There is a difference between an investigation and a trial. If the Obama White House and ol’ Hillary’s ol’ State Dept will provide readable documents, I’m sure that Obama and Hillary will be exonerated of any wrong doing or stupidity. Maybe not. At least the taxpaying public will know what happened.
Repeatedly demanding that questions should not be asked or saying that unreadable documents are proof of something is absurd. And not very convincing.
So “readable documents” is the new “long form birth certificate”, eh?
No. Readable documents means unredacted documents.
The question of whether something being redacted is sufficient justification to demand unredaction or further investigation cannot simply be made on the basis that something has been redacted. There must be some context other evidence to indicate that the redaction is wrong in some way. There are several totally legitimate reasons why documents sent to Congress can be lawfully and correctly redacted: advice and deliberation (but not decisions) specifically intended for the President is subject to executive privilege, identities of intelligence agents or other sensitive operations can be withheld from most congressional committees, and a few other reasons that aren’t really relevant here. Congress may not like these reasons, but they are legitimate and fully as important to the constitutional principle of separation of powers as is the ability of Congress to investigate.
So, if we don’t know what the redacted files really say, there ought to be some context or other evidence to indicate wrongdoing - in a rally bad analogy, you can’t continue to investigate someone solely on the basis that they refuse to answer your questions. So what else, specifically, other than redactions, are you saying is the basis for this investigation? Please tell me it isn’t “I want to know of Obama was asleep while 4 Americans were killed by terrorists.”
That and the experience with what Republicans did with the climate scientists tell us that the idea is that since this is not a trial the objective is to get more “who cares” quotes from Hillary and others. They are an essential part of a balanced breakfast for the extreme conservatives.
You seem to believe that the documents in question (any documents, since you make no specific reference to particular ones) are written in narrative form, like a novel. Thus any redaction must necessarily detract from the fullness of the story.
But documents I’m familiar with, including some I’ve seen in this matter (on casual search only, I haven’t tried to read/review all the massive documentation already provided) aren’t like a novel. A document frequently contains multiple subjects, and specific details including names, statistics, etc. may or may not be present for each. Much of the material present in a given document may have absolutely nothing to do with the matter under investigation, and its elision from the document causes no material misunderstanding of the issue. Important but unrelated matters of national security or just confidentiality of sources are legitimate reasons to redact.
Who gets to decide what is material and what is not is indeed debatable. You don’t trust the administration, and that is fair enough. I don’t necessarily blindly trust it either. But numerous sources including Republicans and Republican appointees have provided their own support for the narrative of events as presented by the administration, and the narrative seems otherwise coherent. No serious contradictions of its major elements have been claimed by any of the actual participants and/or people with direct knowledge, including the aforesaid Republicans and Republican appointees. There is no smoking gun revealed or suspected – other than that of partisan suspicion. Importantly, the only thing that further “investigation” has to hang its hat on is the open ended “just asking questions” nonsense that has already been properly characterized as a fishing expedition. So yes, you and the Committee can continue to JAQ-off with foolishness like “What was Obama doing?” But please don’t pretend that anything substantive is being accomplished.
HAHAHAHA. Climate scientists? That’s a real knee-slapper.
I don’t believe that the unreadable documents were written in a narrative form.
Congress gets to decide and Congress has decided to try one more time to get the Obama White House and ol’ Hillary’s ol’ State Dept to release readable documentation that explains what happened during and after the Benghazi debacle.
You can object to questions being asked but the latest hearing is still going to take place.
And if history holds, another 30 or 40 after that one.
Whatever you profess about your belief, you act as if a narrative that disproves the administration’s narrative exists. Somewhere. If we can only find it. Go fish!
And you are right, these silly hearings will indeed take place. As did the 50th vote to repeal the ACA.
But you are not correct in saying that “Congress gets to decide…” all by itself. As Ravenman schooled you earlier,
(post shortened)
The Ben Rhodes email gave new life to the investigation.
*The Rhodes email, with the subject line: “RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET,” was sent to a dozen members of the administration’s inner circle, including key members of the White House communications team such as Press Secretary Jay Carney. In the email, Rhodes specifically draws attention to the anti-Islam Internet video, without distinguishing whether the Benghazi attack was different from protests elsewhere.
The email lists the following two goals, among others:
“To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”
“To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”*
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/29/benghazi-emails-suggest-white-house-aide-involved-in-prepping-rice-for-video/
Plus the 112 pages of documents that were released to Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
It appears that the Obama White House was trying to convince the voting public that Benghazi was the result of the video and not any Obama White House failure.
Maybe the latest Congressional investigation can finally clear the Obama White House of any stupidity or wrong doing?
Raveman asked, “Who gets to decide what is material and what is not is indeed debatable”.
I responded that, “Congress gets to decide…”, and Congress will, once again, be demanding readable documents from the Obama White House and ol’ Hillary’s ol’ State Dept.
There are members of Congress who have high level clearance and could examine any material in question.
The media and public can also, once again, resort to more Freedom of Information Act lawsuits.
Actually, no. The quote is from me.
Is re-writing history, even recent and otherwise perfectly transparent history, really so ingrained into the partisan Republican psyche?
What difference does it make? Are you the taller one? 
So now you’re quoting Hilary? 
I’m the one that keeps venomous reptiles.
One then wonders why you jump to those discussions too, but once again you are missing the point: you are being manipulated by the right wing media and groups that do want to undermine any opposition. Regardless if it is coming from science or from a security snafu what is important is to report e-mails out of context or to obtain choice quotes for political consumption.
It does not matter if the scientists are correct on that issue of climate science or if the state did the best they could in Benghazi, the objective now is to feed the right wing media beast and then get the ‘base’ to vote against their own interests that will not be discussed now as this distraction will be the one that is.
You’re denying the existence of climatology now?!
Maybe he just thinks they’re funny people. Can’t say I’ve ever met a climatologist who could tell a good dick joke, but my sample size is most decidedly not statistically representative.
ROTFLMAO. Check and mate.
January of '09, was it?
Questions should be asked if the usefulness of the answer is worth the trouble of getting it. The President is a busy guy. If you want to subpoena him or send his staff into the archives to answer your questions, the reason for asking has to be more than “I’m curious”.
What if there’s another attack, and instead of being in the situation room (or wherever you think he belongs) the President is in a committee room answering questions about Benghazi?
(posts shortened)