She came forward with a baseless allegation of sexual assault, so as to prevent the confirmation of a judge that she did not wish to be confirmed, and which everything now suggests that her singular motivation and intent was for purely political purposes. You can’t condemn that?
Some evidence of her colluding to make up the story or her admission, at this point. Given that no individuals could really corroborate her story, I was ultimately inclined to accept Kavanaugh’s confirmation. However, at the same time, I don’t feel I’m in a place to condemn her.
well, the part where you seem to think some criminal wrongdoing occurred. hell, the part about ignoring pleadings is also bullshit. who cut the embassy security budgets, btw? oh right.
I do think that some negligence rises to the level of becoming criminal. These are your words, here, so that we’re clear: “Hell, the part about ignoring pleadings is also bullshit.” Hillary Clinton was warned of the generalized worsening of conditions and rapid deterioration of safety in Libya: (Emphasis Mine) Diplomat Stevens worked directly for Hillary Clinton, as she was Secretary of State. And these credibly specific warnings were being passed directly and personally to Hillary Clinton, some FIVE (5) months prior to the attack. Further, Hillary was aware of actual terrorist activity, and specifically, against the US Embassy, itself - and again, some FIVE (5) months prior to the deadly attack on Sept. 11th of the following year: (Emphasis Mine) And these weren’t just rank and file reports - TWO (2) Ambassadors made repeated requests for additional security in Libya, and Hillary’s State Deparment not only denied them - she actually DRASTICALLY REDUCED the security forces: (Emphasis Mine) While the three main investigative reports - the GOP’s Majority Report, the Dem’s Minority Report and the State Dept.’s own report if internal findings - vary wildly in places (ex. The GOP says that Bengazhi made 600 requests for additional security, the State Department puts that number closer to 200, and the Dem Minority Report is silent as to its own calculation) the GOP Majority and State Department accounts each agree on the most pertinent facts - the situation in Libya was rapidly deteriorating, security was completely inadequate, the State Department failed to heed these warnings and requests, and tragedy at the hands of terrorists ensued. It was Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, and Barack Obama, as President, who repeatedly failed to heed these warnings, and which lead to the slaughter of four Americans who were left unprotected in an embassy in a shit hole known as Benghazi, Libya. TL;DR: You clearly don’t know what in the [uck fay] happened, or you’re talking about. Again. Link: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ws...to-be-released-by-state-department-1432309888
you act like working overseas for the state department isn't normally dangerous in many parts of the world. heck, you just shared a message about security at a hotel as evidence regarding the attack of the embassy. two different places entirely. you are full of shit on this.
You’re being pridefully obstinate and purely for convenience and laziness. For months, they damned well knew that place was a powder keg, was already suffering attacks, and failed to act on - by the most conservative estimates - 200 requests for additional help and security, and which Hillary Clinton - personally, positively and provably knew of - failed to act on, and four Americans died as a result. And worse, is the same which they then knowingly and intentionally lied about in saying it was motivated by a YouTube video and wasn’t a terrorist attack - solely to save and safeguard their own political fortunes. So, no, I do not at all agree that the GOP’s insistence and persistence in investigating the terrorist attack on Benghazi can be likened to the Democrats touting the baselessly uncorroborated accusations of a woman in order to prevent the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice. The only thing that these two episodes share are that they each made the Democrats look like shit, proved them eagerly willing and capable of doing anything to attain and maintain power, and that they have no one to blame but themselves. The Republicans didn’t manufacture and accused the Democrats of being something that they aren’t, because that reality is more than sufficiently terrible enough.
It depends. Are you inside the embassy, sending them? Or back in the states, running for President, while receiving them? If the former, 1. More than 200, if the latter. But this misses the point, IP - and you know it, because you want to avoid it. Benghazi was real. It actually happened, and wasn’t fabricated for purely political purposes by the GOP. The accusations against Kavanaugh were entirely baseless, and were brought forth for purely political purposes by the Democrats. That’s the difference.
it doesn't miss the point. you hold up 200 requests as the smoking gun of negligence. I'm asking what the comparative baseline is. you must have one, since it is so clearly a smoking gun.
The smoking gun is that she had emails the night of the attack saying she knew it was a terrorist attack and not a protest. Yet Clinton and Obama pushed a fake story about a YouTube video causing it, and lead to an American getting jail time over the video he published and put on YouTube
See, this is more confusing. The report simultaneously claims the protests had nothing to do with anything, that there had been increasing security concerns a month prior, AND that the protests the week before are totally unrelated... So the security concerns a month prior ARE related, but the protests a week earlier ARE NOT, and thus there was some sort of horrible cover-up of... what? What exactly is being covered up? This is the definition of a partisan witch hunt. I know you dislike those so much you imagine them, so I feel it necessary to point this out.
From the recommendations: How does the White House response to the whistleblower complaints regarding Ukraine at all match up with these recommendations, in your opinion? Should they?
Her response seems entirely reasonable. Again, I point out that the report just linked by Tenny itself discussed a deteriorating situation over a month's time. It is entirely plausible that there was a perception that the attack was spawned out of some larger unrest and not a pre-planned terrorist strike early on. It is absolutely fascinating that there is this standard of factual information for the Obama administration where this was considered the biggest scandal. I miss that.
Can you explain your objection regarding someone being imprisoned over the video? Who? And what was the charge that got them imprisoned?
