Type to search

Latest Gowdy Fakery: Name Of CIA Source In Clinton Email Was No Secret

Editor's Blog Featured Post Politics

Latest Gowdy Fakery: Name Of CIA Source In Clinton Email Was No Secret

Share
Gowdy

For anyone disappointed by the absence of troubling material from Hillary Clinton’s emails – not to mention the cratering of the House Select Committee on Benghazi — Michael Isikoff provided a moment of hope last Monday on Morning Joe. According to the Yahoo News investigative correspondent, one of the emails newly released by the Benghazi committee was “evidence of the commission of a federal crime by someone, not Hillary Clinton,” because it included the name of a CIA source in Libya.

Even more thrilling, to some people at least, was the identity of the supposedly incriminating message’s author: none other than Clinton’s often-demonized friend Sidney Blumenthal (who also happens to be a friend of mine).

“This is maybe the single most problematic email exchange we’ve seen with Hillary Clinton yet of all the emails that have been raised,” explained Isikoff. “What you have there is Blumenthal telling the secretary that somebody at the CIA gave the name of a sensitive human intelligence source to somebody who wasn’t at the CIA.”

Certainly this appeared to be a damaging story, if accurate – but its origin in Rep. Trey Gowdy’s discredited outfit should have raised immediate suspicion. Had any of the journalists covering Gowdy checked carefully, we might have learned earlier what we now know: The CIA had reviewed that same email at the behest of the State Department before it was released and “made no redactions to protect classified information.”

In other words, Blumenthal’s email naming a certain Libyan political figure – the late dictator Muammar Qaddafi’s former intelligence chief Moussa Koussa — did not disclose any classified information, let alone intelligence secrets.

So why did Isikoff – and other credulous journalists – consider that March 18, 2011 email so damaging to Clinton and Blumenthal? Evidently because Gowdy or his staff had redacted the name of the former Libyan official themselves — while adding the usual CIA phrase “redacted due to sources and methods” for dramatic emphasis. As released, the document seemed to show that the agency had blacked out the man’s name to protect a source. That was an intentional deception, reminiscent of the dirty trick that got David Bossie fired from the staff of the House Oversight Committee.

On Sunday, Rep. Elijah Cummings, the Benghazi committee’s ranking Democrat, sent a stinging letter to Gowdy, which noted that the Republican chairman had accused Clinton of receiving “classified information from Blumenthal—information she should have known was classified at the time she received it,” and that Clinton had then “forwarded that information to a colleague — debunking her claim that she never sent any classified information from her private email address.”

Wrote Cummings: “To further inflate your claim, you placed your own redactions over the name of the individual with the words, ‘redacted due to sources and methods.’  To be clear, these redactions were not made, and these words were not added, by any agency of the federal government responsible for enforcing classification guidelines… Contrary to your claims, the CIA yesterday informed both the Republican and Democratic staffs of the Select Committee that they do not consider the information you highlighted in your letter to be classified.”

So here is yet another absurd episode, humiliating both for Gowdy and the journalists who promoted this fraudulent story and highly reminiscent of the bogus “criminal referral” leak that made the front page of the New York Times last summer.

This latest episode is even more clownish than it seems at first glance, however. Far from being secret, the close connection between Moussa Koussa and US intelligence was detailed, at great length, more than eight years ago in former CIA director George Tenet’s memoir, At the Center of the Storm (HarperCollins 2007), which was reviewed by CIA censors before publication, of course.

Koussa’s CIA ties came up again in March 2011 during Libya’s bloody civil war, reported in an excellent story on NBC News’ website by senior investigative producer Robert Windrem, just weeks before Koussa defected to the West. (It is worth noting that Windrem’s story appeared while Isikoff still worked at NBC News.) And on March 17, 2011, one day before Blumenthal sent the Koussa email to Clinton, the New York Times published a story by Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane reporting on the Libyan intelligence chief’s post-9/11 cooperation with the CIA.

Nevertheless, in Gowdy’s effort to stir fake outrage over the Blumenthal email, he described the Koussa disclosure in apocalyptic terms: “This information, the name of a human source, is some of the most protected information in our intelligence community, the release of which could jeopardize not only national security but human lives.”

But when his committee released the full email to the press, Gowdy’s own staffers failed to redact Koussa’s name from the subject line – so it was Gowdy, not Blumenthal or Clinton, who released that “most protected information” to the press and public.

By the way, there is one more angle on Moussa Koussa that sheds a darkly comical light on Gowdy’s deep concern for his security. As Tenet explained in his book, the former Libyan intelligence chief is believed by Western intelligence services to have ordered the bombing of PanAm Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259 passengers and crew. So Koussa was probably a murderous terrorist, too.

But at least he isn’t Hillary Clinton or one of her friends.

UPDATE: In a new post, Isikoff reports that Gowdy’s committee tried to “cover its tracks” after outing Koussa — and examines the context of Koussa’s relationship with the CIA.

Photo: Rep. Trey Gowdy (House GOP via Flickr)

Tags:
Joe Conason

A highly experienced journalist, author and editor, Joe Conason is the editor-in-chief of The National Memo, founded in July 2011. He was formerly the executive editor of the New York Observer, where he wrote a popular political column for many years. His columns are distributed by Creators Syndicate and his reporting and writing have appeared in many publications around the world, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, The New Yorker, The New Republic, The Nation, and Harpers.

Since November 2006, he has served as editor of The Investigative Fund, a nonprofit journalism center, where he has assigned and edited dozens of award-winning articles and broadcasts. He is also the author of two New York Times bestselling books, The Hunting of the President (St. Martins Press, 2000) and Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth (St. Martins Press, 2003).

Currently he is working on a new book about former President Bill Clinton's life and work since leaving the White House in 2001. He is a frequent guest on radio and television, including MSNBC's Morning Joe, and lives in New York City with his wife and two children.

  • 1

127 Comments

  1. JPHALL October 19, 2015

    Oh no! They still can’t get Obama or Clinton even when they fabricate the evidence. Further proof that today’s Republicans can’t shoot straight. So sad!

    Reply
  2. sloppyslim October 19, 2015

    ” the CIA notified the select committee on Saturday that the email contained no information it deemed classified.”

    no reason to classify it now. it’s public knowledge, right ?

    it wasn’t when Blumenthal ‘outted’ the former Libyan Intel and Foreign Minister as a CIA asset before He defected and exfiltrated from Libya…
    and theres a nice photo of Hillary shaking his hand on Wikipedia , so she can’t say she didn’t know who he was at the time.

    Reply
    1. Robert Hunt October 20, 2015

      I see you hide your profile while spouting this confusing fountain of misinformation. Some people are paid for posting on these sites. I, like we all should be, believe in full disclosure and standing behind what I say. I’m not paid, are you? Did you read the article, or any of the other writings, I mean non fiction, not the right wing propaganda on this stuff? This committee is exposed, and the more you guys spout this obvious misinformation, the more naked it’s purposes become.

      Reply
      1. sloppyslim October 20, 2015

        everything in my post is a fact. rebut it if you can.
        point by point.

        Reply
        1. Robert Hunt October 20, 2015

          Why bother? First, it’s not relevant, second, you haven’t answered the conflict of interest question, third, it’s such a confused mess that it hardly makes sense. No question of Blumenthal outing anyone, nothing you say is pertinent to the discussion. It was not classified, Gowdy misrepresented the facts, and was called on his misrepresentation. Public officials shake hundreds of hands. You’ve offered nothing valid, and you again, haven’t answered the simple yes or no question, and don’t have the guts to put your name behind your nonsense. Not worth the time or trouble.

          Reply
        2. Independent1 October 20, 2015

          Are you a selective reader, or just don’t comprehend well?? Koussa was outed long before Blumenthal or Hillary did anything – back in 2007!!

          See this from the article:

          “Far from being secret, the close connection between Moussa Koussa and US intelligence was detailed, at great length, more than eight years ago in former CIA director George Tenet’s memoir, At the Center of the Storm (HarperCollins 2007), which was reviewed by CIA censors before publication, of course.
          Koussa’s CIA ties came up again in March 2011 during Liby…..

          Reply
          1. Dominick Vila October 20, 2015

            Insinuating wrongdoing because an American Secretary of State shook hands with foreign dignitaries, and one of them was a CIA informant, is beyond ridiculous. It is actually a sign of political desperation.

            Reply
          2. sloppyslim October 20, 2015

            the point was , she knew who Moussa Koussa was because she had met him, so when Blumenthal outted him in his email, she had no excuse not to report the CIA security leak

            Reply
          3. Independent1 October 20, 2015

            So now you’re trying to say that the CIA is lying because they said that nothing in Hillary’s emails was classified??? That the CIA itself didn’t know that at the time Blumenthal had sent Hillary that email that Koussa’s alliance with the CIA was all ready well known??

            And also that Joe Conason is lying when he says that Koussa’s alliance was made clear in the Center of Storm??

            The one lying here IS YOU!!!

            Reply
          4. sloppyslim October 20, 2015

            the CIA isn’t classifying something now , because it became public knowledge , and I’ve already posted why Tenets mention of Musa Kusa(sic) isn’t relevant

            Reply
          5. Independent1 October 20, 2015

            You’re such an idiot discussing issues with you is a total waste of time!!! Go get a life somewhere will you!!

            Reply
          6. MichelleRose3 October 21, 2015

            Independent, every time you answer someone like sloppyslim, you’re putting money in his pocket. National Memo is a favorite site of GOP freelance trolls. They get paid for the clicks. He’s made a nice piece of change on this discussion. Please remember that next time you see an incredibly outrageous statement that makes your blood boil. It’s INTENDED to make your blood boil. These guys get hints and suggestions from their handlers on how to piss off liberals. You want to win the argument? Don’t start. If you ignore them, they will go away eventually. It’s not your job as an American to try to convince them of the idiocy of their positions. If you really want to do that, volunteer for Hillary or Bernie and hand out election flyers door to door. As you realized, it’s a waste of time to debate them online: 1) it’s what they want because they make money doing it, 2) it doesn’t do any good.

            Reply
          7. Independent1 October 20, 2015

            And even beyond that Koussa is now a suspected terrorist himself so he gives a hoot if he was outed????????

            Reply
          8. sloppyslim October 20, 2015

            IDK , you’d have to ask State why they care about his “privacy”, now.
            I was arguing about his status as an intelligence asset at the time blumenthal leaked his name.

            Reply
          9. Independent1 October 20, 2015

            And just to clarify..no one receiving a piece of information is necessarily authorized to question or change its classification. Setting classifications on material can only be done by people working for the Defense Department or some of the military branches of our government. Hillary does not likely have the authority to classify anything. So if it was not classified when she received, she has no authority to add a classification.

            See this from Section 2 of the government’s instructions for “Original Classification”:

            Information may be originally classified only by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the Military Departments, and other officials who have been specifically delegated this authority in writing. Delegations of original classification authority shall be limited to the minimum required for effective operation of the Department of Defense. The authority shall be delegated only to officials who have a demonstrable and
            continuing need to exercise it.

            http://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/5200-1r/chapter_2.htm

            Reply
          10. sloppyslim October 20, 2015

            Sec. Clinton had authority to classify information she or her agency created, but not declassification authority of information created by other agencies , afaik

            later

            Reply
          11. Independent1 October 20, 2015

            NO!! She had no responsibility to question the classification of material that she received in an email or otherwise!!!!!!!!

            Reply
          12. Independent1 October 20, 2015

            Given the amount of material that she was responsible for going through as Secretary of State, she could be spending every working moment doing nothing but questioning classifications of everything she read if that was her responsibility WHICH IT WASN’T!!!!!!!!

            Reply
          13. Independent1 October 20, 2015

            And Cheney clearly outed Valerie Plame (a truly responsive CIA person which actually resulted in some other CIA agents being rubbed out) and what action was ever taken against Tricky Dick??? And where was THE HONEST GOP investigation into what Tricky Dick did?? Remember, they had control of congress at that time and could have made it an issue WHY DIDN’T THEY??? (No they pinned it on a fall guy!!!)

            Reply
          14. sloppyslim October 20, 2015

            deflection.
            but yes, like scooter libby and ollie north , the prosecutions were short circuited by ‘fall guys’.
            as far as tricky dick , congress was going to impeach him.
            that Ford pardoned him instead of prosecuting him seems to be a privilege of the Oligarchy/Kleptocracy … or if we take Ford at his word, to heal the nation.

            I was a straight party line dem from McGovern though Carter, Gore, Kerry, and Obamas 1st term. I switched to Libertarian, and really , I have no dogs in the fight other than anybody but hillary.

            Reply
          15. Independent1 October 20, 2015

            I wasn’t talking about Dick Nixon, I was talking about Tricky Dick Cheney!!!

            Reply
          16. sloppyslim October 20, 2015

            showing my age, lol. Yeah, Cheney should have been impeached FIRST.

            Reply
          17. idamag October 21, 2015

            Dick Cheney outed a CIA operative and caused her infrormant to be killed in Iran.

            Reply
          18. Sand_Cat October 20, 2015

            “Anybody but Hillary” is likely to elect one of the GOP lunatics.

            Reply
          19. Independent1 October 21, 2015

            Anybody but Hillary??

            Show me someone else currently vying for the presidency who can compete with Hillary’s overall experience in government. and even Bernie Sanders doesn’t hold a candle to Hillary’s overall experience.

            Here’s just a sample:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCcLW33ZAmA

            Reply
          20. Max_ October 21, 2015

            Hillary for Prison 2016!!!…

            Reply
          21. Independent1 October 21, 2015

            Thinking of prison?? It’s virtually every Republican legislator that’s been in office the past 6 plus years that should be in prison for one treasonous action after another in their never ending efforts to sabotage the American economy – which has resulted in thousands of Americans dying prematurely every month – even this one!! Month after the month the GOP’s refusal to expand medicaid, its every effort to deny Americans in need with the help they should be getting just to live is resulting in thousands dying – FROM THE PARTY OF PREMATURE DEATH!!

            Reply
          22. Max_ October 21, 2015

            You don’t have a clue whats going on, but yes the economy has been screwed up on purpose, and mostly all of Congress and all the Presidents since Reagan should be in prison for treason .. A prison like a Zoo where everyone can go and heckle them daily… The Queen of those treasonous P’s O S is Hillary….You really are a fool..
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4dfc91914cd04719f1d0db5e8d7a335886d5feada046eb641c931a100fd096c0.jpg O S is Hillary….

            Reply
          23. idamag October 22, 2015

            Oh max saw the bumper sticker put out by the dragon slayers

            Reply
          24. Dominick Vila October 20, 2015

            The information in the e-mail was cleared by the CIA, and declared unclassified, before it was sent to Hillary.

            Reply
          25. sloppyslim October 20, 2015

            “declared unclassified, before it was sent to Hillary.”

            link ?

            Reply
          26. greenlantern1 October 20, 2015

            The Pumpkin Papers date back to before WW2!
            They are still classified.
            Why?

            Reply
          27. greenlantern1 October 20, 2015

            Did Herbert Hoover know about Hitler when he shook his hand?

            Reply
          28. sloppyslim October 20, 2015

            It”s not about knowing when she shook his hand, it’s about knowing how classified the information should have been when it was leaked because she knew who he was having shook his hand.

            and your analogy as between Hoover and Hitler is wrong.

            it’s … US Secretary of State Cordell Hull receiving a leak from his ‘blumenthal equivalent’ outting German Foreign Minster Joachim von Ribbentrop as a CIA agent and failing to report those who leaked it.

            Reply
          29. greenlantern1 October 20, 2015

            Were the Watergate Tapes classified when Rose Mary Woods erased them?
            Herbert Hoover, himself, met with Hitler!
            Perfectly clear?

            Reply
          30. Bren Frowick October 20, 2015

            The point is that the CIA did NOT consider it classified information. Get a clue.

            Reply
          31. sloppyslim October 20, 2015

            Where do you have CIA on record saying they did not consider it classified at the time Blumenthal wrote the email ?
            They said they did not ask for redactions now

            Reply
          32. Bren Frowick October 20, 2015

            Where do you have it on record that they DID? George Tenet’s book identifying MK as an agent came out LONG before some CIA guy mentioned it to Blumenthal. Are you suggesting the CIA gave their former director a pass?

            Reply
          33. sloppyslim October 20, 2015

            Tenet didn’t mention anything that Kadaffi hadn’t authorized.
            when blumenthal passed on the CIA leak from Drumheller , Mousa Kousa (the Libyan Foreign Minister) was still under cover and days away from defecting and escaping.

            Reply
          34. Bren Frowick October 21, 2015

            The bottom line here is so simple even you ought to be capable of understanding it: YOU don’t get to determine what is classified and what is not. GOWDY doesn’t get to determine what is classified and what is not. The CIA has never stated that this information was classified, and until it does, you are just fanning smoke at the mirrors and gleefully crying “Fire!”

            Reply
          35. sloppyslim October 21, 2015

            have you ever had a security clearance ? do you know that one of the responsibilities is recognizing and reporting security leaks ? a responsibility that can carry up to ten years in prison 18USC792(f)2

            I’m sorry that you can’t recognize the seriousness that leaking the name of Mousa Kousa as a CIA intelligence source represents.
            He was the Foreign Minister of Libya, undercover, during hostilities, and that’s something Sec. Clinton should have known and reported. She knew him and his circumstances, personally.

            Reply
          36. Bren Frowick October 21, 2015

            Give it up and find something else to be wrong about. You’ve already lost this argument as badly as it is possible to lose. I’m done with you.

            Reply
          37. Bren Frowick October 21, 2015

            “Indeed, according to committee correspondence reviewed by Newsweek, the CIA did tell the panel on Saturday that it had reviewed 127 emails between Clinton and her close friend and outside adviser, Sidney Blumenthal, and none of it was deemed classified.”

            Reply
          38. Dominick Vila October 20, 2015

            Hopefully you are being sarcastic. Do you actually believe a Secretary of State, or anyone else for that matter, should be able to identify a CIA informant because they shook his/her hands during an official visit?

            Reply
          39. sloppyslim October 20, 2015

            you mean recognize the name of the Libyan Foreign Minster who She shook hands with during an official visit ?
            you think that’s the only time the Secretary of State communicated with, talked about, or met Libyas Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa during the the negotiations preceding, and initiation of Military action ?
            Do you think she was even surprised when blumenthal named him as a CIA intelligence source ?
            a lot of people seem to think that was common knowledge around here.

            Reply
          40. Dominick Vila October 20, 2015

            Something must have been terribly wrong if the identity of a CIA informant was common knowledge in the Washington area. Informants (spies) don’t last long when their identity and dealings become common place.
            There are thousands of CIA informants worldwide. They are one of our main sources of information. Some are high government officials, others are common people. Some are reliable, others give us garbage that results in incidents such as a Doctors Without Borders hospital being bombed.
            Expecting Hillary or anyone else to memorize the names and physiognomy of every informant is unrealistic. The fact that she shook hands with him, and the rest of the Libyan dignitaries that welcomed her when she arrived in that country on an official capacity is not only unrealistic, it is ridiculous. BTW, my 2016 choices are (1) Biden, (2) Sanders, (3) Clinton. I just don’t like witch haunts and medieval inquisitorial trials.

            Reply
          41. sloppyslim October 20, 2015

            “Expecting Hillary or anyone else to memorize the names and physiognomy of every informant is unrealistic.”

            come on, that’s a strawman. Hillary knew Moussa Koussa , the Foreign Minster of Libya , her counterpart in the Libyan government. She had met him, called him numerous times, and He was involved in negotiations ranging from the end of Libyas WMD program and shipment of Enriched Uranium to Russia to assisting in the Cease Fire in Darfur during Her first year as Secretary of State alone. Wikileaks has 72 cables on Musa Kusa from jan 15 2009 to feb 22 2010, including a formal complaint against the US government regarding the treatment of Libyas UN rep at the Kennedy airport. theres no #$@& way Hillary didn’t know who Moussa Koussa was.

            Reply
          42. Dominick Vila October 21, 2015

            You are using one of the most common tactics used by the GOP to muddle the waters. Nobody said that Hillary Clinton did not know Moussa Koussa, and his role as Libya’s foreign Minister, or that she did not meet him and negotiated with him in his official capacity. That’s not what Gowdy is after. The issue for the Congressional Inquisitors is that Moussa Koussa was a CIA informant, and that his identity as such was compromised by mentioning his name in an e-mail sent to Hillary, that she forwarded to someone else. Mentioning the name of a Foreign Minister is not a problem, the new angle being used by Gowdy refers to the role of that foreign minister as a high level spy, and the fact that – allegedly – compromising his unofficial activities denied the USA of a valuable source of information. The determinant factor regarding the propriety of including his name in an unclassified e-mail is whether the content of the e-mail was associated with Koussa’s CIA activities or was limited to his foreign minister role and interaction with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. If it is the latter, this is much ado about nothing.

            Reply
          43. sloppyslim October 21, 2015

            “You are using one of the most common tactics used by the GOP to muddle the waters. Nobody said that Hillary Clinton did not know Moussa Koussa”

            your right nobody said that Hillary Clinton did not know Moussa Koussa.

            they said
            “insinuating wrongdoing because an American Secretary of State shook hands with foreign dignitaries, and one of them was a CIA informant, is beyond ridiculous.”

            “…Do you actually believe a Secretary of State, or anyone else for that matter, should be able to identify a CIA informant because they shook his/her hands during an official visit?”

            “Expecting Hillary or anyone else to memorize the names and physiognomy of every informant is unrealistic.”

            all strawmen, distractions, or just plain logical fallacies.
            so I provided evidence she knew who Moussa Koussa was to put an end to that nonsense.
            when Blumenthal outted the Libyan Foreign Minster as a CIA intelligence source in his email, she had no excuse not to recognize the seriousness of the leak and to report it to the CIA.
            Mousa Kousa was still undercover in libya and didn’t defect and escape until days later.

            Reply
          44. Sand_Cat October 20, 2015

            You’ll find something, no matter what. When was the last time anyone in Congress – especially a Republican – did ANYTHING to report or otherwise correct anyone in his/her own party?

            Reply
          45. sloppyslim October 20, 2015

            on what page number of “At the Center of the Storm” is He mentioned ?
            I don’t see it by search , or in the index on pg. 524

            Reply
        3. greenlantern1 October 20, 2015

          Ever read the Pumpkin Papers?
          Nixon was on the HUAC!
          Did he lie?
          Was he crook?

          Reply
        4. Bren Frowick October 20, 2015

          George Tenet had ALREADY “outed” Moussa Kouffa years ago, fool. There was no “classified information” in the email, as the article clearly states. Did you even read it? Are you deliberately ignoring the facts, or just a brazen liar with complete disregard for reality?

          Reply
          1. 11thStPopulist October 20, 2015

            Good rebuttal of “sloppyslim’s” sloppy reading of the article. Trey Gowdy and his bogus committee is discredited on many, many levels and this is just another. Trying to defend it is a losing argument.

            Reply
        5. jmprint October 20, 2015

          Sloppyslim sounds like a good call name for Gowdy.

          Reply
    2. johninPCFL October 20, 2015

      Read the article. The name was outed in 2007 by former CIA chief Tenet, then again days before the email by both NBC news and the New York Times. There was nothing classified about the info, it was put in the public domain by the director of the CIA long before the email was sent, and repeated by news organizations immediately before the email was sent.

      Reply
      1. sloppyslim October 20, 2015

        I already addressed that here and here

        apparently this isn’t a teachable moment, nor an opportunity to display analytic brilliance worthy of notice or recruitment.
        not that I have any government affiliation what so ever.
        I’m nobody and I know nothing, as I acknowledge and you’ve all pointed out.

        later.

        Reply
  3. bcarreiro October 19, 2015

    Do we have an Intel at all?

    Reply
    1. Independent1 October 20, 2015

      Or is it, with the GOP dominating the House of Representative, do we actually have a House of Representatives that is in any way shape or form trustworthy of anything??? Least of all governing our country?? When it is filled with cheats and liars!!!

      Reply
  4. Dominick Vila October 20, 2015

    Even after Republican leaders have acknowledged that the e-mail and Benghazi “scandals” are politically motivated, and even if we give Gowdy the benefit of the doubt and assume that his redaction of the referenced e-mail was designed to protect the identity of CIA informants, the GOP continues to try to find ways to incriminate a political opponent they cannot defeat on merit by using innuendo and subterfuges to cast a shadow of doubt about her credibility and performance as Secretary of State.
    The worst part of this inquisitorial witch hunt is that it is revealing methods and sources used by our intelligence agencies to gather information critical to our national security. Why are these idiots allowed to compromise the effectiveness of our national security agencies for political gain?
    If the goal is to find someone to blame and hang for terrorist attacks that we have been unable to prevent, why don’t we start with the most important of all: 9/11? Why don’t we find a culprit for the 11 terrorist attacks carried out against U.S. embassies and consulates during W’s tenure? Why don’t we investigate the lies used to justify the invasion and destruction of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and the removal of a regime that was a close ally in the Reagan days?
    Pretending that an e-mail had had been reviewed by the CIA before it was sent, and deemed unclassified by the agency, somehow constituted a breach of national security, proven by a redaction made by some members of the investigating committee, indicates that the investigators should be investigated and, as a minimum, charged for unethical behavior.

    Reply
    1. @HawaiianTater October 20, 2015

      This is one of my complaints about the Democrats. They don’t do enough to call these people out for unethical behavior. What Dems really need is a little more backbone. Hold their feet to the fire when they pull stunts like these and make sure the American public knows exactly what is going on. Pull back the curtain, as it were. A more transparent DC would mean fewer Republicans in office.

      Reply
      1. bobnstuff October 20, 2015

        The Democrats are the please don’t hurt me party. They stand up to no one. They lost the midterms because they didn’t stand up for the President.

        Reply
        1. @HawaiianTater October 20, 2015

          Republicans already do better in the midterms because the zealots ALWAYS go vote and Democrat voters are lazy. Then a bunch of Dems turned cowardly and tried to run away from Obama which only killed them even more. They deserve their fair share of blame for the mess Congress is in now. The public is who let it happen.

          Reply
          1. Independent1 October 20, 2015

            Actually in 2014, only about 50% of registered GOP voters turned out and less than 40% of all potential Republicans turned out. It was by in large the GOP’s voter suppression that won them just the Senate seats they’d lost in 2008 in red states because of the disastrous Bush Administration. The GOP lost every senate seat in a blue state and the Dems actually got 20 million more votes for the open Senate seats than the GOP showing that they trounced the GOP candidates in the Blue States and lost many red state Senate seats by very small margins.

            Reply
          2. @HawaiianTater October 20, 2015

            What were the numbers for registered Democrats that turned out though? This wasn’t all voter suppression.

            Reply
          3. Independent1 October 20, 2015

            I’m not saying that the turnout wasn’t low for Democrats too, but given that overall the Dems got 20 million more votes for the open Senate seats and brought a number of the Senate races to the point where they had to be called over the next day or two or three like in Alaska after the elect; the Dem turnout was not as bad as the results would suggest. Because the Dems also won every ballot initiative including min wage increases in red states and they shut down every personhood initiative and actually made inroads in the legislatures of a number of red states; such that it is clear, that the GOP voter suppression played a big part of why the Dems didn’t pull out a number of red state Senate wins. And we know the GOP made big wins in the House because of all their gerrymandering. Just like in the Senate, the Dems actually garnered millions upon millions of more House votes that the GOP.

            If you’re interested in reading just how bad the 2014 election was for the GOP, take a look at this article in a Houston paper written by a GOP columnist:

            From the Daily Kos:

            GOP Columnist: The VERY Bad News FOR THE GOP in the GOP’s Midterm Victory

            Here’s how he closes the article but you need to see all the bad things he points out for the GOP:

            He closes his essay saying: “It is almost too late for Republicans to participate in shaping the next wave of our economic and political transformation. The opportunities we inherited coming out of the Reagan Era are blinking out of existence one by one while we chase so-called “issues” so stupid, so blindingly disconnected from our emerging needs that our grandchildren will look back on our performance in much the same way that we see the failures of the generation that fought desegregation. Something, some force, some gathering of sane, rational, authentically concerned human beings generally at peace with reality must emerge in the next four to six years from the right, or our opportunity will be lost for a long generation. Needless to say, Greg Abbott and Jodi Ernst are not that force. ‘Winning’ this election did not help that force emerge.”

            http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/20/1346224/-GOP-Columnist-The-VERY-Bad-News-FOR-THE-GOP-in-the-GOP-s-Midterm-Victory?detail=email

            Reply
          4. @HawaiianTater October 20, 2015

            That is a great article. 10/10. Would bang.

            Anyways, yeah, I already know most of that. My point is that dirty GOP tactics are still defeated when there is high voter turnout. Yes, I know the game is rigged. Yes, I know it’s not fair. Yes, I know our side has to turn out way more than their side to beat them because of how it is all set up. Still, even knowing all those numbers, it always cheers me up to see them. I would like to add that there is a lot of evidence that points to Texas turning blue in the relatively near future; possibly as soon as 2020. Once that happens, it is over for the GOP as far as the presidential election goes. If the Dems go into a POTUS election with Cali, NY and Texas on their side, you can forget worrying about the swing states.

            What we’re looking at for next year is keeping the WH, having a very good chance at retaking the Senate and making significant gains in the House. The only real question is over how much damage the tea partiers will be able to do before the changing demographics force the GOP back to the center. Guys like Jim Webb is what the Republicans used to be and what they will have to be again if they want to remain viable as a national party. The funny thing is, there were a lot of Republicans who already knew this after the 2012 elections. They tried to tell leadership what would happen if they continued on this path. The GOP establishment didn’t listen though. They just continued to double down on what got them into this situation to begin with. I can’t say I am upset about it.

            Here is an article that you will enjoy reading. I know I did. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/33226-why-today-s-gop-crackup-is-the-final-unraveling-of-nixon-s-southern-strategy

            Reply
          5. Independent1 October 21, 2015

            Thanks for the link!! That was a great article too.

            Reply
          6. @HawaiianTater October 21, 2015

            It’s nice to see it all laid out like that. The joining of the evangelical South with the country club Republicans was always a demonic pact to begin with. It was effective but demonic nonetheless. I would love nothing more than to see their entire party split into those two factions to give us a 3 party system. I just wish this breakup would hurry up and happen already.

            Reply
          7. Independent1 October 21, 2015

            You have to wonder what’s taken the evangelicals and the other “non country club Republicans” so long to realize that they’ve been taken for a ride by the ‘upper crust’, for especially these past 30-35 years since Reagan really started the downslide of the lower 80+% of Americans.

            And like you, I’m hoping that what’s been going on with the way Trump has been exposing some aspects of the GOP’s corruption and thievery recently, t hat he may be starting to wake them up. But unfortunately, I’m not certain that these long hoodwinked minions are not so clueless that what should be reasonably clear to them, is really going right over their heads!!

            Reply
          8. @HawaiianTater October 22, 2015

            Why has it taken them so long to figure it out? Well, if they had critical thinking skills, they wouldn’t be evangelicals in the first place. You gotta remember, these are the morons who think dinosaurs lived side by side with man because Earth is only 6000 years old and Satan sent scientists to Earth to push the demonic hoax of evolution. Is it really surprising that people with such obvious mental deficiencies are easily fooled by the fear mongering of Republicans? Some of them think Obama is the Antichrist and will bring about the End Times. I don’t mean that in the “they really hate Obama” way. No, many of them literally believe that is what’s happening.

            Reply
          9. Independent1 October 22, 2015

            Yeah! But it has to be more than just critical thinking skills. It’s almost like their brains have been programmed to think the way they do. With many of the evangelicals, I think they’ve been brainwashed in their bringing up to think the way they do. It may be the racism issue which caused them to shift to the GOP during the civil rights era and since then for many it’s become a way of life – this whole Confederate Flag/Southern Pride issue – like ‘this is the way my daddy always thought.”

            But what’s more puzzling to me are GOP supporters like one of my son-in-laws who’s a very successful financial planner who doesn’t seem to care that Republican presidents always trash the economy and stock market. I’ve pointed out to him a couple times that history shows that since the ’29 stock market crash that the stock market has returned zero net gain during all the Republican presidencies and that as a financial planner, he’s really doing his clients a disservice by contributing to GOP political campaigns; and yet even though he’s very bright, he just can’t seem to see the dichotomy there.

            I just can’t figure out how people who are intelligent enough to become financially successful in endeavors that require critical thinking, can’t see that voting for Republicans is like with the poor, clearly against their own best interests. Republican governance is a disaster in virtually every light you want to look at it, aside from outright thievery. The only thing Republicans do well is steal money from the less fortunate and shovel it into the pockets of people who are already more wealthy than they ever deserved to be.

            Reply
          10. @HawaiianTater October 22, 2015

            “I think they’ve been brainwashed in their bringing up to think the way they do.”

            The word you’re looking for here is indoctrination. They tried it on me. It didn’t stick.

            There is no one single reason why people vote against their own self interests. Fear mongering is one of them. Republicans do an excellent job of getting their voting base so terrified of the evil Democrats that they won’t even listen to the issues. They just vote against the perceived evil. Another big reason is social issues like gay marriage and abortion rights. Of course, stopping gay people from marrying and women from having abortions isn’t going to matter all that much if Republicans crash the economy and destroy the planet in the process. The obvious racism is another factor. We can thank Trump for giving mass exposure to the racism in the GOP base. They think Democrats are trying to turn us into a brown country by trucking in loads of illegal immigrants to vote for them and make white people the minority. The racists are terrified of losing their privilege. They think equality for all is somehow persecution of them. Climate change is a hoax. Obama is coming for your guns. Bernie is a communist. Big government will take away your freedom of religion. It goes on and on. Republicans breed a culture of fear and hatred and their base eats it up. Anything not white and exactly like them is something to be feared. It’s all insane but that’s about the best I can explain it.

            Reply
          11. idamag October 22, 2015

            I’m sharing this excerpt again. It defines how fear works:
            The Dragon Slayer.

            It happened way back when, in the middle ages, also known as the dark ages. When night fell people were afraid of what was out there. They also avoided the dark forests.
            So a few knights were sipping tea and came up with a plan to get rich. Give them the gold and they would save the land. From what? Aha, let’s call them dragons. We will make them fierce and dangerous. They donned their armor, took the gold and rode away. They came back with tales of their feats. Of how they slew fire-breathing dragons. How they kept the people safe.
            And that, my children is how they soak the gullible, invent an enemy, save the people from the illusion and laugh about the people’s ignorance.

            Reply
          12. @HawaiianTater October 22, 2015

            There will always be rubes in the world ready to be fleeced in the name of safety. It’s a sad reality.

            Reply
          13. idamag October 22, 2015

            Evangelical religions do the thinking for people so they cannot reason. They have lists of dos and don’ts. Lots of don’ts. They are not taught to reason.

            Reply
          14. @HawaiianTater October 22, 2015

            That’s kinda the point, is it not? They don’t want people who think. They want people who do as they’re told. That’s probably the number one reason that started me on the path out of Southern Baptism. I just really do NOT like being told what to do. I can think for myself. They don’t like people who think for themselves. They like mindless drones.

            Reply
          15. idamag October 23, 2015

            We have something in common. I was baptised in the Baptist Church. A Southern Baptist sect moved into our community. Some of our members moved and since some of them were friends, I moved with them. The racism was pretty much out there. The minister told a racist joke from the pulpit. In the wake of the terrorists in Mississippi the pastor was railing on dancing and two-piece swim suits. I asked him if dancing and two-piece swim suits were important when such horrors were taking place in Mississippi. He said I wouldn’t understand as I had never lived in the south. I immediately resigned with a scathing letter to the Southern Baptist Convention , copied to my pastor. I have looked on all organized religion as anything but Christian ever since.

            Reply
          16. Independent1 October 20, 2015

            And people also have to remember that to start with, registered Republicans outnumber registered Democrats. Registered Republicans constitute about 37% of the population; while registered Democrats is only about 24%. According to that article, the Republicans won that election with only the votes of 18% of registered Republicans and 13% of the Republican leaning voters.

            Reply
        2. Independent1 October 20, 2015

          The possibly lost because of that to some extent, but they really only lost Senate seats in red states where they had taken them away in 2008 because of the disastrous Bush administration – due to all the GOP’s voter suppression tactics. Aside from that a few governorships which are always ify. the Dems won virtually everything else in 2014 – every ballot initiative including min wage increases in red states and killed every personhood ballots the GOP had raised. And the Dems actually got 20 million more votes for the open Senate seats because despite the voter suppression, they took many red state senate seat elections so close to call they went to the 2nd and later days to decide them.

          2014 was a down year for voters, but actually it was as bad or worse for the GOP as the Dems. Only about 50% of registered GOP voters turned out and actually less than 40% of all potential GOP voters. It was actually a very bad election in many ways for the GOP too.

          Reply
      2. Carolyn1520 October 20, 2015

        I agree. So many missed opportunities staring us right in the face. If we only used those. The right would be kept so busy on it, they wouldn’t have time to invent more BS.

        Reply
        1. @HawaiianTater October 20, 2015

          If there is one thing the Dems could learn from the Republicans, it’s to keep their enemies on the defensive. They have the policies that people will support. They just need more gusto. They need to take the bull by the horns. Americans like that sort of thing.

          Reply
    2. Jmz Nesky October 20, 2015

      That’s just it though.. They believe they’re above the law and it shows with each idiotic action that they conjure up. Take that idiot ex-gov Rick Perry, he was charged with a serious crime well over a year ago and still no progress, he’ll lay low just long enough for short term memory lapses to take effect then he’ll be home free.. The last time we put a serious politician away was Watergate and that was some idiot scapegoat who bit the bullet for the guy who ordered him to commit the crime in the first place.

      Reply
  5. greenlantern1 October 20, 2015

    Leaks?
    Remember Henry Kissinger’s “PLUNGERS”?
    Erasures?
    Remember Rose Mary Woods and the WATERGATE TAPE gap?
    Perfectly clear?

    Reply
  6. Bren Frowick October 20, 2015

    Gowdy is starting to come across as a corrupt small-town prosecutor, accustomed to simply fixing the evidence to support whatever pre-determined verdict he has decided on in advance.

    Reply
    1. Jmz Nesky October 20, 2015

      What I can’t comprehend is there’s honorable men (and women) in the Republican party who are leaders.. Who have power.. Why are they not outraged of knuckleheads like Gowdy and his kind ? Why do they allow psychotic radicals to run the shop? If I were a a conservative Republican, my focus would be to run off all these assholes and clean up the party.. Make it reputable again like it was before St. Raygun.. These psychos are giving them all a bad name but obviously they don’t care. Am I wrong? Are there not a single honorable Republican? Are they ALL knuckle dragging Goppers and T-boggers?…. Damn I hate being wrong.

      Reply
      1. 788eddie October 20, 2015

        Well said, Jmz Nesky!

        I am another Moderate Republican who supports you!

        Reply
      2. Independent1 October 20, 2015

        I think what’s happening, is that there are so few of those “honorable men and women” left in the GOP ranks- that they feel overwhelmed by the psychos and have reached a feeling of hopelessness.

        Reply
      3. Sand_Cat October 20, 2015

        These psychos seem to be their best chance of winning, plus they’re probably afraid they’ll be “investigated” endlessly if they say anything.

        Reply
        1. Jmz Nesky October 21, 2015

          But really, don’t blame the psychos (except for their affinity to amass in groups come election time).. There’s someone in the shadows who are hand picking them for us for their pleasure, blame them.. THEN blame the psychos for breathing everybody else’s air.

          Reply
          1. idamag October 21, 2015

            As I sid in my post above: they find people that can be scared or people that have biases and they groom those people.

            Reply
          2. Jmz Nesky October 21, 2015

            I agree.

            Reply
  7. John Murchison October 20, 2015

    Oh what a tangled web he weaves, when first old Goudy tries to deceive.

    Reply
  8. FT66 October 20, 2015

    I don’t understand whats the aim of the Committee conducting the investigation. If it was about preventing such an attack to happen again, the lengthy period of investigation they have used, gave ample time for many attacks to happen. Thank god he saved us all as nothing horrible happened. These kinds of investigations serve no any purpose. Gowdy must be held accountable on his bogus investigation and his explanation is needed.

    Reply
    1. docb October 20, 2015
      Reply
      1. FT66 October 20, 2015

        Many thanks for the link. Very useful.

        Reply
  9. yabbed October 20, 2015

    Does Congress no longer recognize and punish unethical behavior?

    Reply
    1. @HawaiianTater October 20, 2015

      It would appear not. It’s kinda sad, really.

      Reply
      1. idamag October 21, 2015

        It is sad and scary. If the nefarious ones can find enough people who can be scared and enough people with biases to exploit, we will go the way German democracy went in the thirties.

        Reply
    2. plc97477 October 20, 2015

      Only if done by a Democrat.

      Reply
      1. 1standlastword October 20, 2015

        As the saying goes: IOKIYAR!

        Reply
    3. DAK27 October 20, 2015

      Short answer: No.

      Reply
    4. 11thStPopulist October 20, 2015

      Tampering and altering a congressional investigation – as bogus as it is – is a criminal offense. Why have charges not been filed against Trey Gowdy?

      Reply
      1. idamag October 21, 2015

        Because we have allowed our Democracy to be taken over by fascist tea party types.

        Reply
      2. Sand_Cat October 22, 2015

        I’m sure you don’t really want or need the answer to that question.

        Reply
    5. Sand_Cat October 20, 2015

      It’s now required for admission.

      Reply
      1. Independent1 October 22, 2015

        You have to admit though, that being unethical seems to have bitten especially the GOP side of the aisle for at least the past 20 years or so – since good old Newt really corrupted America’s political processes.

        Reply
        1. Sand_Cat October 22, 2015

          I think the most cursory review of my comments indicate that I strongly agree with you, but the Dems haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory, having been both cowardly and – all too often – willing to go along with GOP corruption.
          While I agree that the GOP assault on Hillary is pretty much all crap, she was at best incredibly stupid to have gotten herself into the email problem, knowing how much she is hated by the right and how they would amplify any misdeeds to the max forever, and that she was planning to run for president. I generally ignore GOP charges of dishonesty as pure projection and lies, but was she completely upfront about this?
          The Dems have been less than supportive of the president for most of his tenure. I have to say that I’m thoroughly sick of them. I’d like to see Bernie get a shot, but the GOP would tear him to pieces in the election, and – even if he won, and the Dems managed to recover their majority in Congress – he’d probably spend four very unhappy years in the White House accomplishing essentially nothing, because the Dems wouldn’t fight for any of his ideas or programs.

          Reply
          1. Independent1 October 22, 2015

            Keep in mind that at the time Hillary took over the State Department, the general practice was for the SOSs to maintain their own email servers; virtually all previous SOSs had done that including Powell and Rice. And the department had no formal requirement that suggested otherwise. And in addition, keep in mind that a 1939 law REQUIRES that all politically active government employees, maintain an email server SEPARATE FROM THEIR GOVERNMENT SERVER, to house emails that are politically AND NOT GOVERNMENT oriented.

            Therefore, even if Hillary had a government server FOR SOME emails, SHE HAS to maintain another PRIVATELY MAINTAINED email server THAT IS NOT PAID FOR BY THE TAXPAYERS, to house emails related to her political activities. This whole issue is nothing more than a HOUSE OF CARDS!!

            Nobody seems to mention that even the Bush White House was run mostly on private servers and even 6 years after Bush left office, over 100 million emails from the Bush White House have gone missing meaning that numerous groups who are seeking info on he Bush years under the Freedom of Information act – have been waiting years and will probably never get the information they seek. Yet no one is screaming foul about all that!! Why???

            I’m sorry, but this whole e-mail issue is just one more absolute farce!! Fact is, that the State Department email servers have actually been hacked over the passed couple of years, while the servers Hillary used have not. Using government servers IS IN NO WAY ANY SAFER THAN USING ONES OWN!!! IT’S ALL A BUNCH OF TOTAL BS!!!

            Reply
          2. Sand_Cat October 22, 2015

            I’m well aware of the things you cite, but I still say an intelligent and competent person knowing she was going to run for president and that lots of people – mostly GOP, but many of them women – hate her guts far beyond what could possibly be justified by ANY rational calculation, plus the fact that the principal GOP tactic is to take some innocuous thing and inflate it as much as possible for as long as possible, SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER than to use the server for non-political stuff, ESPECIALLY since the Bush criminals all did it, giving the GOP further incentive to draw attention to her and away from their own.
            I thought that the president (Obama) at some point issued an Executive Order forbidding the practice, but – if so – it seems to have been forgotten.

            Not really anxious for a fight with you or anyone else with whom I agree on almost all issues, but I’m sick of Democratic stupidity and fecklessness: a bumper sticker I’ve seen says it well”:
            TALK ABOUT BIRTH DEFECTS: REPUBLICANS HAVE NO HEART, DEMOCRATS HAVE NO SPINE.

            Reply
          3. Independent1 October 22, 2015

            Sandy, I hope your not really seeing this as a ‘fight’, but rather a friendly discussion about a somewhat contentious issue. I guess I’m just questioning why you would think Hillary should have even gone through the thought processes you just described. No SOS had ever been asked to turn over their emails to anyone; and certainly you don’t think Hillary would have ever thought something like Benghazi was going to happen. Because that’s the only reason we’re having this discussion: had Benghazi not happened, Hillary would have ended her term as SOS without anything bringing up the need for her to bring out her emails. So essentially what people who think Hillary should have even questioned how she handled her emails are essentially doing is – Monday Morning quarterbacking. There was absolutely no reason for this whole email fiasco kind of thinking to have entered Hillary’s mind.

            However, what Hillary and the Dems should have done was insist on having a computer expert testify before the committee to prove that having emails stored on a government computer, are in no way any safer than having them stored on a private computer. Just ask Lois Lerner about that when thousands of IRS emails were lost on her government computer and supposed backup facility. Although I’m normally a guy who thinks that the government can usually do things better than the private sector because there’s no profit motive involved for the government to create shortcuts to what’s best; that doesn’t extend to computer stuff. The government simply is not as savy and reliable on computer related stuff as the private sector.

            With all of that said about the emails – I fully agree with your last comments about the Dems – they’ve really let themselves be run over by the GOP the for at least the past couple of decades.

            Given your thoughts on this, you should enjoy this article from the Daily Kos if you haven’t seen it yet:

            Pssst . . . can we discuss an awkward, urgent problem with the Democratic party?

            http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/21/1416220/-Pssst-can-we-discuss-an-awkward-urgent-problem-with-the-Democratic-party?detail=email

            Reply
          4. idamag October 22, 2015

            The Democrats never got behind Obama. They never educated the people as to what the subversive t-party was up to. They send me reams of pleas for money wit the message that the Republicans have so much money they will win. It is like they are asking me to throw money at losers. They certainly are not putting money up to get the truth out there. None of them resemble Harry Truman. Remember the disastrous election to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat. The Democrat did not even bother to campaign.

            Reply
          5. Independent1 October 22, 2015

            I agree completely! Which is why I once called Democrats a bunch of wimps. They simply will not take the fight to the Republicans, even when they have the clear advantage to do so. I have no clue why Democrats are so reluctant to stand up for themselves, and even for a Democrat president!! It baffles me to no end!!

            For example, when the Dems had control of the House from 2006 through 2009 – why didn’t Pelosi investigate why 22 million emails were missing from the Bush White House back between 2003 and 2005?? People were looking for those emails vis-a-vis the Valerie Plame fiasco and the Bush Administration couldn’t produce them. Why didn’t Nancy set up a ‘Outing of a CIA agent’ investigation???

            Reply
  10. RED October 20, 2015

    Absolute scum of the Earth!! As a younger man, I believed that it was the best and the brightest that rose to Congress and high positions in government. My age & experience has taught this is not true and it is actually the most deceitful, conniving, thieving scumbag fraudsters who actually end up in these positions. Gowdy especially disgusts me, as big a scumbag as Daryl Issa. Gowdy has the look and demeanor of a good old boy Southern scumbag cop or district attorney that has always used his office as a tool to damage and hurt people, especially those who don’t have the means to fight back. And he enjoys it, it makes him feel good. But now getting push-back is something new. He ‘s not used to someone fighting back, the poor people who’s lives he destroyed never did that.

    Reply
    1. idamag October 21, 2015

      I’m curious about your avatar.

      Reply
      1. RED October 22, 2015

        What are you curious about? Avatar is just the default.

        Reply
        1. idamag October 22, 2015

          Oh. I thought it looked like an egg.

          Reply
          1. RED October 22, 2015

            Hehehe, it does look like an egg, heckling it might be. But it’s only symbolic of my procrastination in learning how to change it. Usually I spend my time here to relentlessly remind the ignorant fascists what total morons they are. Because stupidity, racist bigotry, & denial of reality is not just a different point of view, it’s a disease like Natzi fascism that needs to be crushed.

            Reply
  11. Karen Bille-Golden October 20, 2015

    Has anyone seen the Collin Powell/Bush emails which surfaced in the Clinton email scandal? There is strong evidence treason was committed as the emails reference the meeting of Bush/Blair one year prior to the invasion of Iraq. They point to Blair working with Bush to mislead American public into believing Saddam Hussein had WMD. Actual copies of the emails on occupy democrats and the dailynewsbin. I haven’t heard anything in the news, did I miss it?

    Reply
    1. johninPCFL October 20, 2015

      No, but it doesn’t matter. No US president or vice president will ever be tried in The Hague or indicted for treason. Whether they deserve it or not is irrelevant.

      Reply
      1. Karen Bille-Golden October 20, 2015

        I was making note of what actually surfaced in the Clinton witch hunt.

        Reply
      2. idamag October 21, 2015

        Actually, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were indicted, tried and found guilty of war crimes in absentia in 2 countries. Five more, including Canada, will swear out warrants for their arrests if they enter those countries.

        Reply
    2. Theodora30 October 20, 2015

      Colin Powell has said he destroyed all of his emails – not that anyone cares.

      Reply
    3. Independent1 October 22, 2015

      Here’s an article from the Daily Kos which points out that Darrell Issa actually came up to bat for the Bush White House, explaining how easy it was for them to lose 22 million emails just in the period of 2003-2005 – when the were requested during Plamegate.

      And I recall reading another article which claims that the Bush White House, which included Karl Rove lost over 100 million emails over its 8 years in office.

      But see this in the Daily Kos on 22 million Bush White House emails, which makes a mockery of Issa being upset because the IRS lost a few thousand emails he wanted from Lois Lerner:

      As you’ll recall, millions of Bush White House emails
      conveniently went missing between 2003 and 2005, including those in the
      critical days during which the administration formulated its response
      to Ambassador Joe Wilson and his covert CIA operative wife, Valerie
      Plame. In July 2007, Darrell Issa accused Plame of perjury. Then, in February 2008, Issa turned IT expert and brushed off the email imbroglio as merely a software problem. As Mother Jones reported that March:

      During a House Oversight Committee hearing last month on the
      preservation of White House records, an indignant Rep. Darrell Issa
      (R-Calif.), a frequent critic of Chairman Henry Waxman’s investigations,
      did his best to play down the extent of the Bush administration’s now
      well-documented email archiving problems. Defending the White House’s
      decision to switch from the Lotus Notes-based archiving system used by
      the Clinton administration, Issa compared the software to “using wooden
      wagon wheels” and Sony Betamax tapes. To observers of the missing emails
      controversy, Issa’s comments seemed little more than an attempt to
      deflect blame from the White House for replacing a working system for
      archiving presidential records with an ad hoc substitute. But to IT
      professionals who use Lotus at their companies, Issa’s remarks seemed
      controversial, if not downright slanderous. Now, according to an
      executive at IBM, the software’s manufacturer, the California
      congressman has apologized for his characterization of Lotus and offered
      to correct the congressional record.

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/18/1307914/-IT-expert-Darrell-Issa-explained-how-the-Bush-White-House-lost-22-million-emails

      Reply
  12. 1standlastword October 20, 2015

    Republicans don’t care about aborted babies, four dead Americans or anything about the fate of others. It’s too clear that all modern republicans care about is bending the whole country to their will.

    The entire Benghazi witch hunt is really about Trey Gowdy protecting his left flank for a re-election campaign: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/09/30/rep-trey-gowdy-says-he-run-re-election/73108694/

    It’s his career…oh what a surprise. And as we know–as of late– surprises come wrapped in soiled toilet paper for modern republicans.

    Reply
  13. Theodora30 October 20, 2015

    Once again Michael Isikoff is playing along with – getting played by – right wingers trashing the Clintons. He was a major player in the “reporting” on the scandals of the 90’s, choosing to believe information that was damaging to the Clintons and disregarding contrary information in order to juice up his reporting. He should have no credibility after that but sadly journalists at DC High are not expected to tell the truth, just entertain.

    Reply
  14. Ryan Thompson October 24, 2015

    The longer I live the less I care about politics in general. Everyone lies and it’s just a freak show. I’m over all of it!

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.