fbpx

Type to search

Scandalizing Hillary: If The First Time Is Tragedy, Then The Second Time Is…

Editor's Blog Featured Post Memo Pad

Scandalizing Hillary: If The First Time Is Tragedy, Then The Second Time Is…

Share

With a self-proclaimed socialist running a credible campaign for president, perhaps the time has come to revive Karl Marx’s wittiest aphorism – although his pungent quip is relevant to Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders.

At the outset of The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, the young revolutionary said Hegel had once observed that “all facts and personages of great importance in world history occur, as it were, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.”

That piercing insight can be applied to the “Clinton scandals,” now playing again, courtesy of the Congressional Republicans and especially the House Select Committee on Benghazi. Chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), that committee is hardly the first on Capitol Hill to investigate, at great length and expense, a series of vague accusations against Bill and/or Hillary Clinton and/or various staffers and/or associates. (Indeed, it is the seventh Congressional committee to investigate this particular set of vague accusations concerning the former Secretary of State, with none of the earlier probes finding any evidence of wrongdoing by her in the consulate attack on September 11, 2012.)

Back in 1994, just before the Republicans gained control of Congress in the midterm elections, Newt Gingrich gloated that his agenda as Speaker of the House would include multiple investigations of the Clinton administration, the President, the First Lady, and all their friends and associates. He wasn’t kidding. Whitewater? Definitely. Travelgate? Certainly. Filegate? Absolutely. Even those obviously fabricated tales implicating the president in cocaine smuggling at a tiny Arkansas airstrip called Mena? Of course!

While the national press corps treated all those farcical “investigations” as matters of the utmost gravity, even a cursory glance at the underlying facts would have quickly showed that there was nothing to investigate (as Gene Lyons and I explain in considerable detail in our free ebook, The Hunting of Hillary).

Whitewater was a defunct land deal that cost the Clintons about $45,000 and ended long before his election as president. Travelgate was an inter-office dispute of no consequence to anyone, except the traveling press corps that had enjoyed favors from a few White House employees. Filegate was a complete fake, based on a misreading of a list of former staffers. And no, there was never any evidence that Clinton knew about drug trafficking at Mena. But a presumably sane Republican Congressman from Iowa named Jim Leach pretended to believe it for a while, anyway.

Still these official hoaxes dragged on for months and years, courtesy of the Republican majority and an independent counsel appointed by Republican judges (a position happily eliminated from the statute books when its enabling legislation finally expired). Their aim was blatantly political, even though nobody in the GOP leadership was stupid enough to brag about driving down Clinton’s poll numbers. And they all ended with nothing to show for the millions of taxpayer dollars expended. In fact, the following midterm elections saw the most prominent figures on the Senate Whitewater Committee – Alfonse D’Amato of New York and Lauch Faircloth of North Carolina – abruptly ousted from their seats.

If Whitewater wasn’t quite tragedy, despite the damage inflicted on many innocent people in Arkansas, #Benghazi/email is assuredly farce. Not only has Rep. Kevin McCarthy exposed the scam with his juvenile bragging on Fox News Channel, but now a second Republican member, Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY) has confirmed that the Benghazi committee was “designed” to “go after…an individual, Hillary Clinton.”

According to the New York Times, the committee’s members and staff occupy their time with a “wine club” and a “gun-buying club,” while issuing subpoenas to Clinton’s friends and associates – and failing to discover anything of consequence about that incident in Benghazi. Gowdy likes to claim that he uncovered Clinton’s use of a private email server – as used by many public officials, including her predecessor Colin Powell – but even that fact, obviously known to many in the Obama administration, had been revealed by a Romanian hacker long before the committee was appointed.

At the first Democratic debate, Sanders turned to Clinton and declared that the American people “are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.” Laughing, she agreed. Nevertheless the damned emails will return on October 22, when Clinton appears before the Benghazi committee for a full day in open session to answer the committee’s questions, and say a few words about the committee and its masterminds.

As that date approaches, let’s hope this partisan burlesque, at the very least, provides a few more laughs before its inevitably ignominious conclusion. We’ve already spent more than $4 million in tax revenues on its production, and we’ll never get that money back.

Photo: Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shakes hands with rival candidate and U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (L) and thanks him for saying that he and the American people are sick of hearing about her State Department email controversy and want to hear about issues that effect their lives as they participate in the first official Democratic candidates debate of the 2016 presidential campaign in Las Vegas, Nevada October 13, 2015. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson

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

76 Comments

  1. Dominick Vila October 15, 2015

    From obstructionism designed to make President Obama a one-term President, to investigations into anything and everything the Clintons have ever been involved in, short of the brand of toilet paper they buy, what is evident is that the GOP has no interest in governance, and that deep inside they recognize that their socio-economic preferences are so flawed that they have no choice but to spend their time on with haunts to do what they cannot do on merit. The most disturbing part of this issue for me is that even after Republican leaders acknowledge that their investigations and actions are politically motivated, their followers continue to encourage to continue, and re-elect them without the slightest remorse or atonement. This whole thing says more about our media, and the political climate that exists in the USA, than about the con men who rely on political assassination to stay in office.

    Reply
    1. Otto Greif October 15, 2015

      He gets paid to shill for the Clintons, what’s your excuse?

      Reply
      1. JPHALL October 15, 2015

        Who pays you to blog your nonsense?

        Reply
        1. Otto Greif October 15, 2015

          Hitler.

          Reply
          1. JPHALL October 15, 2015

            That is what I thought. It must be so sad for you and your ilk to always be losers.
            Subject: Re: Comment on Scandalizing Hillary: If The First Time Is Tragedy, Then The Second Time Is…

            Reply
          2. Otto Greif October 15, 2015

            That you thought Hitler was paying me says a lot about your mental condition.

            Reply
          3. JPHALL October 15, 2015

            No, I just expect and accept the stupidity from people who I think are stupid.
            Subject: Re: Comment on Scandalizing Hillary: If The First Time Is Tragedy, Then The Second Time Is…

            Reply
          4. Insinnergy October 15, 2015

            Correction…
            He accepted that You thought that Hitler was paying you.
            Reading your posts, not only is that well within the bounds of plausibility… but not poking the obviously deeply troubled person in the room probably also figured into it.

            Reply
          5. John Murchison October 16, 2015

            troll

            Reply
          6. darkagesbegin October 16, 2015

            no, we knew you were using a metaphor for KOCH

            Reply
        2. plc97477 October 16, 2015

          Whoever it is is not getting their monies worth.

          Reply
    2. itsfun October 16, 2015

      The email situation is one of national security. Two top secret documents have been discovered so far on a unsecured server. How many more are there. It has been shown foreign nations have attempted many times to hack into that unsecured server. We may never know if they were successful or what and how many documents have been compromised. This is about our National Security, not just some politicians trying to make hay. You can ignore this if you choose, but this is a severe problem. The FBI is conducting a criminal investigation. No matter what anyone tries to tell you, the FBI does not have investigations that are not criminal. They don’t worry about shop lifting or rumors or misdemeanors. They only have criminal investigations.

      Don’t both political parties do what they can to make every opposing party President a one term President?

      Reply
      1. Bosda October 16, 2015

        No evidence has been shown that any foreign power or terrorist group accessed the emails.

        So, this is mostly smoke & mirrors.
        Mrs Clinton deserved a reprimand, nothing more.

        Reply
        1. itsfun October 16, 2015

          So allowing top secret documents on a unsecured server is only deserving of saying no, no don’t do that again? Evidence shows her server was attacked. In most cases a hacker will brag about hacking into a server and putting a virus or such on it. In a case of National Security, the hacker would just keep on getting the information and not telling anyone. The person owning a unsecured server may never discover what was stolen. People hack into computers every day and steal identities and credit card info. The computer owner doesn’t find out until the credit card number is used, or their bank account is empty. Liken it to the US getting the Japanese radio codes in WWII. We didn’t tell the Japanese, we just used the information.

          Reply
          1. Bosda October 16, 2015

            What evidence shows this?

            Whose evidence?

            Do you have more than fear & innuendo?

            And, precisely, how are people in the State Dept, Military, or Intel, other than Mrs Clinton, punished for such infractions? And why should Mrs Clinton receive worse?

            And why should Mrs Clinton be the target, instead of a general probe?

            And, could the attacker have been GOP?

            Reply
          2. itsfun October 16, 2015

            The FBI has proven the attacks. The FBI proved attacks from Russia and China. The General that left confidential documents on his desk was punished. Hillary should be the target because it is her private server. She was SOS and it was her responsibility to keep all documents secure. It was her responsibility to know what is classified material and what is not.

            Reply
          3. Grannysmovin October 16, 2015

            Please provide a non-partisan link that states there were successful proven attacks discovered by the FBI

            Reply
          4. itsfun October 16, 2015

            I said the FBI has shown there were attacks on the server. They still don’t know if the attacks were successful or not.

            Reply
          5. Grannysmovin October 16, 2015

            So where is the non-partisan link that proves that.

            Reply
          6. Bosda October 16, 2015

            Yet, you ignore the majority of my post.
            And you fail to post links.

            Reply
      2. Dominick Vila October 16, 2015

        Regardless of what her predecessors did, and what other elected officials continue to do, Hillary used very poor judgment when she decided to use her private server, and a personal e-mail account, for government correspondence. However, she did not violated existing laws, did not do anything considered criminal, and did not compromise national security. Pertinent laws were written, and signed by President Obama, AFTER this incident, and the fact that some e-mails were reclassified AFTER this pseudo scandal emerged does not mean that she deliberately did something wrong.
        Both parties attack each other. That’s an integral part of politics. What is not the same is a deliberate attempt to derail the economic recovery in the USA, and delay job creation, to make sure President Obama was a one-term President. Show me something that comes close to that, including an acknowledgment by the Grand Ayatollah of such scheme, and I may change my mind.

        Reply
        1. itsfun October 16, 2015

          She was the only one to use a personal server. She compromised our national security by having classified documents on her private unsecured server. She says they weren’t marked classified. I am sure that is right, because no documents are marked “classified”. They are marked confidential, secret, top secret. She has never said they weren’t marked as such. We know her server was attacked. We don’t know if it was compromised yet. If your home computer was hacked and someone got your private info, you wouldn’t know until someone used your credit card or emptied your bank account.

          Are you saying that the GOP not agreeing with Obama’s economy getting us into a national debt of 19 trillion was just to harm Obama? The two parties do have different ideas on how to do things.

          Reply
          1. Dominick Vila October 16, 2015

            Confidential, secret,nd top secret are classification levels.
            Refusing to invest in infrastructure, which resulted in delaying the economic recovery and creating jobs, was part of the GOP strategy to ensure President Obama was a one-term President. In addition to the economic impact, the consequences of that decision could be linked to the collapse of dams in South Carolina, that resulted in the death of innocent people and considerable damage to property. That is, in my opinion, much closer to a criminal act, than all the e-mails in the world, regardless of which medium was used.
            Our national debt is the sum total of all the budget deficits, interest on the debt, and liabilities incurred over the years. It takes nerve to blame someone for the effects of unfunded crusades, the effects of irresponsible tax breaks and the resulting drop in government funds, and the impact of trying to prevent the collapse of the U.S. economy announced by President Bush.

            Reply
          2. itsfun October 16, 2015

            After 7 years, I think even Obama has quit blaming President Bush for all the problems we have. Blaming the collapse of dams is not the fault of our Congress. Obama and the left called President everything you can think of for leaving the country in terrible debt. What do you think the next President will call Obama after taking office and has to deal with a national debt of 19 trillion?

            Reply
          3. Dominick Vila October 16, 2015

            I never heard President Obama blame Bush, or anyone else, for the problems he had to tackle. If the next President has an ounce of honesty and common sense, he/she will thank President Obama for putting in place policies that helped prevent the collapse of the U.S. economy, will demand action from Congress regarding investment in infrastructure and immigration law reform, will re-emphasize the need for effective domestic policy changes to narrow the gap between those who own 2/3 of our national wealth, and the majority of our population who has to make do with what is left of it; will take steps to improve the ACA; and will thank President Obama for putting the cost of our wars in the general budget, where it belongs, and for reducing the number of U.S. casualties in the Middle East and Persian Gulf down to a minimum.

            Reply
          4. CrankyToo October 16, 2015

            Seven years? Listen, Squire, after seven HUNDRED years, American history books (excepting those promulgated in Texas) will still be blaming Dubya and his merry band of dumba$$es for the financial debacle they precipitated upon the country AND THE WORLD!!!

            Of course you’d love for everyone to “quit blaming President Bush”. And why wouldn’t you? You’re on the side of the dumba$$es and don’t want to be constantly reminded.

            By the way, I noticed that in your previous post, you referred twice to “President Bush” in your defense of the idiot who trashed the world economy, threw gasoline on the fire smoldering in the Middle East, and gave the phucking farm to his wealthy pals. But you refer to his successor as “Obama”. The man who redeemed the buffoon Dubya, brought the world back from the brink of financial disaster and brought our troops home – him you refer to three times by his surname. You’re a lowlife.

            And you’re stupid into the bargain! If you can’t blame Congress for our crumbling infrastructure, who can you blame?

            Reply
          5. itsfun October 16, 2015

            I hope you don’t think you can hurt my feelings by calling me names. That is just a sign of a weak mind trying to express itself.

            Reply
          6. CrankyToo October 16, 2015

            You should put that little pearl of wisdom on a sign and hang it over your sh1tter.

            No, seriously, it never even occurred to me that you HAD any feelings.

            Reply
          7. itsfun October 16, 2015

            Like I said, just a weak mind

            Reply
          8. CrankyToo October 16, 2015

            And let’s not forget Dubya’s massive unfunded giveaway to big Pharma, which obviated drug price negotiations and created the “donut hole”, which confounded seniors for years before the Affordable Care Act was implemented.

            Reply
      3. Grannysmovin October 16, 2015

        When were they declared classified? Were they declared classified after the State Department has been ordered by a federal judge to make public the 55,000 pages of emails Clinton turned over to the agency. So were these two e-mails truly classified or just material the government doesn’t want in the public..

        From Fox News :”Spokesman Nick Merrill has released a FAQ document stating that “robust protections were put in place” on the server, with “upgrades and techniques employed over time as they became available, including consulting and employing third party experts.” Merrill added that “there is no evidence” that the server was ever hacked, and said there was never an unauthorized intrusion into the secretary’s email. The Merrill document stated that Clinton’s server “was physically located on her property, which is protected by U.S. Secret Service,” but did not address its present location.” Seems her server was more secure than the National Security servers that had Snowden and this new hacker on drones get and release classified and unclassified information.

        The FBI is investigating if the server was compromised and if there are e-mails that were a risk to National Security. The FBI has the authority to investigate national security and criminal acts. Let them do their job and let them determine who, what, when and they may or may not have been a criminal act. Right now there are no criminal charges made against HC other than by you and your ilk.

        Reply
        1. itsfun October 16, 2015

          A Clinton spokesperson says her server was secure. Wow, what a revelation. Two documents were top secret, 40 others have been identified as another layer of classification. The FBI is investigating and will publish there results sometime in January. The Secret Service protecting a server from physical harm is much different then protecting the sever from hackers. Hackers don’t break into a home. The FBI has shown the server was attacked, don’t know yet if it was compromised or not. No matter what, this is a huge national security problem and makes one question the competence of Hillary when it comes to our national security.

          Reply
          1. Grannysmovin October 16, 2015

            Hey you buds on Faux news reported it. Where is the prof that the FBI states her server was successfully attacked and by whom. Please (for the second time) provide a non-partisan link.

            Reply
          2. itsfun October 16, 2015

            Just to a search asking
            was hillary clinton server attacked
            You will get pages talking about Korea, China, Germany attacking her server. I don’t have any buds on FOX or any other network. You seem to know a lot about FOX news, you must spend a lot of time watching it.

            Reply
          3. Grannysmovin October 16, 2015

            Sorry just like when we offer counter arguments we provide the source and links, you are making a statement and you are asked to back it up.

            Reply
          4. itsfun October 16, 2015

            What kind of BS are you talking? I have posted many sources and links and articles and even parts of the the Constitution. I am tired of doing your research. I have even had some tell me my sources were bogus. When I pasted part of the US Constitution one person actually called the post bogus without looking the the constitution and seeing it. So I have shown you how to find the information because you won’t believe what I post anyway. This way you can see for yourself. If you only see a few segments of FOX, how can you make any educated remarks about it? You are just saying what you have heard on left wing sites and TV.

            Reply
          5. Grannysmovin October 16, 2015

            Honey you don’t do my research – guess your post is in accurate. Because in 2003 FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.
            Other media outlets report on what guests and host of faux news broadcasts, they either print the transcript or have the video on youtube – more than enough – thank you. There is no left wing TV, I do read Media Matters, Huffington Post, MotherJones, Christian Science Monitor, BBC News and Aljazeera US. also watch Ring of Fire, Young Turks, PBS News hour, NPR, and C-span.

            Reply
          6. itsfun October 16, 2015

            MSNBC

            Reply
          7. Grannysmovin October 16, 2015

            Found nothing did a search n their site nothing of what you are claiming. I have other things to address so will wait for an official report,

            Reply
      4. obandon October 16, 2015

        Sadly, and hardly whispered was the fact documents under scrutiny were declared confidential way after she left office. Most of us are very aware of the reasoning behind these investigations. This is after all the only things our current Congressman actually do, even though investigators have shown nothing insidious, they continue to waste our tax dollars on fruitless and rediculous hearings over and over just like Benghazi. I’m so done with this batch of idiotic republican hypocrites! Do something for our country for a change GOP!

        Reply
        1. itsfun October 16, 2015

          Two of the documents were Top Secret. This a issue of National Security. The FBI is investigating this. The FBI only does criminal investigations. That alone tells you that our national security is the issue. The one general, whose name I can’t spell got convicted for just leaving confidential information on his desk. He lost his career for that. We are talking Top Secret documents here on a private unsecured server.

          Reply
          1. Independent1 October 17, 2015

            Go bury your head in a trash can somewhere lowlife!! There are still 100 million emails that the Bush Administration lost which no one has been able to recover!! How many top secret pieces of information do you think were included in that 100 million?? These were emails from the oval office!!! Go stick your head in the sand dumbcoff!! You’re getting to be really tiring with you rambling nonsensical rhetoric!!!

            Reply
          2. Mr Corrections October 18, 2015

            The FBI does not only do criminal investigations.

            I hope that helps!

            Reply
        2. Renellin October 19, 2015

          Sorry but that is BS. That is a legal side trip she is attempting to make. The Secy of State should know classified material when she sees it without looking for a special sticker.

          Reply
    3. plc97477 October 16, 2015

      I hope you realize you just reminded the repugs that they haven’t yet investigated the brand of toilet paper the Clintons use.

      Reply
      1. Dominick Vila October 16, 2015

        🙁

        Reply
      2. Renellin October 19, 2015

        They know the brand already: It’s Huma’s left hand.

        Reply
    4. Renellin October 19, 2015

      Does the name Scooter Libby mean anything to you? The dems made up a scandal–Valerie Plame, who was not a ‘secret’ agent anyway, and they knew in advance who had ‘outed’ her if such a thing could be shown, but they pressed anyway, and the pub pres insisted his staff cooperate with everything, until they finally got somebody that they could catch on not having memorized his notes from previous years.

      Reply
  2. Daniel Jones October 15, 2015

    I have a *great* idea to save government funds for better projects–STOP THE POINTLESS FRAME UP COMMITTEES.

    Reply
    1. ellapeal October 15, 2015

      What about the FBI?

      Reply
    2. 1standlastword October 15, 2015

      American politics is now like a blood sport without blood…at least for the time being!

      Reply
      1. Renellin October 19, 2015

        What is the Freedom Caucus doing that is so objectionable? Is it so terrible to want to stop or at least cut back on pork and government waste and fraud?

        Reply
        1. 1standlastword October 19, 2015

          I know a loaded dishonest question when I see one

          Reply
  3. John Murchison October 16, 2015

    The line between farce and insanity is relatively thin. I feel that something is due to snap and we may see a dangerous episode erupt from this form of blatant political abuse.

    Reply
    1. Dominick Vila October 16, 2015

      Namely the emergence of a radical, totalitarian, political party that represents the values, goals, and interests of a tiny minority of Americans.

      Reply
      1. obandon October 16, 2015

        EXACTLY! And who will create a country exactly the opposite of free.

        Reply
        1. Renellin October 19, 2015

          Who is it that wants this again? BO?

          Reply
    2. Renellin October 19, 2015

      If it’s Hitlery you are referring to, I am right there with you.

      Reply
  4. FT66 October 16, 2015

    If republicans are smart enough, they have to elect a New Speaker as soon as possible, let him stop this debacle of Benghazi investigation as it is not going to produce any fruitful result. Here is how it might happen. The FBI investigation has no specific date of ending its work. It might continue for another 3 years or more, while Hillary might be already occupying the White House. The Benghazi Committee can’t ask FBI to stop their work acording to their wish, as they themselves (Benghazi Committee) has been doing their investigation for years now. In the end republicans will end up achieving nothing and wasted taxpayers money for nothing, of which they can be asked to pay back or face the music.

    Reply
    1. Renellin October 19, 2015

      What is so important about ending the investigation right now? It’s been going on for years, they have certainly made some progress, and Hitlery made this appointment in advance months ago. You wouldn’t want to deprive her of her day in ‘court’, would you?

      Reply
  5. atc333 October 16, 2015

    Regardless of your thought on this “committee”, It serves a very important purpose. it keeps the Faithful engaged, as well as misdirecting the Public’s attention from the reality:that the GOP cannot govern, It has no plan for rebuilding America, except recycling the same failed economic theories which created the 2008 Bush II Great Recession, These “‘statesmen” cannot even come to an agreement and elect their next Speaker of the House!..

    Reply
  6. Carolyn1520 October 16, 2015

    When you have nothing else to offer this is what can be expected from the right. It’s not a new tactic, it’s just all they have.

    Reply
    1. Renellin October 19, 2015

      Hitlery gets nothing from the right. She just gives and gives and gives. Bernie is like Trump: he adds entertainment to the package. Of course in the last few elections, you all claimed you did not want an old rich white person in office. Just sayin’.

      Reply
      1. Carolyn1520 October 19, 2015

        And the right is scared to death of her and for good reason. Get use to hearing Madam President. You’ll be hearing it, like it or not.

        Reply
  7. Bosda October 16, 2015

    To Hell with Hilary–Sanders got the bounce after the debates, corporate-owned media to the contrary.
    Bernie gets more electable every day.
    Let’s run Sanders.
    After all, he has a pretty clean shirt.

    Reply
    1. FT66 October 16, 2015

      Bosda,
      No. We are not going to hell with our Hillary. Didn’t you notice Bernie Sanders was doing the campaigning and not debating?

      Reply
      1. Bosda October 16, 2015

        Didn’t you notice that the focus groups & poll improvements all went to Bernie?

        Hilary looks like the Nader of this election–a divider, not a uniter, for the Democrats.
        She is yesterday’s leftover fried rice–forget her.

        Reply
        1. Mr Corrections October 18, 2015

          Yes, if we can’t have political purity then let’s just lose! What could possibly go wrong with a left-wing version of the Tea Party?

          Reply
      2. Renellin October 19, 2015

        Why not keep them both for awhile, and see what they have to say? I wish Hitlery would stop reminding us that she is female, we can tell by her suits. It’s like saying her greatest achievement at SOS (not including Benghazi or the foundation donations) was ‘traveling a great deal’.

        Reply
  8. greenlantern1 October 16, 2015

    I, for one, would love to see some e-mails.
    Rush Limbaugh CLAIMS to have stand down cables.
    Where are they?
    Terry Jones has already been tried, convicted, and sentenced to death for the murders at Benghazi!
    When is his e-mail going to be asked for?

    Reply
  9. Eleanore Whitaker October 17, 2015

    There is no doubt that Sen. Sanders is a true and great statesman. He is also something else: chopped meat in the hands of the GOP. Here’s the real problem with Sanders fanatics. They are trying to ram Sanders down our throats and push their candidate on us.

    At any other time in US history, Sanders would make a wonderful president. But this is now, when the GOP Tea Party wants autonomous control of this country.

    The GOP would love nothing more than for Sanders to be the Democratic nominee. If Sanders becomes president, how in the hell is he going to do what not even a top strategist like Obama tried to do?

    Sanders is GOP chop meat. They know this. So those who support Sanders are inadvertantly doing what the GOP wants: another male Democrat they can rip to shreds with obstruction.

    One question remains…Can you all deal with another 8 years of Republican regimes, GOP lies? GOP obstruction, GOP loading up on investigations?

    Does it not occur to you Sanders supporters that perhaps, the reason the GOP is so hot to get rid of Hillary is because she knows the GOP all too well and Sanders doesn’t?

    Reply
    1. @HawaiianTater October 18, 2015

      Your Hillary bias is showing. Bernie has been in Congress for 25 years. And you think he doesn’t know what the GOP is all about but Hillary does? Counting her 8 years as a Senator and 4 years as SOS, she has less than half the experience as an elected official that he does in dealing with these people.

      He also understands the limitations of having a GOP Congress. He has said many times over that he can’t do it alone. Not him, not Obama, not Hillary, will be able to make the kind of changes we need with an obstructionist GOP Congress. It’s silly to suggest that Hillary would do any better with them. I don’t think they will be able to hold the Senate anyways. The GOP has 24 seats up for election in a presidential election year and a public who is very pissed off at the GOP Congress right now. We might not be able to take back the House right now because of gerrymandering but considering the damage that the Freedom Caucus is causing, that is only helping the Democrats gain significant seats in the House next year.

      If you don’t like Bernie, that’s fine. But don’t act like he is being shoved down your throat. That’s Hillary you’re thinking about. The media has already decided her the winner and are not even taking Bernie seriously. Just look at how they talked her up after the debate. They ignored the fact that every single poll had Bernie winning in a landslide and declared Hillary the winner. Hell, even CNN, who broadcast the debate, deleted their own poll and replaced it with a pro-Hillary fluff piece. That’s what you call shoving a candidate down the throats of the public.

      I hope you can put this nonsense away where it belongs and support Bernie if he gets the nom. That’s how I feel about Hillary. I may not like her and I may not trust her but the alternative is disaster, so I will absolutely support her if she gets the nom. You need to understand what is at stake here and do the same for Bernie if it’s him instead of her.

      Reply
      1. Renellin October 19, 2015

        Something it seems dems/libs/progs don’t understand: Tea partiers are not full of hate, and hate anything democrat or even automatically run them down. I find old Bernie interesting. I can’t imagine voting for a Socialist, but I look forward to the unfolding of his candidacy. I don’t think he would be such a force if a lot of the democrat party didn’t see through Hitlery. (sorry for the repeated negatives) I agree that, like Jeb Bush on our side, it is Hitlery who is being shoved down throats, while Trump, Carson, and Sanders simply draw huge crowds wherever they go. I think us ‘ordinary’ Americans, meaning do not make our living off the political process but do care to see America prevail and prosper, on all sides of the aisle could simply listen to what the candidates say and consider–and stop letting the media define our narratives and put words in the mouths of those running.

        Reply
        1. @HawaiianTater October 19, 2015

          Every once in a while you seem halfway intelligent. It’s a shame though because I have seen too many of your posts and already know better.

          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.