evince
Truthmatters
and this
I called it: RICO statute to take down criminal Trump organization
- Thread starter reagansghost
- Start date
and this
evince
Truthmatters
RICO
Lying again; why is it that even after repeatedly giving you the facts, they don't seem to have an effect on low IQ dishonest leftist morons like you.
The investigation of White Water was about real crimes. BillyBob Clinton's impeachment had NOTHING to do with him banging interns in the White House. It was about suborning perjury you ignorant dumb fuck.
Maybe if we repeat it a thousand more times it will sink into that think Neanderthal skull of yours.
Kushner has been shut out of an embassy meeting in Riyadh.
Sent from my SM-G550T1 using Tapatalk
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
reagansghost
eternal
so how long did that asshole Gowdy investigate Hillary for Benghazi?
after his treasonous party set the consulate up for a terrorist attack........straight out of the GOP playbook
after his treasonous party set the consulate up for a terrorist attack........straight out of the GOP playbook
Still yapping with that boorish dumb nonsense. Yeah dumb fuck; Bush was ALONE in his thinking in dumbfuck land where you wallow.
Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
-- President Bill Clinton (State of the Union Address), Jan. 27, 1998
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators.""Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
-- Sen. John Edwards (D, NC) Feb. 24, 2002
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." "
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D, MA) Sep. 27, 2002
"Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."
-- State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) Oct. 2, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
-- Senator John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002
"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
-- Sen. Harry Reid (D. NV) Oct. 9, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
-- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
-- Ex President Bill Clinton, Jul. 22, 2003 (Interview with CNN Larry King)
I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening.
-- Rep. Richard Gephardt (D, MT) Nov. 2, 2003
REALLY? Can you provide an example where a consulate or diplomatic outpost was attacked by terrorists and the Administration then lied about the attack claiming it was spontaneous and caused by an obscure video by an American citizen?
Moron.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice says "all sorts of evidence" indicate the attack in Benghazi "began spontaneously" and was not preplanned.
Brian dead dishonest moron on steroids stupidly thinks Benghazi was about funding. This is not merely drinking the cool-aid, but chugging down the whole pitcher. 
They did put a moratorium on embassy and consulate security EXCEPT in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Brian dead dishonest liberal moron on steroids stupidly thinks Benghazi was about funding. This is not merely drinking the cool-aid, but chugging down the whole pitcher.
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
Idiot! How does what Susan Rice said in that comment conflict with the fact that the angry mob blew up over the release of an irresponsibly insensitive video?
It doesn't! So STFU! Idiot!
It wasn't an angry mob you incoherent moron; it was a PLANNED attack that had NOTHING to do with a video.
Grow a fucking brain and get back to your padded cell.
There were 21 US embassies and consulates on alert that week.. either because of threats or protestors. Maybe they didn't immediately know what happened in Benghazi... and Ambassador Stevens was only there overnight to dedicate a joint venture between Mass General and Benghazi hospital . I think it was about initiating emergency services.
For the clueless lying shitstains on the left:
Here are eight damning facts detailed in the report.
1. The Clinton State Department knew full well that the Benghazi compound was undermanned.
The report demonstrates that Clinton's State Department had clearly assessed the high risk of Benghazi in 2011 and 2012, acknowledging that the fall of Moammar Gaddafi had resulted in a high risk of militia violence and increased crime and weapons ownership in the area. Despite the dramatically worsening situation on the ground, the compound was left increasingly more exposed due to lack of security, faulty equipment, and the reliance on "undisciplined and unskilled" local militia for protection. From late 2011 until the attack in 2012, there were at least two attacks on the Benghazi outpost, as well as attacks on other U.S. international facilities and diplomats. Yet, the compound was left dangerously vulnerable.
2. Requests for increased security at Benghazi were either ignored or outright refused by the department.
Despite repeated requests in late 2011 and early 2012 for new agents to help improve the security of the compound, "no additional resources" or "personnel" were sent by the administration. "Washington D.C. dismissed Stevens' multiple requests for additional security personnel while also asking for help in messaging the very violence he was seeking security from," then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told the committee.
The report shows that rather than fortifying the compound amid increased risk, the administration all but abandoned it in the months ahead of the attack. A security staff of 34 in early August was slashed to just six by the end of the month.
"It is not clear what additional intelligence would have satisfied either Kennedy or the Secretary in understanding the Benghazi mission compound was at risk — short of an attack," concludes the report.
3. The administration put the lives of Americans in the hands of incompetent and untrustworthy militia.
The report highlights the increased reliance on local militia to protect American personnel, groups one official described as "undisciplined and unskilled." Clinton's State Department thus put the lives of Americans in the hands incompetent and untrustworthy "security" groups.
4. The administration failed to respond in time, in part because of political concerns.
Then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta ordered U.S. forces to be deployed to rescue our personnel in Benghazi. Though they were mobilized to a staging area in Italy and were ready to take action, not a single asset he ordered deployed ever left the ground. The damning reasons for this failure include political concerns about how the Libyan government wanted our military personnel dressed.
During a two-hour "deputies meeting" which Clinton attended that took place while the 13-hour attack was underway, the State Department ate up valuable time "by insisting that certain elements of the U.S. military respond to Libya in civilian clothes and that it not use vehicles with United States markings. Both restrictions appear to have been concessions to the Libyan government that did not want an identifiable U.S. military presence on the streets of Libya."
Larry O'Connor notes that another "even more troubling" revelation is that "nearly half of the action items that came out of this critical meeting involved the YouTube video, Innocence of Muslims, which the Obama Administration falsely claimed to be the impetuous for the deadly terror attack."
5. Clinton et al overrode the order to send a rescue team because they mistakenly thought the attack was over.
The report, as NBC News highlights, also cites several witnesses who explained that the administration failed to act in time in part because they incorrectly thought the attack was over and that it would thus be more prudent to send reinforcements to Tripoli.
"Their understanding was that the assets needed to be sent to Tripoli to augment security at the Embassy, and that the State Department was working to move the State Department personnel from Benghazi to Tripoli," reads the report.
6. The administration's claim that the attack was a result of the YouTube video was a complete fiction.
The most damning of all the sections of the report is on the administration's attempt to spin the attack for political purposes. The committee underscores that the administration's initial public talking points alleging that the attack was the spontaneous result of a protest over a YouTube video that insulted Mohammad rather than a coordinated attack was invented by officials as a means of providing the administration political cover a few weeks away from an election. All of the reports from the ground clearly proved that this was a planned attack.
"The report quotes an agent at the Benghazi compound as hearing chanting before a full-on attack begins, including explosions and gunfire and '70 people rushing into the compound with an assortment of "AK-47s, grenades, RPG's ... a couple of different assault rifles,'" explains CNN. "Another security officer described the assault as 'a full on attack against our compound.' Asked if he had seen a protest before the attacks, the officer said: 'zip, nothing, nada.'"
Clinton immediately acknowledged in email correspondence that the attack was by a terrorist group, but then began to feed the public (and the families of victims) the fabrication that the attack was part of a broader protest against an obscure video.
7. The administration engaged in a "shameful" stonewalling attempt during the investigation.
In the last section of the report, the committee highlights the administration’s “shameful” stonewalling of the investigation, particularly in regard to Clinton's private email server.
"What may appear at first blush to be a lack of competence on behalf of the State Department now appears fully intentional and coordinated," concludes the report. "Delaying the production of documents sought by letter, informal request or subpoena has decided political advantages for those opposing the investigation."
8. The administration blocked all attempts to investigate the alleged secret transfer of weapons to Libyan rebels.
The Benghazi committee report notes that the Obama administration blocked their attempts to investigate an alleged transfer of weapons to Libyan rebels, which has been rumored to be connected to the attack.
"Multiple news reports in the past year have cited unnamed State or intelligence officials saying the president approved a covert operation to ship weapons to Libyans to arm rebels trying to oust Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi — a proposal Clinton herself supported but that the administration has never acknowledged," reports Politico. However, the committee was unable to either confirm or deny those reports due to what they said was a block by the National Security Council on interviews with the CIA or other officials about the reported covert operation.
"Over the course of nearly a dozen interviews with the State Department, the Defense Department and CIA personnel, witnesses consistently refused to answer questions related to certain allegations with respect to U.S. activity in Libya even though the House specifically gave the committee access to materials relating to intelligence sources and methods,” the report reads. “Most of these questions related in some way to allegations regarding weapons.”
For the clueless leftist shitstains who continue to lie about Beghazi:
Panetta Testified Obama was Absent Night of Benghazi
“Did you have any further communications with him that night?” Ayotte asked Panetta.
“No,” said Panetta.
“Did you have any other further communications? Did he ever call you that night to say how are things going, what’s going on, where’s the consulate?” asked Ayotte.
“No,” said Panetta. “But we were aware as we were getting information about what was taking place there, particularly when we got information that the ambassador, his life had been lost, we were aware that that information went to the White House.”
“Did you communicate with anyone else at the White House that night?” asked Ayotte.
“No,” said Panetta.
“No one else called you to say: How are things going?” asked Ayotte.
“No,” said Panetta.
There was NO consulate in Benghazi.. NO consular officers, no diplomatic mission and no Marine Guard.
Stevens stayed in Tripoli .. He was only in Benghazi overnight.