Link to admitting?
Advertisement
by The 4th Facist Reich » Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:48 am
by Washington Resistance Army » Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:49 am
by Vassenor » Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:51 am
So now we know: One of the principal reasons Republicans spent so much public money investigating the tragic Benghazi episode was to bring down Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers.
Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the likely successor to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), told Fox News’s Sean Hannity explicitly on Tuesday night that the Clinton investigation was part of a “strategy to fight and win.”
He explained: “Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought.”
The Republican-led House hasn’t been particularly good at governing, but perhaps governing has never been the point. Why govern when there’s a future election to influence?
No doubt Republicans will clean up after McCarthy’s comments by insisting that the politics were a side benefit from a necessary investigation. But it would be nice to know more about the House GOP’s internal deliberations as it launched one inquiry into Clinton after another. Did we need another investigation by the select committee headed by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.)? After all, a two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee cleared the military and the CIA of improper behavior in response to the 2012 attack on the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
by New Werpland » Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:52 am
by Washington Resistance Army » Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:52 am
Vedilia wrote:Washington Resistance Army wrote:
At this point I expect the Dems to say anything to try and save themselves, this is shaping up to a bad year for them.
We should do something to save ourselves! Imitate glorious Erdogan and have Hillary installed as eternal Emperor-President of the new Hillaryist Empire!
by The 4th Facist Reich » Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:53 am
Vassenor wrote:The 4th Facist Reich wrote:Link to admitting?
Kevin McCarthy’s truthful gaffe on BenghaziSo now we know: One of the principal reasons Republicans spent so much public money investigating the tragic Benghazi episode was to bring down Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers.
Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the likely successor to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), told Fox News’s Sean Hannity explicitly on Tuesday night that the Clinton investigation was part of a “strategy to fight and win.”
He explained: “Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought.”
The Republican-led House hasn’t been particularly good at governing, but perhaps governing has never been the point. Why govern when there’s a future election to influence?
No doubt Republicans will clean up after McCarthy’s comments by insisting that the politics were a side benefit from a necessary investigation. But it would be nice to know more about the House GOP’s internal deliberations as it launched one inquiry into Clinton after another. Did we need another investigation by the select committee headed by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.)? After all, a two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee cleared the military and the CIA of improper behavior in response to the 2012 attack on the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
by Vassenor » Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:53 am
by Washington Resistance Army » Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:54 am
by Vedilia » Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:55 am
Vassenor wrote:The 4th Facist Reich wrote:Link to admitting?
Kevin McCarthy’s truthful gaffe on BenghaziSo now we know: One of the principal reasons Republicans spent so much public money investigating the tragic Benghazi episode was to bring down Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers.
Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the likely successor to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), told Fox News’s Sean Hannity explicitly on Tuesday night that the Clinton investigation was part of a “strategy to fight and win.”
He explained: “Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought.”
The Republican-led House hasn’t been particularly good at governing, but perhaps governing has never been the point. Why govern when there’s a future election to influence?
No doubt Republicans will clean up after McCarthy’s comments by insisting that the politics were a side benefit from a necessary investigation. But it would be nice to know more about the House GOP’s internal deliberations as it launched one inquiry into Clinton after another. Did we need another investigation by the select committee headed by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.)? After all, a two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee cleared the military and the CIA of improper behavior in response to the 2012 attack on the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
by New Werpland » Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:56 am
by Bulgar Rouge » Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:56 am
by New Werpland » Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:57 am
by Washington Resistance Army » Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:58 am
by Vassenor » Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:58 am
by New Werpland » Mon Jul 25, 2016 2:03 am
by Dragonia Re Xzua » Mon Jul 25, 2016 2:09 am
by Vedilia » Mon Jul 25, 2016 2:11 am
New Werpland wrote:Vedilia wrote:How complex would such a plot on his part to aid Trump's rise to power be?
Oh it can be.
It can be.
Not very complicated. In this case Russian hackers hacking the DNC is not surprising, and giving stuff to Wikileaks is not very sophisticated. They already fund Le Pen and other idiots in Europe. Trump is not so different.
How can you describe shit as corrupt?
by Bulgar Rouge » Mon Jul 25, 2016 2:12 am
by UnjustlyBannedLlamas » Mon Jul 25, 2016 2:14 am
by Vedilia » Mon Jul 25, 2016 2:14 am
Bulgar Rouge wrote:
Woah, all the evidence over there, I can't handle it.
Obama's presidency saw the collapse of Syria, opening a load of diplomatic opportunities for Putin in a time where the West is desperately trying to isolate him. Obama has been a phlegmatic, irresolute blockhead pursuing overly optimistic and protocol solutions to crises that require either unpopular or very straightforward measures. Clinton is an extension of this mentality and her theoretical presidency would plunge the world deeper into a crisis, stacking the odds ever more in favour of strongmen like Putin who don't hesitate to use military options or impose their will when they see a threat. It's the democrats' passive-aggressiveness that benefits Putin more than anything else.
by Vassenor » Mon Jul 25, 2016 2:14 am
Bulgar Rouge wrote:
Woah, all the evidence over there, I can't handle it.
Obama's presidency saw the collapse of Syria, opening a load of diplomatic opportunities for Putin in a time where the West is desperately trying to isolate him. Obama has been a phlegmatic, irresolute blockhead pursuing overly optimistic and protocol solutions to crises that require either unpopular or very straightforward measures. Clinton is an extension of this mentality and her theoretical presidency would plunge the world deeper into a crisis, stacking the odds ever more in favour of strongmen like Putin who don't hesitate to use military options or impose their will when they see a threat. It's the democrats' passive-aggressiveness that benefits Putin more than anything else.
by New Werpland » Mon Jul 25, 2016 2:17 am
Bulgar Rouge wrote:
Woah, all the evidence over there, I can't handle it.
Obama's presidency saw the collapse of Syria, opening a load of diplomatic opportunities for Putin in a time where the West is desperately trying to isolate him. Obama has been a phlegmatic, irresolute blockhead pursuing overly optimistic and protocol solutions to crises that require either unpopular or very straightforward measures. Clinton is an extension of this mentality and her theoretical presidency would plunge the world deeper into a crisis, stacking the odds ever more in favour of strongmen like Putin who don't hesitate to use military options or impose their will when they see a threat. It's the democrats' passive-aggressiveness that benefits Putin more than anything else.
Users browsing this forum: Armeattla, Arrhidaeus, Bornada, Ethel mermania, Giovanniland, Kubra, Likhinia, Saint Norm, The Grand Duchy of Muscovy, Tinhampton, Washington Resistance Army, Washington-Columbia
