Gowdy: New Benghazi emails show 'disconnect' with Washington

[chuckd]

"The Republican-led House Select Committee on Benghazi hastily deleted the name of a high-level Libyan defector from one of its public releases on Monday, shortly after Yahoo News reported the panel had inadvertently revealed the defector’s name in an effort to embarrass Hillary Clinton."

The Republican incompetence knows no bounds. They're pathetic.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/house-benghazi-committee-chairman-trey-gowdy-200901550.html

Read your own link. The State Department has admitted their mistake by sending it out with the defector's name in the subject line, whereas they had redacted it in the body of the email.

From your link:

"Today, Jamal Ware, a spokesman for committee Republicans, blamed the State Department for the apparent screwup. He said the department had “failed to redact” Koussa’s name from the subject line of the 2011 email, even though it was redacted elsewhere, before forwarding it to the committee.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner today acknowledged the mistake, calling it “human error” in the course of its review of Clinton’s emails. (The State Department’s position to the committee was that Koussa’s name should be redacted on privacy grounds, not that it is classified.)".

----------------------------------------------------------------------

But tell me, how does somebody inadvertently reveal the defector’s name in an effort to embarrass Hillary Clinton?

If it was inadvertent then it was not an effort to embarrass Hillary Clinton. If it was an effort to embarrass Hillary Clinton, it could not have been inadvertent.

Straight from the DNC playbook.

[stevenl]

Are you serious because if you are you must be the only one on the planet with any interest in this that didn't see his interview with Hannity.

“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’ve known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen.”

I didn't confirm anything of the sort. You mentioned the McCarthy, Hanna and a fired investigator's comments. I responded with the answer provided to them by Gowdy. My response was...

"The two Republican Congressional members are not part of the Select Committee, had not been briefed nor had they requested briefings be provided them. In short, they were not in the loop and had no viable information to provide. The staff member had been fired in June and might have even been a slight bit disgruntled with the Select Committee."

Now, which precise words did I offer that confirmed anything along the lines you want so desperately to put forth?

I haven't seen Hannity in about 7 years so, yep, I must be a minority of one in the entire world that didn't see McCarthy's comments.

Since you didn't provide a link to what he said, I'll just take your word that you quoted him correctly.

The Select Committee is led by a former Federal Prosecutor that is guarding his sources and information closely. McCarthy has no idea who has been interviewed or what has been said by them. In short, both he and Hanna are in the dark about the investigation. He shot his mouth off and it cost him the only chance he will ever have to become Speaker of the House and second in line for the Presidency.

In you previous post you also made reference to the fall in HRC's popularity and that has what this has been about all the time. Nothing to do with obtaining the facts about Benghazi but more to do with stopping HRC's presidential; bid. The quote from McCarthy is verbatim easily obtained in 30 seconds if you wish to confirm it and his interview with Hannity is plastered all over the internet as well as quoted at length in the Washington Post which you delight in referring to so often.

McCarthy knew the reason for this latest smear attempt and he couldn't wait to tell Hannity about it. In fact it seemed to be what he thought would be something that would secure him the speakers job. This is the back pedal job.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/05/kevin-mccarthys-big-benghazi-mistake-was-exactly-what-hillary-clinton-needed/

The fall in Hillary's popularity is because of her own stupidity in using a private email server and her public reactions after it was uncovered..

The only connection with the Select Committee in this regard is that the Committee is the only investigation that discovered her stupidity. All other Congressional inquiries failed to notice she had a private server.

Her private server is germane to the Benghazi investigation since her deletion of some 30,000 emails she described as personal in nature, you know, recipes, Chelsea's wedding, et al.

What she was saying when that infamous 3 AM phone call came in at 5 PM Washington time and what comments were bouncing back and forth on the cover-up would seem to be rather important to everybody...even Democrats such as yourself.

This Committee has been trying since its inception to get access to her emails. The Obama administration, State Department and her own erasure of so called "private" emails have slowed the release of her emails to a trickle.

And that, kind sir, is exactly why we are still discussing this Committee.

What fall in popularity, she seems to be on the rise again.

And no, the poll you mentioned earlier, from mid September, says nothing about the present situation.

[chuckd]

In you previous post you also made reference to the fall in HRC's popularity and that has what this has been about all the time. Nothing to do with obtaining the facts about Benghazi but more to do with stopping HRC's presidential; bid. The quote from McCarthy is verbatim easily obtained in 30 seconds if you wish to confirm it and his interview with Hannity is plastered all over the internet as well as quoted at length in the Washington Post which you delight in referring to so often.

McCarthy knew the reason for this latest smear attempt and he couldn't wait to tell Hannity about it. In fact it seemed to be what he thought would be something that would secure him the speakers job. This is the back pedal job.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/05/kevin-mccarthys-big-benghazi-mistake-was-exactly-what-hillary-clinton-needed/

The fall in Hillary's popularity is because of her own stupidity in using a private email server and her public reactions after it was uncovered..

The only connection with the Select Committee in this regard is that the Committee is the only investigation that discovered her stupidity. All other Congressional inquiries failed to notice she had a private server.

Her private server is germane to the Benghazi investigation since her deletion of some 30,000 emails she described as personal in nature, you know, recipes, Chelsea's wedding, et al.

What she was saying when that infamous 3 AM phone call came in at 5 PM Washington time and what comments were bouncing back and forth on the cover-up would seem to be rather important to everybody...even Democrats such as yourself.

This Committee has been trying since its inception to get access to her emails. The Obama administration, State Department and her own erasure of so called "private" emails have slowed the release of her emails to a trickle.

And that, kind sir, is exactly why we are still discussing this Committee.

What fall in popularity, she seems to be on the rise again.

And no, the poll you mentioned earlier, from mid September, says nothing about the present situation.

She was in the mid 60s in favorability in early 2013. She is in the low to mid 40s now. That drop!

There is a normal ebb and flow with the polls. When there is some hint of good news, she goes up. When there is a hint of bad news, she goes down.

Her recent debate with the Democratic geriatric old white men's club boosted her in the eyes of some. Her poll numbers would increase as a result.

In your estimation, what is the present situation?

[stevenl]

She was in the mid 60s in favorability in early 2013. She is in the low to mid 40s now. That drop!

There is a normal ebb and flow with the polls. When there is some hint of good news, she goes up. When there is a hint of bad news, she goes down.

Her recent debate with the Democratic geriatric old white men's club boosted her in the eyes of some. Her poll numbers would increase as a result.

In your estimation, what is the present situation?

My present estimation is that a claim 'she is falling in popularity' based on a poll from mid September is a claim that should not have been made.

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed.

[Pinot]

HRC's poll numbers are the envy of everyone on the GOP clown bus (outgrew the car).

The tea baggers can't get it through their knuckleheads, no one cares about their ridiculous Benghazi/email/hateHillary committee. No one ever did...except the wingnuts. At this point, it's just fun to watch their ridiculous incompetence roaring back to bite them in the ass.

Trey Gowdy should just return to hogwarts at this point. The "Committee" doesn't have a shred of credibility left.

Now, let's get back to this week's episode of "Which One of You Idiots Want's to Be Speaker of the House?"

Edited October 20, 2015 by Pinot

[Pinot]

"The Republican-led House Select Committee on Benghazi hastily deleted the name of a high-level Libyan defector from one of its public releases on Monday, shortly after Yahoo News reported the panel had inadvertently revealed the defector’s name in an effort to embarrass Hillary Clinton."

The Republican incompetence knows no bounds. They're pathetic.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/house-benghazi-committee-chairman-trey-gowdy-200901550.html

Read your own link. The State Department has admitted their mistake by sending it out with the defector's name in the subject line, whereas they had redacted it in the body of the email.

From your link:

"Today, Jamal Ware, a spokesman for committee Republicans, blamed the State Department for the apparent screwup. He said the department had “failed to redact” Koussa’s name from the subject line of the 2011 email, even though it was redacted elsewhere, before forwarding it to the committee.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner today acknowledged the mistake, calling it “human error” in the course of its review of Clinton’s emails. (The State Department’s position to the committee was that Koussa’s name should be redacted on privacy grounds, not that it is classified.)".

----------------------------------------------------------------------

But tell me, how does somebody inadvertently reveal the defector’s name in an effort to embarrass Hillary Clinton?

If it was inadvertent then it was not an effort to embarrass Hillary Clinton. If it was an effort to embarrass Hillary Clinton, it could not have been inadvertent.

Straight from the DNC playbook.

The illustrious GOP panel was trying to hang Hillary for outing a source, which she didn't do. While that was going on, the numbskull GOP panel outed a CIA source, although inadvertently, by including the name in the document. They scrambled and tried to cover it up, BUT THEY DID IT. They did it because they're a joke. They're incompetent.

It's the gang that can't shoot straight. Once again...the whole thing is a costly joke. I didn't say they revealed it trying to get Hillary. Because of the bullshit committee, it was revealed. They're just incompetent. Incapable of doing anything right. Not just this silly committee, the entire GOP party.

The GOP has no discernible ideology or policy agenda. They just want to make sure the Democrats are unsuccessful at what they do. The reason d'etre. If we tear down Hillary maybe our guy will have a chance.

[Chicog]

All Gowdy's been doing is leaking damaging testimony out of context to give Fox News soundbites on which to feast.

But this time he's shot himself in the foot by claiming Clinton leaked classified CIA information without actually checking that it was actually classified (which it wasn't).

The man is a vile, reprehensible creep, and it says a lot about the party that he is supposedly one of its "rising stars".

Edited October 20, 2015 by Chicog

[chuckd]

She was in the mid 60s in favorability in early 2013. She is in the low to mid 40s now. That drop!

There is a normal ebb and flow with the polls. When there is some hint of good news, she goes up. When there is a hint of bad news, she goes down.

Her recent debate with the Democratic geriatric old white men's club boosted her in the eyes of some. Her poll numbers would increase as a result.

In your estimation, what is the present situation?

My present estimation is that a claim 'she is falling in popularity' based on a poll from mid September is a claim that should not have been made.

Then I trust you will never post a poll result that anybody else might consider out of date.

As for me, I will continue posting any poll I wish, remaining within the guidelines of forum rules only.

Cheers.

[lifeincnx]

NY Times Maureen Dowd summed up the current state of Gowdy's meandering committee best with her recent editorial.

"It’s not that Hillary has gotten so much more trustable. It’s just that the Republicans are so much less credible."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/opinion/sunday/will-hillary-clinton-be-pilloried-by-the-benghazi-committee.html

[Publicus]

So I guess McCarthy when he let the cat out of the bag regarding the true purpose of this, the umpteenth inquiry didn't know what he was talking about. However you then go on to confirm what McCarthy let slip and that was the true purpose of the Benghazi inquiry was to damage HRC's presidential bid. Still I guess the bullet will arrive some day especially if HRC does win, that should guarantee at least another half dozen Benghazi inquiries. Its such a shame that the GOP want so assiduous in looking at 9/11 or the quest for WMD which is the cause of the present debacle in the Middle East.

" However you then go on to confirm what McCarthy let slip and that was the true purpose of the Benghazi inquiry was to damage HRC's presidential bid. "

Care to expand on this allegation?

Are you serious because if you are you must be the only one on the planet with any interest in this that didn't see his interview with Hannity.

“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’ve known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen.”

I didn't confirm anything of the sort. You mentioned the McCarthy, Hanna and a fired investigator's comments. I responded with the answer provided to them by Gowdy. My response was...

"The two Republican Congressional members are not part of the Select Committee, had not been briefed nor had they requested briefings be provided them. In short, they were not in the loop and had no viable information to provide. The staff member had been fired in June and might have even been a slight bit disgruntled with the Select Committee."

Now, which precise words did I offer that confirmed anything along the lines you want so desperately to put forth?

I haven't seen Hannity in about 7 years so, yep, I must be a minority of one in the entire world that didn't see McCarthy's comments.

Since you didn't provide a link to what he said, I'll just take your word that you quoted him correctly.

The Select Committee is led by a former Federal Prosecutor that is guarding his sources and information closely. McCarthy has no idea who has been interviewed or what has been said by them. In short, both he and Hanna are in the dark about the investigation. He shot his mouth off and it cost him the only chance he will ever have to become Speaker of the House and second in line for the Presidency.

McCarthy has no idea who has been interviewed or what has been said by them. In short, both he and Hanna are in the dark about the investigation.

McCarthy was in the small core of House Republican rightwingers who first proposed this new select committee and McCarthy was in the room when Speaker Boehner finally relented and agreed to form the select committee.

McCarthy knows the inception of the select committee. He knows the other right wingers who conceived of it, why the right proposed it; when, for what purpose, means and ends, goals, intents.

McCarthy was elected by his Republican colleagues in the House to be majority (Republican) chief whip and then the Majority Leader. McCarthy was instrumental in putting Trey Gowdy on the select committee and also as chairman of the committee to oversee the select committee's operations, ways, means, goals, purposes, designs, all of which are predicated in extremist right wing politics to do everything they can to try to destroy the candidacy of HRClinton.

McCarthy was no innocent or unknowing fool when he made the statement to Faux as quoted above. McCarthy is a foot in mouth fool and now he knows it. However, anyone who might believe McCarthy does not know everything going on at the select committee from Day One to Now needs to come see me cause I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale cheap today only and special for you today only

The only person the select committee has had hearings to question on Ben Ghazi is the former SecState HRClinton. No secretary of defense to testify. No present SecState. No CIA director to testify before the select committee; no generals.....no nobody but HRClinton.

A major reason none of these others have been called by the select committee is that they'd been called by the six other committees before this committee was then created, to include the House Intelligence Committee that said there's nothing there about Ben Ghazi and the Armed Services Committee which said the same.

This select committee is political period and it is political against Hillary Rodham Clinton becoming POTUS. Tray Gowdy is a former prosecutor yes, and two Democrats on the select committee are former prosecutors and another D on the select committee. Rep Tammy Duckworth of Illinois is an Iraq war veteran. The Democrats on the select committee in their speeches Thursday and their questions to HRClinton Thursday will allow Mrs. Clinton to go where she wants to go and should go with this Republican party committee.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Publicus

[Publicus]

She was in the mid 60s in favorability in early 2013. She is in the low to mid 40s now. That drop!

There is a normal ebb and flow with the polls. When there is some hint of good news, she goes up. When there is a hint of bad news, she goes down.

Her recent debate with the Democratic geriatric old white men's club boosted her in the eyes of some. Her poll numbers would increase as a result.

In your estimation, what is the present situation?

My present estimation is that a claim 'she is falling in popularity' based on a poll from mid September is a claim that should not have been made.

Then I trust you will never post a poll result that anybody else might consider out of date.

As for me, I will continue posting any poll I wish, remaining within the guidelines of forum rules only.

Cheers.

Cheers.

[Jai Dee]

One baiting troll post has been removed from this thread.

[Chicog]

Gowdy.Foot.Mouth.Again.

Gowdy has spoken piously about keeping his investigation above politics and about refusing to raise money from it. But DeBonis reported that Gowdy’s campaign had returned three donations after the Post inquired about the money’s ties to a political action committee that ran an incendiary ad during last week’s Democratic presidential debate. Three $2,000 contributions had been made to Gowdy by groups affiliated with the treasurer of Stop Hillary PAC. Stop Hillary PAC had spent $10,000 on robocalls last month to boost Gowdy in his district, and its treasurer had been involved with Gowdy’s former leadership PAC.

How many more embarrassments will it take for Gowdy to admit that this whole farce is nothing but political in nature?

Edited October 21, 2015 by Chicog