacks. Many top Republicans are uneasy, too.
Last Wednesday, as the House was preparing for its new investigation into the Benghazi attacks, House intelligence committee chairman Mike Rogers gathered Republican members of his committee for a meeting. While the main purpose of the meeting was to discuss surveillance reforms the committee was about to pass, Rogers also warned his colleagues about the upcoming select committee to investigate Benghazi.
“He was saying this could be a rabbit hole,” one House member told The Daily Beast. “He was warning us that we should not let this investigation get into conspiracy theories.”
Contrary to the caricature of Republicans, as singularly obsessed for political reasons with Benghazi, the reality is quite different. There is deep unease within the Republican leadership that the select committee, which has yet to announce a schedule of hearings, could backfire, and badly. Investigate and find nothing new, and the committee looks like a bunch of tin-hatted obsessives. Investigate and uncover previously-hidden secrets, and it makes all of the other Republican led panels that dug into Benghazi seem like Keystone Kops.
Three Republican sources tell The Daily Beast that the chairmen of the House Intelligence, Armed Services, and Government Reform committees—Reps. Rogers, Buck McKeon, and Darrell Issa, respectively—all opposed the formation of a select committee on Benghazi. All three men have led their own investigations into the matter.
House Speaker John Boehner himself resisted calls to form the committee for nearly a year and a half. Rep. Frank Wolf, a Republican from Virginia, proposed a special select committee on Benghazi first in November 2012. Since then he worked to get a majority of Republicans to sign onto his plan.
But it was not until Judicial Watch in April uncovered a set of White House emails on Benghazi—emails that were not shared with Congress—that Boehner agreed to Wolf’s idea.
Boehner’s calculation was, in part, political, according to one House Republican aide. The Speaker was looking to mollify the Tea Party faction of his caucus who were upset with him about a range of issues, including the federal budget and immigration reform.
“There is a whole combination of factors here,” this aide said. “You have the email. But remember Boehner has also gotten a lot of resistance from House Republicans on immigration. He wanted to turn the page on this.” This aide said that Boehner’s view was that, “OK, I am giving you guys this committee, now it’s on you to make this work.”“He was saying this could be a rabbit hole. He was warning us that we should not let this investigation get into conspiracy theories.”House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, for her part, has said she is considering a Democratic boycott of the committee, but has yet to decide.
Since the investigations into Benghazi began in earnest in 2012, the GOP has been divided on what these probes would ultimately uncover. While some claim there was a massive White House operation to cover up the attacks, Rogers and McKeon see a more nuanced story. Rogers has been highly critical of the administration’s failure to call the assault a terrorist attack; but he has not accused the administration of in any way abandoning the CIA officers protecting the agency’s base that evening. McKeon’s oversight work has focused on the failure of the administration to have key military assets in place for the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks when there was ample reason to believe al Qaeda would seek out soft targets to strike on that day.
When Rogers’s committee finally heard in a closed session last year from the CIA contractors who responded on the evening of the attacks, Rogers downplayed their testimony in interviews. On Fox News he said he did not believe the CIA was stonewalling his committee, as others had alleged.
Other lawmakers, however, such as Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the Utah Republican who first contacted key State Department whistleblower Greg Hicks, say the Benghazi story is more about how the White House failed to deploy all of its assets on the evening of the attack to save Americans.
Chaffetz, who serves on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform but was not chosen for the select committee, came close to uncovering evidence for his view this month when retired Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell testified that the military did not even try to save personnel on the night of the Benghazi attacks, or in his words, “run to the sound of the guns.”
After Lovell’s testimony, McKeon issued a statement defending his own investigation’s conclusion that no assets were in place to conduct such an operation. “Lovell did not serve in a capacity that gave him reliable insight into operational options available to commanders during the attack, nor did he offer specific courses of action not taken,” he said at the time.
This tension between committees has often played out inside the Republican conference, behind closed doors. And the new, select committee may only make things worse.
“Look at this from their perspective,” one House Republican told The Daily Beast. “This [select] committee in many ways will be checking their work. No one likes that.” Rep. Tim Huelskamp, a Republican from Kansas, told Slate’s Dave Weigel last week: “Mike Rogers fought against this for a year and a half. They used to stand up in conference and say, ‘Quit worrying about it, we’ve got it all taken care of.’”
Boehner selected Rep. Trey Gowdy, a former career prosecutor, to lead the Benghazi committee. To date, Gowdy has played his cards close to the vest as to what the committee will actually investigate. Last week, at a press conference, Rep. Jim Jordan, who is also serving on the new select committee on Benghazi, said the panel will focus on the “before,” “during” and “after” of the attack. He later explained that this meant probes into why the State Department denied requests for security to the Benghazi diplomatic post and why the early talking points on Benghazi downplayed the possibility that it was a terrorist attack. But Jordan also said the committee would investigate, to borrow Lovell’s phrase, why U.S. forces weren’t “running to the sound of the guns.”
If the Benghazi committee uncovers new evidence that the Obama administration failed to do all it could to save Americans on the evening of the attack, it would be a vindication for their party and a scandal for the White House. But it may also end up revealing prior investigations from Congressional Republicans to be hollow.
If this committee, however, does not find that smoking gun, then it will also prove the low-key warnings of lawmakers like Rogers and McKeon to have been correct all along. No wonder top Republicans were so reluctant to have it move forward
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...p-leaders.html
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...76497368_s.jpgConservative Daily
A former president weighs in on a hot button issue...
https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...sw=1089&sh=570
Bill Clinton Has an Explanation for Why His Wife Hillary Missed the 3 AM Phone Call
Bubba defends his wife's conduct like only he can...
ijreview.com
Bill Clinton Has an Explanation for Why His Wife Hillary Missed the 3 AM Phone Call
By Michael Hausam 4 hours ago
Video at the Page Link:
Former President Bill Clinton was interviewed in Washington D.C. today, and took the opportunity to defend his wife Hillary’s actions during the Benghazi crisis:“In my opinion, Hillary did what she should have done.In other words, Hillary chatted with some people before disappearing to who-knows-where without taking any swift and serious action. A few critically important facts that Bill didn’t address:
She impaneled a very high-level review committee with the immediate-past Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.”
- Hillary continued to blame an internet video, even after the administration knew it was a terrorist attack.
- The State Department’s actions were self-investigated; this is akin to a high school student “grading his own homework.”
- Hillary was exempted from the investigation.
- She did not convene the Counterterrorism Security Group, and did not dispatch the in extremis rescue team, though the siege lasted hours.
Of course, it is not surprising that Bill would defend his wife or omit these pertinent points. However, maybe – just maybe – he’s distracted by thoughts of getting back into the White House…
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/05/1382...ions-benghazi/
Fox News Poll: 50% believe Hillary Clinton has lied about Benghazi; See how many think Obama is telling the truth
Posted on May 14, 2014 at 10:17 PM in Politics | 15 Comments
By The Right Scoop
http://therightscoop.com/wp-content/...a_benghazi.jpg
So, at least 50% believe Hillary has been lying about Benghazi at some point. I guess the rest just believe she’s telling the truth because she’s a woman.
The amount of people who think Obama is lying seems low. Given all the lies he’s told about everything else, it should be 100%.
http://therightscoop.com/fox-news-po...ing-the-truth/