Octopus Overlords

For your viewing enjoyment here is Lindsey Graham going quarter derp by trashing the report (probably since it doesn't suit his overtly politicized view of the event) going as far calling the House report 'full of crap'.

The main result of the report is the removal of the one area in which the Benghazi "scandal" could have still mattered - Hillary's 2016 campaign. This gives her a ready "the Republicans' own investigatory committee concluded, after a two year investigation, that there was nothing there" talking point which is largely unrebuttable without sounding crazy (which would only convince people who would never vote for Clinton anyway).

House Speaker candidate McCarthy pretty much admits this was a witch-hunt to hurt Clinton:

"Everybody though Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?" McCarthy asked. "But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought."...

...McCarthy's answer was indeed at odds with 16 months of Republican talking points on the investigation, led by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.). Whenever he was asked if the committee was political, outgoing Speaker of the House John Boehner typically expressed disgust at the mere suggestion. Democrats were talking politics while lifetime prosecutor Trey Gowdy was talking about events that led to the murders of four Americans.

"This is all about getting to the truth," Boehner said in May 2014. "This is not going to be a sideshow, this is not going to be a circus...

...Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the ranking member of the Select Committee on Benghazi, said in a statement that "this stunning concession from Rep. McCarthy reveals the truth that Republicans never dared admit in public: the core Republican goal in establishing the Benghazi Committee was always to damage Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and never to conduct an even-handed search for the facts."

I don't get it, he said nothing of the sort.

Stating the facts that she is untrustworthy, etc in no way speaks to motivation for the investigation. I see nothing he said that refutes the investigation being about getting to the truth.

In other news the count on classified e-mails that were on her server passes 400.

No one is surprised you don't see it, Rip. He could have put up billboards with flashing neon lights outside your bedroom window to no effect.

But to the rest of the world, McCarthy admitted the Benghazi committee fought to prove Hillary was untrustable and not unbeatable.

How many confidential e-mails and directly damaging secret files did Snowden release and the US public simply DID NOT CARE? Way more than 400.

Pyperkub wrote:

"Everybody though Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?" McCarthy asked. "But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought."...

No one would have known any of *what* had happened?

Sure, the email thing is hurting her, but she took her hit on Benghazi years ago. Like literally 3 years ago. With the election far in the future, the only hit she's taking from Benghazi today are from people who were already not fans of hers.

Taking credit for her shitty numbers today is hilarious, because he a) he's claiming the benghazi investigation was a success based on her drop in popularity (this is the part that you can't see Rip. He is literally saying that her poll numbers show the benghazi investigation was a success. Not any actual results of the investigation. Just her drop in popularity) which gives the Hillary camp something to point at about how unfairly they've been after her, and b) because the poll numbers aren't even in response to Benghazi.

What a mah-roon.

Zarathud wrote:No one is surprised you don't see it, Rip. He could have put up billboards with flashing neon lights outside your bedroom window to no effect.

But to the rest of the world, McCarthy admitted the Benghazi committee fought to prove Hillary was untrustable and not unbeatable.

How many confidential e-mails and directly damaging secret files did Snowden release and the US public simply DID NOT CARE? Way more than 400.

Snowden is running for POTUS?

Sure seems like someone cares because he would get nabbed if he went to most places in the world.

Anyway I will play.

For his efforts, about 64 percent of Americans familiar with Snowden hold a negative opinion of him, according to KRC Research poll results shared with U.S. News. Thirty-six percent hold a positive opinion, with just 8 percent holding a very positive opinion.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... poll-finds

I mean sure compared to Hillary I guess you could say he is popular. That said much of what Hillary has going for her is just fame rubbed off from her "husband".

He does have nice numbers internationally. Putin should appoint him UN ambassador just to rub our faces in it.

In Germany and Italy, 84 percent of adults familiar with Snowden view him positively. The figure is about 80 percent in France, the Netherlands and Spain.

edit to add: I do like that I have you comparing Snowden and Clinton though.

Rip wrote:edit to add: I do like that I have you comparing Snowden and Clinton though.

You shouldn't, because I think Snowden is a modern day hero.

That said, after the smear job the US gov put him through, yeah, lots of people know him, and lots of people believe he did something other than what he did (partially from the smear job). Lots of people think he should be executed as a traitor. Those people are insane.

Rip wrote: That said much of what Hillary has going for her is just fame rubbed off from her "husband".

Are you high? She has decades of experience, including 4 years as the United States of America's Secretary of State. Secretary. Of. State.

You can dislike the woman all you want, but try to stay in reality.

Most Americans don't know that Snowden and wikileaks aren't one and the same. The Republicans know that all one need do is keep a drumbeat going.

For her part, Clinton can't help handing them bongos.

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote: That said much of what Hillary has going for her is just fame rubbed off from her "husband".

Are you high? She has decades of experience, including 4 years as the United States of America's Secretary of State. Secretary. Of. State.

You can dislike the woman all you want, but try to stay in reality.

She wouldn't have been any of those things either without the rub.

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote: That said much of what Hillary has going for her is just fame rubbed off from her "husband".

Are you high? She has decades of experience, including 4 years as the United States of America's Secretary of State. Secretary. Of. State.

You can dislike the woman all you want, but try to stay in reality.

She wouldn't have been any of those things either without the rub.

On what do you base that opinion? Because the idea that you can become Secretary of State through cronyism is...well, possible. But NOT likely.

In any case, Bill hasn't been an active member of government in over a decade, so you're basically saying Obama was like "Oh I know her, she was married to that guy. I liked that guy. He was president, wasn't he? Make her Secretary of State. She knows people"

I guarantee that Hillary would have been a force to reckon with even if Bill had never existed. Even I don't claim Bush wouldn't have been president if not for his Dad.

GreenGoo wrote:
I guarantee that Hillary would have been a force to reckon with even if Bill had never existed.

How do I file a warranty claim? Hillary is challenged in the charisma department and not a very good campaigner -- both areas where Bill excels. She is a strong woman who would certainly have had a successful career...I'm just not so sure that politics would have been her calling.

She will rise or fall next year on her own merits, but she wouldn't have gotten there without her partnership with Bill. They're a team, whether they like it or not.

Kraken wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:
I guarantee that Hillary would have been a force to reckon with even if Bill had never existed.

How do I file a warranty claim? Hillary is challenged in the charisma department and not a very good campaigner -- both areas where Bill excels. She is a strong woman who would certainly have had a successful career...I'm just not so sure that politics would have been her calling.

She will rise or fall next year on her own merits, but she wouldn't have gotten there without her partnership with Bill. They're a team, whether they like it or not.

Concurred and I'm not likely to sit through any Rachel Madow propaganda to find out if the context makes me feel like McCarthy admits witch hunting or not.

And how does a republican with the last name of McCarthy during this era extreme right propaganda even get considered for the position of Speaker of the House? That's just an advertisement for the collapse to their power base isn't it?

Agreed. Hillary would have done well for herself without Bill, but I don't think she would have become Secretary of State or the front runner for the presidential nomination (I could see her having worked her way up to becoming a Senator, though, but not in her first election.)

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote: That said much of what Hillary has going for her is just fame rubbed off from her "husband".

Are you high? She has decades of experience, including 4 years as the United States of America's Secretary of State. Secretary. Of. State.

You can dislike the woman all you want, but try to stay in reality.

She wouldn't have been any of those things either without the rub.

It happens.

Holman wrote:

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote: That said much of what Hillary has going for her is just fame rubbed off from her "husband".

Are you high? She has decades of experience, including 4 years as the United States of America's Secretary of State. Secretary. Of. State.

You can dislike the woman all you want, but try to stay in reality.

She wouldn't have been any of those things either without the rub.

It happens.

Spoiler:

Rip wrote:I mean sure compared to Hillary I guess you could say he is popular. That said much of what Hillary has going for her is just fame rubbed off from her "husband".

I don't get it, are you trying to imply that they aren't really married? Or is this just something you and you "son" do for kicks?

Can we get a remedial course over here on how to use quotation marks for Earth 616 Rip?

Kraken wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:
I guarantee that Hillary would have been a force to reckon with even if Bill had never existed.

How do I file a warranty claim? Hillary is challenged in the charisma department and not a very good campaigner -- both areas where Bill excels. She is a strong woman who would certainly have had a successful career...I'm just not so sure that politics would have been her calling.

She will rise or fall next year on her own merits, but she wouldn't have gotten there without her partnership with Bill. They're a team, whether they like it or not.

I was going to say something like good luck trying to enforce that guarantee but was too lazy.

She's not terrible in the charisma department imo, but she is a bit hardnosed, and people tend to be put off by that quality in women. Men too, but people seem more willing to overlook it in men.

While I realize politics is a game of popularity, it's not ONLY a game of popularity, and she's damn good at her job, whatever that job happens to be. And there have been a ton of uncharismatic prominent political leaders, so it's not like it's guaranteed failure. Nixon was president, so clearly charisma is not a requirement, even if it's a nice to have. And as I touched on, I don't necessarily agree that Hillary is devoid of all charisma anyway.

Our current PM has as much charisma as a brick wall.

I think she's got Charisma, but probably on the lower side of presidential nominees (eg, a Romney) and not enough to deal with the "scandals" that shes had to face as effortlessly as Bill did.

(For the most part, they're not scandals, but give the appearance of someone that isn't transparent and is less then authentic)

Defiant wrote:I think she's got Charisma, but probably on the lower side of presidential nominees (eg, a Romney) and not enough to deal with the "scandals" that shes had to face as effortlessly as Bill did.

Agreed.

Unagi wrote:

Rip wrote:I mean sure compared to Hillary I guess you could say he is popular. That said much of what Hillary has going for her is just fame rubbed off from her "husband".

I don't get it, are you trying to imply that they aren't really married? Or is this just something you and you "son" do for kicks?

No I am implying that when you "husband" sleeps with other women more than you the word "husband" becomes a stretch. Maybe beard would be more accurate. Even though that usually refers to the wife of convenience/appearance.

I'm pretty sure adultery doesn't spontaneously cause a divorce in our legal system.

And "beard" (take note, that's how you use quotation marks, my friend)? Is being gay an insult in your mind?

Perhaps the purpose of Hillary running for president is generate excitement for the democratic runners?

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/how-a-te ... 04886.html

This should go in the Sanders thread, but I have too much nana booboo going on in my head to put it there.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy tells Democrats to stop playing politics with Benghazi.

GreenGoo wrote:

Kraken wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:
I guarantee that Hillary would have been a force to reckon with even if Bill had never existed.

How do I file a warranty claim? Hillary is challenged in the charisma department and not a very good campaigner -- both areas where Bill excels. She is a strong woman who would certainly have had a successful career...I'm just not so sure that politics would have been her calling.

She will rise or fall next year on her own merits, but she wouldn't have gotten there without her partnership with Bill. They're a team, whether they like it or not.

I was going to say something like good luck trying to enforce that guarantee but was too lazy.

She's not terrible in the charisma department imo, but she is a bit hardnosed, and people tend to be put off by that quality in women. Men too, but people seem more willing to overlook it in men.

While I realize politics is a game of popularity, it's not ONLY a game of popularity, and she's damn good at her job, whatever that job happens to be. And there have been a ton of uncharismatic prominent political leaders, so it's not like it's guaranteed failure. Nixon was president, so clearly charisma is not a requirement, even if it's a nice to have. And as I touched on, I don't necessarily agree that Hillary is devoid of all charisma anyway.

Our current PM has as much charisma as a brick wall.

The GOP despises it in women, for the most part.

Pyperkub wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Kraken wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:
I guarantee that Hillary would have been a force to reckon with even if Bill had never existed.

How do I file a warranty claim? Hillary is challenged in the charisma department and not a very good campaigner -- both areas where Bill excels. She is a strong woman who would certainly have had a successful career...I'm just not so sure that politics would have been her calling.

She will rise or fall next year on her own merits, but she wouldn't have gotten there without her partnership with Bill. They're a team, whether they like it or not.

I was going to say something like good luck trying to enforce that guarantee but was too lazy.

She's not terrible in the charisma department imo, but she is a bit hardnosed, and people tend to be put off by that quality in women. Men too, but people seem more willing to overlook it in men.

While I realize politics is a game of popularity, it's not ONLY a game of popularity, and she's damn good at her job, whatever that job happens to be. And there have been a ton of uncharismatic prominent political leaders, so it's not like it's guaranteed failure. Nixon was president, so clearly charisma is not a requirement, even if it's a nice to have. And as I touched on, I don't necessarily agree that Hillary is devoid of all charisma anyway.

Our current PM has as much charisma as a brick wall.

The GOP despises it in women, for the most part.

Then this past August, a Platte River Networks employee wrote to a coworker that he was, "Starting to think this whole thing really is covering up some shaddy (sic) s**t."

"I just think if we have it in writing that they told us to cut the backups, and that we can go public with our statement saying we have backups since day one, then we were told to trim to 30days (sic), it would make us look a WHOLE LOT better," the unnamed employee continued.

The email was sent shortly after news emerged that the FBI was looking into the security of the server, and several months after it was revealed that Clinton exclusively used the private account to conduct State Department business.

The employee indicates in the email that Clinton's team asked them to change the back-up duration between October and February, presumably of 2014/2015, though that isn't explicitly stated in the portion of the email included in Johnson's letter.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/07/politics/ ... index.html

You know they're doling it out in bits and bites just to keep you frothing, right Rip?

Unlike you, I'm not hanging on every tidbit of information. The entire process is tedious and the outcome, while interesting and potentially important, doesn't make me gleeful.

Get back to me when they're done and actual conclusions and summaries and outcomes have been arrived at.

This constant "oh, and this email is to Ellen about what she's wearing to the Oscars, but this email is to the Nigerian diplomat" is beyond mind numbing. They are literally boring me so much that I'm gonna stop caring WHAT was in the emails soon, at which point this possible scandal will become a non-issue. I can't imagine I'm alone in that.

Even if you were American, you're not the target demographic.

GreenGoo wrote:You know they're doling it out in bits and bites just to keep you frothing, right Rip?

Unlike you, I'm not hanging on every tidbit of information. The entire process is tedious and the outcome, while interesting and potentially important, doesn't make me gleeful.

Get back to me when they're done and actual conclusions and summaries and outcomes have been arrived at.

This constant "oh, and this email is to Ellen about what she's wearing to the Oscars, but this email is to the Nigerian diplomat" is beyond mind numbing. They are literally boring me so much that I'm gonna stop caring WHAT was in the emails soon, at which point this possible scandal will become a non-issue. I can't imagine I'm alone in that.

So seeking to shorten the retention of e-mails backups to 30 days isn't a very strange request in your world.

If it was your company you wouldn't be worried at all about your liability for deleting backups of a client that was under subpoena?

Either way I would bet anything they didn't delete them. I am happy to wait as well. But when it does eventually come out that there was stuff that was deleted/not turned over that was work related/classified, remember they obviously knew it because they were trying to make it disappear.

It's that I don't care about the minutiae of the investigation Rip. It's not that I think or don't think that this particular bit is damning or not damning. It's that I'm not on the edge of my seat gleefully waiting for her to be crucified or exonerated.

I expect and hope that a non-partisan investigation would take place, with objective results that show that she either crossed a line that ought not to have been crossed, or didn't. Then I want to know about the magnitude of the transgressions, how they impacted national security (or not) and what's to be done about it.

I'm not a member of the investigative team. I'm a dude reading the news. Get back to me when you've got some. And by some, I mean results, not the latest bit of salaciousness (huh. That's a word, according to firefox. Go me. Although usage here is questionable ).

I get that you are excited that Hillary is going to be shown to be the duplicitous bitch you've always known she was, but I don't feel that way and I find the way "journalism" treats these scandals as exploitive and intentionally manipulative to me, the reader.

Listen, if it turns out that she's worse than Hitler, I'll be all "too bad, so sad, don't let the door hit you on the way out Hillary" but in the mean time it would be nice to have someone take the election seriously. With trump getting all the attention on one side of the aisle and an email server getting all the attention on the other side, it's hard to figure out what this election cycle is about. If anything at all.

edit: Grammar and OCD don't play well together.

GreenGoo wrote:salaciousness (huh. That's a word, according to firefox. Go me. Although usage here is questionable ).

salacity is also acceptable.

Rip wrote:

So seeking to shorten the retention of e-mails backups to 30 days isn't a very strange request in your world.

It's not in mine. I deal with requests from legal officials to change backup retention times multiple times a year based on whatever the strategy of the day is.

That being said, this certainly looks bad. As a non-Hillary supporter I'd love to see her pushed out of the race over this, but the Republican frothing still never ceases to amaze me.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... n-20151008

To a casual observer, Hillary Clinton has been refit, redesigned and rolled out about as many times as the rumors dogging her for over 20 years. It's absolutely enervating. People aren't meant to be relaunched as often as phones. With a person, no matter how cosmetic the redesign might be on something that still possesses some kind of core software, the inevitable effect is the delegitimizing of the whole. Repeated insistence on authenticity eventually erodes the truth of even the authentic things you never felt needed defending: the more you begin sentences with, "To be perfectly honest…" the more it sounds like everything you're saying is a lie.

I am shocked, shocked, to learn that Hillary is 100% poll-driven and focus-tested.

Rip wrote:I don't get it, he said nothing of the sort.

Stating the facts that she is untrustworthy, etc in no way speaks to motivation for the investigation. I see nothing he said that refutes the investigation being about getting to the truth.

In other news the count on classified e-mails that were on her server passes 400.

C'mon Rip - when Teggy created the thread we knew exactly what this was about. Heck, it even appears as if a staffer may have been fired for actually trying to be objective and not go after Hillary:

The staffer, Bradley Podliska, who was an investigator on the committee for 10 months, told news outlets Saturday that he planned to file a federal lawsuit against the committee for wrongful termination.

Podliska said that he was terminated, in part, for refusing to focus his investigation on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Rip wrote:I don't get it, he said nothing of the sort.

Stating the facts that she is untrustworthy , etc in no way speaks to motivation for the investigation.

Actually he didn't even say that. He probably thought he was using words from the English language but he was not.

For anyone keeping score, the Benghazi fishing expedition has now lasted longer than the Watergate committee investigations. It long ago outstripped the Iran-Contra investigation and the Warren Commission.