Do you really dispute that “in the current atmosphere there is absolutely no way to avoid it devolving into an expensive, pointless, political Benghazi-esque shitshow. It’s a 100% guarantee.”?
It would be expensive, political, and a shitshow, certainly. But pointless? It depends on whether there was actually wrongdoing. This excuse prevents any possibility of fact-finding, even if there were actual criminal actions.
And avoiding a reasonable investigation can also be very expensive, political, and turn into a shitshow. In fact, I’d say it’s already a shitshow, but your shitshow meter may be calibrated a bit differently.
It takes next to no effort to disclose it again during a confirmation hearing. I assure you, junior intelligence officers would know to do this. “As you will find in the way such meetings are disclosed, I did meet with the Russian ambassador in my senate office, but…”
eta: It’s not just that he didn’t volunteer this information, it’s that he had a clear opportunity to volunteer the information in response to a direct question where volunteering the information would have been both wise and expected.
You expect so little from the freakin’ Attorney General of the United States?
Can we use this argument against Democrats as well? “Can’t investigate Clinton’s email server because of the current political environment.” Come on man.
White House begins process of throwing Sessions under the bus, now claiming they did not know about Sessions’s contacts with Russians until press reports yesterday.
Which is exactly the same argument as for Benghazi investigations. Were you supporting those?
From afar there is one thing very clear - your politics are descending into the state of what is normally what we see in a developing country…
I’ve seen few people actually come out and admit that they retroactively craft their ethics on the fly depending on whether it’s “their guy” or not, so you deserve recognition— if not congratulations— for doing so.
Of course we can. Clinton’s email server brouhaha was a purely political shitshow. There was no criminal intent whatsoever, it was obvious from the beginning, there was just Clinton’s pathological paranoia. Calls to prosecute (or even to investigate) it were purely political, in order to smear. Just like the smearing of Sessions and others today. It is clear that there was no “colluding” whatsoever between Russians and Trump campaign. But it is milked for all it’s worth for politics.
Not that I think it will work. It would work in a political campaign, somewhat. By the time that rolls around, it will be old and stale.
But Democrats are desperate, so they are trying everything and anything they can.
The first one? Certainly. It was a terrorist attack in which Americans died – it definitely should have been investigated. I’m pretty sure everyone, including Democrats and Hillary Clinton, supported the first investigation.
Okra: “It is clear that there was no “colluding” whatsoever between Russians and Trump campaign. But it is milked for all it’s worth for politics.”
Lol! The NSA head resigned because of Russian shit, the WH is, as we speak, throwing Sessions under the bus because of the Russian shit.
But go ahead, tell us there is nothing there. :rolleyes:
Oh, I forgot: who had to resign over Benghazi? Anybody? Sr. cabinet officials?
Yeah, Okra, of course I agree with this. One Benghazi investigation is good – let’s find out what went wrong and fix it.
7 is idiotic. Thanks, Republicans, for wasting our money (out of desperation?).
Benghazi being milked for political points doesn’t mean every legitimate investigation has to be followed up by 6 pointless ones.
Let’s see - I believe this is about the first investigation:
In Benghazi something “went wrong” (undoubtedly).
What “went wrong” in Sessions’ meeting in the Senate with the Russian ambassador?
That was more than 1 week into the House hearings, and a criticism of how the Republicans were handling the investigation. Not an opposition of there being an investigation.
A foreign leader ordered his intelligence service to interfere with our democratic presidential election. Right?
Any evidence that Cumming opposed investigating Benghazi from the beginning? 'Cause that’s what you asked about, and this doesn’t qualify.
Saying “this investigation is starting to turn into a waste of time” is very, very different than saying “there should be no investigation”.
But you’ve already admitted that this is just about defending your team, not about actually getting to the truth of what occurred.
That’s good. We wouldn’t want a guy who knows how to lawyer in the Attorney General job.
What “went wrong” when Bill Clinton decided to say hello to Loretta Lynch?
-
That was an inappropriate meeting. What was wrong with Sen. Sessions’ meeting with the Russian ambassador? Note: I am not asking about Sen. Sessions answers during confirmation hearings. I am asking about the meeting.
-
I don’t believe there was any investigation of Clinton’s “hello” to Loretta Lynch. Was there?
There’s no evidence that either meeting was inappropriate. Clinton said he didn’t discuss anything inappropriate. Sessions said the same. In both cases, it’s a matter of optics, and in the Sessions case a matter of what should have been disclosed under oath because of those bad optics.
Neither Clinton was a public official at the time, and there was no rule against the meeting between Clinton and Lynch.