Bengazi!!!

[guido911]

You would take the fact that she is a witch on the word of the guy appointed as head witch hunter?  That doesn't seem like a good idea.  Also, for the 6 years he was a state DA he was always fighting against the 5th Amendment.  That's like asking a Red Sox fan if the Yankees suck.

Not that it matters, but I've probably worked on four or five dozen criminal cases, and maybe a dozen civil cases involving the fifth amendment.  I've fought its invocation from both sides and the negative inferences one present into evidence in certain circumstances.  I am not an expert in the area, but I know enough to know that the group with torches and pitchforks isn't the right group to be deciding the ogre must die.

And this isn't an opinion on Lois Lerner.  I have no clue if she acted inappropriately or not.  The first investigation revealed there was no criminal wrongdoing, so now the GOP wants a second. They could be right and the witch must burn.

But summarily casting aside the 5th Amendment to obtain that goal isn't right.  Republican, Democrat, or in a non-political situation - I take the constitution seriously.  

Now that the torch and pitchfork crowd has voted her in contempt, the Court can sort it out once she is subpoena'd to answer again.  I'm honestly interested in the analysis on the issue.

And you reflexively take the witch's view over the hunter. Everything you posted is a matter of point of view as to the interpretation/invocation of the privilege--except of course that you take the constitution seriously or something.  Here is what Gowdy said:

Where is this hunter wrong?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Did you not see how specious it was? Oh wait, the Obama state department said that, so that must be the correct answer.

Yeah...a widely dispersed group is certainly gonna be concerned they can't get visas to the US.  And cutting off access to the US financial system - well, I bet they launder their money through Saudi banks anyway, so they would actually still have access.... you remember them - the ones associated with the Bin Laden/Bush cabal.....

But I think the most important thing is that the designation stigmatizes and isolates those foreign organizations by encouraging other nations to take similar measures.  That would certainly deter me, I I were in that position!

[heironymouspasparagus]

And you reflexively take the witch's view over the hunter. Everything you posted is a matter of point of view as to the interpretation/invocation of the privilege--except of course that you take the constitution seriously or something.  Here is what Gowdy said:

Where is this hunter wrong?

He was in at least one, and I think a second of the previous House committees to study and ask questions about this.  Why didn't he ask his questions then?  Or did he and now he just wants to be the petulant little child and keep asking the same question over and over until he gets the answer he wants....

Or he is just acting in concert with the rest of them to drum up campaign contributions....by far the most likely!


You never did answer my previous question about what and when causes the loss of Constitutional rights - waiver?  We do know that saying "I didn't do it...."  or  "I am innocent"... doesn't create a waiver.

[guido911]

Sorry for the bad link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx9Z31eMucc

[guido911]

Yeah...a widely dispersed group is certainly gonna be concerned they can't get visas to the US.  And cutting off access to the US financial system - well, I bet they launder their money through Saudi banks anyway, so they would actually still have access.... you remember them - the ones associated with the Bin Laden/Bush cabal.....

You earned it.

[guido911]

Just learned that our ambassador was not murdered in Benghazi. He died from smoke inhalation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0eDDyQwOpk&feature=youtu.be

I wonder how many in the twin towers met a similar fate.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Sorry for the bad link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx9Z31eMucc

You mean Mr Showboat? 

How could a personal opinion statement like "I feel the tea party is dangerous" have any bearing on a persons right to invoke the 5th??  Personal opinion I am looking for a legitimate discussion of it - or at least something more real than Trey in election mode.

So, if I believe that Darrel Issa has a really bad dye job and comb-over, then I would be waiving my 5th amendment rights.... and a Great American Hero in the making!!


Here is another link..... since we are just posting for posting link's sake....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbBIzwSwD7I

Seems pretty consistent across the entire testimony.  About what one would expect from FauxWorld....


So, 7 previous hearings that uncovered nothing are still not enough for the "Electioneers", so we gotta have some more...

[Gaspar]

It seems we have a pattern.  Timothy Geithner is claiming that the White House wanted him to lie about Social Security and it's relation to the deficit when he went on the Sunday talk shows.

Just a lie for political reasons.  No one died.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2626253/White-House-wanted-Treasury-Secretary-Tim-Geithner-LIE-public-social-security.html

I remember when he did those interviews.  He seemed very frightened and combative.

[guido911]

Just a lie for political reasons.  No one died.

That's okay then. But still, Bush lied, and this is probably all his fault. And you might be racist a bit here. 

[guido911]

Just learned that our ambassador was not murdered in Benghazi. He died from smoke inhalation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0eDDyQwOpk&feature=youtu.be

I wonder how many in the twin towers met a similar fate.

Clift getting the business she richly deserves:

http://twitchy.com/2014/05/12/911-victims-just-died-of-smoke-inhalation-eleanorcliftlogic-explores-columnists-revolting-revisionism/

[Ed W]

I was wondering what all the fuss was about over this Ben Ghazi guy. As it turns out, he's already dead:

[guido911]

Not a big fan of getting a member of an opposing party's position who comments inconsistently with that party's message, but here is something interesting from Panetta:

Panetta, a former Central Coast congressman and Democratic Party stalwart, said there needs to be an investigation to lay out the full story to the public. "The problem has been sometimes bits and pieces of information keep coming out" that raise more questions, he said.

"Obviously there is a concern whether it's going to be a political effort to target an issue for a campaign," Panetta said. "I hope Democrats participate, and it really is a legitimate effort."

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_25748782/panetta-lecture-panel-weighs-snowden-benghazi

[AquaMan]

Hope is the key word there. Not much hope for participation, legitimacy and answers in this atmosphere near midterm elections.

[Townsend]

Hope is the key word there. Not much hope for participation, legitimacy and answers in this atmosphere near midterm elections.

Not a chance in Hell.  It's going to be a whole bunch of social conservatives saying "I knew it!" and the rest of us rolling our eyes.

[Conan71]

Krauthammer weighs in with some sage advice to the GOP on the investigation and the possible consequences if they use it as an opportunity to show-boat.

Benghazi: How to do the hearings right

The Democrats are portraying the not-yet-even-constituted House Select Committee on Benghazi as nothing but a partisan exercise. They are even considering boycotting the hearings to delegitimize them.

Fine. Although this would give the Obama-protective media a further reason to ignore Benghazi, it doesn't matter. All that matters is whether the committee produces new, important facts. If it does, it will be impossible to ignore.

We've already seen what a single piece of new evidence can do in reviving interest in a story that many (including me) thought the administration had successfully stonewalled. The "PREP CALL with Susan [Rice]" e-mail from deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes was withheld eight months until revealed by court order. It advises the U.N. ambassador to focus on an anti-Islam Internet video, thus contradicting the perennial White House claim that Rice's blame-the-video five-show fable came just from intelligence community talking points and not from a White House in full campaign mode.

The select committee will be headed by Rep. Trey Gowdy, a skilled 16-year prosecutor. He needs to keep the hearings clean and strictly fact-oriented. Questions only, no speechifying. Every sentence by every GOP committee member must end with a question mark. Should any committee Republican instead make a declarative statement ending in a period, the chairman should immediately, by button, deliver an electric shock through the violator's seat.

The areas of inquiry are obvious. They are three: before, during and after.

Before:

Where and to what extent was there dereliction of duty as memos, urgent pleas and mounting evidence of danger were ignored and the U.S. ambassador was allowed to enter a deathtrap?

During:

What happened during the eight hours of the Benghazi attack, at the end of which the last two Americans (of four) were killed by mortar fire? Where was the commander in chief and where was the responsible Cabinet secretary, Hillary Clinton? What did they do?

The White House acts as if these are, alternatively, either state secrets or of no importance.

For President Obama, we have three data points. At 5 p.m. EDT, he is informed of the attack at a regular briefing with his secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

At around 8 p.m., Obama spends an hour on the phone with Benjamin Netanyahu to tamp down a breaking, politically injurious story that Obama had snubbed the Israeli prime minister. The White House then issues a readout saying the two leaders had agreed there had been no snub.

So the White House is engaged in campaign damage control quite literally in the middle of the Benghazi events — at a time when Ambassador Chris Stevens is still missing and the final firefight that killed two other Americans is still three hours away. We've just learned that Obama was not in the Situation Room that night. Then where, doing what?

We know, finally, that at 10 p.m. Obama called Clinton — a call the White House, at first, had not reported — to get an update. What did they discuss, decide, order?

As former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has pointed out, a half-hour later, State issued a statement deploring the video, setting the premise for the video excuse. Were Obama and Clinton working on a cover story — even before Glen Doherty had joined Tyrone Woods on the roof of the CIA annex where they were to die minutes later?

Yes, that's speculation. Well, then, give us facts. After all, the White House provided a cascade of hagiographic facts about Obama's involvement in the Osama bin Laden raid. Yet regarding Benghazi — the most serious operational challenge of his presidency, the 3 a.m. phone call Hillary Clinton had warned about in 2008 — he is nowhere to be seen.

After:

We now know the White House was pushing the "video made them do it" coverup, lest the blame be placed on administration policy. Who was involved in that decision, obviously designed to protect a president campaigning that al-Qaeda was "on the run"?

What difference does it make? The difference between truth and falsehood. The difference between a brazen stonewall that is exposed and one that succeeds.

Nonetheless, these hearings are a big political risk for Republicans. Going into the 2014 election, they stand to benefit from the major issues — Obamacare, the economy, chronic unemployment — from which Benghazi hearings can only distract. Worse, if botched like previous hearings on the matter, these hearings could backfire against the GOP, as did the 1998 Clinton impeachment proceedings. On purely partisan considerations, the hearings are not worth the political risk.

But the country deserves the truth. They'll get it if the GOP can keep the proceedings clean, factual and dispassionate. No speeches. No grandstanding. Gowdy has got to be a tough disciplinarian — especially toward his own side of the aisle.


Read more from Charles Krauthammer's archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-how-to-do-the-benghazi-hearings-right/2014/05/08/86c2a49a-d6e3-11e3-aae8-c2d44bd79778_story.html