WASHINGTON ― If you were hoping to watch the final hearing of the Select Committee on Benghazi and see the members debate and vote on their final report, you’re out of luck.
The committee is meeting Friday in a closed session to hash out any final details in their report, which they rolled out during recess on June 28 without input from the Democratic members of the committee.
Although the Republicans said the 800-page document broke new ground, Democrats said it just rehashed old details. It, like the previous eight probes of the 2012 terrorist attacks in Libya, found no wrongdoing on the part of U.S. officials, although it did echo the previous works in saying the response to the assaults had significant flaws.
Even its release was marred by partisan gamesmanship, with the committee’s GOP leadership selectively giving it to reporters who were not allowed to reach out to Democrats for comment.
Democrats didn’t get copies until shortly before it was released widely. And now they can’t raise objections to the report publicly as it’s wrapped up.
The final work of the committee is being done behind closed doors likely because parts of the report are classified. Other committees in such situations often debate the non-classified parts in public, then move to a closed session.•
But the lack of any effort to let the public see the final stages of the controversial committee led Democrats to hammer the move.
“It’s no surprise that Benghazi Committee Republicans are choosing to take their final vote tomorrow behind closed doors, with no transparency and where no one can fact check their claims,” Democratic Whip Rep Sten Hoyer (Md.) told The Huffington Post.
“That’s how they’ve operated since day one ― not sharing information with committee Democrats and concealing the truth from the public,” Hoyer said. “It reveals what everyone has known since the beginning and what [Majority Leader Kevin] McCarthy admitted: that the Benghazi Committee’s purpose is political, not investigative.”
Hoyer was referring to McCarthy’s comment to Fox News that the committee work had damaged the presidential prospects of Hillary Clinton.
The Republicans on the committee saw it differently, and pointed to the words of Dorothy Woods, the widow of Tyrone Woods, who was among the four Americans slain that night. He had tried to protect the facility from attackers.
The widow vigorously defended the committee’s extended work in a CNN interview, saying critics have been unfair and that no one has•“the right to tell me it’s time to move on. They’re not in my shoes.
“I think that that’s the essence of what they have done, is they’ve been dismissive. The committee’s been ridiculed. The committee has been, they’ve been criticized,” Woods said. “And for them to sincerely do the right thing, to care about Americans, that’s what’s important.”
The committee has lasted more than two years, making it one of the longer probes in congressional history. It has cost more than $7 million, and Democrats estimate that the price tag is closer to $20 million when the costs to the many responding federal agencies are counted.
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-final-benghazi-hearing-will-been-done-in-secret_us_577ed3a9e4b0c590f7e8af7a?[/url]
Just c and p this.
this is the one hearing that should be public, of all things.
[quote]It, like the previous eight probes of the 2012 terrorist attacks in Libya, found no wrongdoing on the part of U.S. officials[/quote]
I really think they ought to do maybe 8 or 9 more probes to be sure
[quote=Article]It’s no surprise that Benghazi Committee Republicans are choosing to take their final vote tomorrow behind closed doors, [b]with no transparency and where no one can fact check their claims[/b],” Democratic Whip Rep Sten Hoyer (Md.) told The Huffington Post.
“That’s how they’ve operated since day one ― not sharing information with committee Democrats and concealing the truth from the public,” Hoyer said. “[b]It reveals what everyone has known since the beginning and what [Majority Leader Kevin] McCarthy admitted: that the Benghazi Committee’s purpose is political, not investigative.”[/b][/quote]
If only this could be hammered into the heads of some people here; the people who have fell victim to the Republican crusade against Hillary (which has clearly worked).
on a side note please use [quote] tags
the narrative that hillary clinton was personally directly responsible for every crisis that happened abroad is kind of silly. the bengazi reports have said the failure to provide security was not the fault of the state department
Benghazi investigations have been a politicized sham since the start. I don't care if they're in secret because the last eight of them turned up nothing and it's blatantly obvious that Gowdy and the GOP are using it as a political sledgehammer rather than an actual investigative tool.
Anyone who still thinks Hillary was even remotely culpable for anything that happened in Benghazi hasn't been paying attention.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50671549]Benghazi investigations have been a politicized sham since the start. I don't care if they're in secret because the last eight of them turned up nothing and it's blatantly obvious that Gowdy and the GOP are using it as a political sledgehammer rather than an actual investigative tool.
Anyone who still thinks Hillary was even remotely culpable for anything that happened in Benghazi hasn't been paying attention.[/QUOTE]
She may not bear a direct responsibility for the events, but she still lied under oath to the American people about the events. On top of that, she lied (again under oath) about the email stuff. For that alone, she should be in jail and barred from the campaign trail.
[QUOTE=Pops;50671796]She may not bear a direct responsibility for the events, but she still lied under oath to the American people about the events. On top of that, she lied (again under oath) about the email stuff. For that alone, she should be in jail and barred from the campaign trail.[/QUOTE]
the issue is with purgery, you have to prove intent to lie. When Clinton came on the air saying it wasn't a terrorist attack, that was the official released statement from the WH at the time. Now it was dumb, but legally speaking, she was just reiterating the already approved statement.
As for the email stuff, again, she just has to claim that she believed she was telling the truth at the time of those statements to get off.
[QUOTE=Sableye;50671924]the issue is with pergery, you have to prove intent to lie. When Clinton came on the air saying it wasn't a terrorist attack, that was the official released statement from the WH at the time. Now it was dumb, but legally speaking, she was just reitterating the already approved statement.
As for the email stuff, again, she just has to claim that she believed she was telling the truth at the time of those statements to get off.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure how she gets away from the statement about only using one device for convenience's sake when she very clearly had more than one.
[QUOTE=Sableye;50671924]the issue is with purgery, you have to prove intent to lie. When Clinton came on the air saying it wasn't a terrorist attack, that was the official released statement from the WH at the time. Now it was dumb, but legally speaking, she was just reiterating the already approved statement.
As for the email stuff, again, she just has to claim that she believed she was telling the truth at the time of those statements to get off.[/QUOTE]
But it's known that they intentionally used the video lie before officially declaring it a terrorist attack two fucking weeks later. Even if she was just reading what she was given, she went along with it for that whole time.
The video was posted online some three months before the attack, if that was what incited the people, they would have done it then and there. Not to mention the fact that Ambassador Stevens had been directly mailing her for additional security long before that video was posted, which didn't get approved. The bitch is fucking guilty, imo she should hang.
Benjamin Ghazi / John Galt 2016
It's sad how the Republican's pointless witch hunt with regards to Benghazi has probably only helped Clinton with regards to the perception of the general public towards the email thing.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50671928]I'm not sure how she gets away from the statement about only using one device for convenience's sake when she very clearly had more than one.[/QUOTE]
Or the fact that she says nothing sent was top secret, regardless of the fact that a ton of TS shit was found. To insinuate that she didn't even know what she was sending over her own email is fucking ridiculous. I'd call that "intent to lie"
[QUOTE=Kylel999;50674613]Or the fact that she says nothing sent was top secret, regardless of the fact that a ton of TS shit was found. To insinuate that she didn't even know what she was sending over her own email is fucking ridiculous. I'd call that "intent to lie"[/QUOTE]
well the security/secrecy headers were deliberately removed from them. So that's just a straight up lie, as was everything else she said in that press confrence
it baffles me how the public's opinion on her is basically "FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT YAH YAH YAH", and not "She is the personification of all that is wrong with american politics, and is an absolute tyrannical sociopath. Get her the fuck out"
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;50684266]well the security/secrecy headers were deliberately removed from them. So that's just a straight up lie, as was everything else she said in that press confrence
it baffles me how the public's opinion on her is basically "FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT YAH YAH YAH", and not "She is the personification of all that is wrong with american politics, and is an absolute tyrannical sociopath. Get her the fuck out"[/QUOTE]
I don't think most people are voting for her because she's a woman just as much as most people weren't voting for Obama for being black ya damn canuck.
10th time's the charm right?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
