When is enough, enough?

1. 90

   peoplepower73posted 7 years ago

   Jason Chaffetz, the Utah congressman wrapping up his first term atop the powerful House Oversight Committee, unendorsed Donald Trump weeks ago. That freed him up to prepare for something else: spending years, come January, probing the record of a President Hillary Clinton.
   
   When are these people going to the job they were hired for, that is making laws, not going down rabbit holes to prove that Hillary is guilty.  They have already cost the tax payers millions of dollars and they have nothing.  What are they going to do impeach her?  Then they get Tim Kaine as President.  I have done  a lot of research and have come to the conclusion that the Benghazi and email investigation are nothing more than the republican's way of discrediting her.  There should be a law to stop this nonsense and  do the work of the people, not of the republican party.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      lions44posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Mike, I think that's going to change because Utah is changing. Even the Mormon Church is slowly starting to liberalize. HRC will negotiate with Congress, unlike President Obama. That makes a big difference. The only good thing to come out of this election will be the voters' demands to get stuff done. Chaffetz won't have to play to the "Hillary for Prison" crowd anymore.  He's not a bad guy.  But he got caught up in the Benghazi issue, which I really believe is an outgrowth of Obama hatred. 
      
      Don't get me wrong, I'm no Democrat. But a good housecleaning for my party will be a good thing.  First out the door Trump, Gingrich and Giuliani.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         peoplepower73posted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Lions44: We can only hope.

         replyreport
   2. 94

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      umm...policing congress is one of the tasks we give all legislators, and in particular those on the House Oversight Committee.  You know - the one that first came into being in 1816?
      
      Or would you rather depend on the ethics of each congressman and woman to follow the law?  As the FBI explained just a few months ago that isn't going to happen!

      replyreport
      1. 90

         peoplepower73posted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Wilderness:  Here is the article:
         
         http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ … li=BBnb7Kz
         
         It looks like Chaffetz is prepared to spend four years, if necessary to bring Hillary to their so called justice.  Why is Hillary guilty until proven innocent?  In a court of law, you are assumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of your peers.  That's not the case with congressional investigations.
         
         If Hillary is guilty of all of those accusations, why isn't she tried in a court of law? The republican congress has an agenda just like the senate, when they said their mission was to make Obama an one term president. With Hillary, it reminds me of the McCarthy era witch hunts, when he was accusing everybody of being communist.  Finally, they told him, "Have you no shame sir?"
         
         Speaking of law, The law states that any government official who has personal email on a government server may delete said email without violating the law.  Hillary said she had 30,000 personal emails on that server and she was within the law to be able to delete them.
         
         Whether she and Obama lied about Benghazi is based on whether the attack was pre-meditated or it was spontaneous.  In the final analysis, it really doesn't matter.  But they have blown this whole situation out of proportion.  And it looks like if Hillary get elected, they will continue to do so, because they want her to remain guilty for at least the next four years.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            "Why is Hillary guilty until proven innocent? "
            
            Why would you ask that question?  If that were the case she would be in jail.
            
            "If Hillary is guilty of all of those accusations, why isn't she tried in a court of law?"
            
            You tell me - we've all watched as the FBI said she violated the law and we all heard her testimony to congress that she didn't (what Billy got impeached for).  So you tell me - why isn't she in jail?
            
            "Hillary said she had 30,000 personal emails on that server and she was within the law to be able to delete them."
            
            Sure enough.  And some of those that didn't quite take, were partially recoverable, turned out to be governmental, classified emails.  So why isn't she in jail?
            
            But she will always be guilty - after the proof offered by the FBI that shame will never go away.  Jail term or not, she will always be guilty.  What is so difficult to understand about that?  It's hard to understand why she isn't prosecuted as others have been, but it's not hard at all to understand why she's guilty.

            replyreport
2. 90

   peoplepower73posted 7 years ago

   Wilderness:  What she is guilty of with the emails is not being technically savvy.  That's why she used black berry's as a matter of convenience instead of using computers.  The state department didn't have strict policies and procedures for the staff to follow for the handling of classified materials.  She was reckless, but not with the intent of jeopardizing national security or a criminal act.  That is what the FBI report said.
   
   According to her technical people, the emails were deleted by reformatting the hard drives, There are no residual recoverable 30,000 emails.  Trump is blowing smoke.  On the other server there were very few emails that were marked with a C according to the FBI.  She said she was never told what the C stood for.  That's part of not having good policies and procedures in place.
   
   As far as the emails go, what is it that they are looking for?  It was Darrell Issa's idea to look into her emails to tell if she was lying about whether the Benghazi attack was pre-meditated or not.  She said the information was coming in real time and changing rapidly. So she is guilty of being miss-informed and changing her story,...big deal.
   
   They also stated that she did not send any support for the attack.  It turns out the closets assets were in Aviano Italy.  The F-16's were not armed and required in-flight refueling. That required time and  coordination in order to make that happen.  They would have never made it there in time.  So they accuse Hillary and Obama of not even trying to support them. 
   
   There is also a right wing propaganda that there was a naval Air Station in Sigonella  Sicily that was closer.  It turns out the mission of that base was anti- submarine warfare.  They had no aircraft that could of helped, they are all slow lumbering aircraft that are used to hunt down submarines.
   
   Your reference to others being prosecuted is probably in reference to Patraeus.  He was found guilty of passing secret information to his girl friend.  There was hard evidence and he admitted to the guilt.  That's the difference.
   
   So you tell me what is she guilty of what national security did she jeopardize and what are her lies and criminal acts? 
   
   I worked with the National Security Agency and and had a secrete clearance with crypto access.  The only time anyone was allowed access to classified information is if they had a legitimate proven  need to know.  The need to know in the case of the congressional  investigations is purely political.

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      "What she is guilty of with the emails is not being technically savvy."
      
      "If not being technically savvy" means willfully and knowingly violating rules plainly laid out and required for the job, then you are correct.  Otherwise it most certainly went beyond "not being technically savvy".  And I have to think that knowing what to do and refusing to do it does not fall into that category any more than stealing artwork and furniture does.
      
      "The state department didn't have strict policies and procedures for the staff to follow for the handling of classified materials."
      
      It most certainly DID have strict policies and procedures: Hillary Clinton just didn't agree that she was subject to the laws that others were.
      
      "She said she was never told what the C stood for."
      
      She also said she didn't put confidential material on any of her private servers.  Only a blind man would think that she told the truth.
      
      "So you tell me what is she guilty of what national security did she jeopardize and what are her lies and criminal acts?  "
      
      She is guilty of putting classified information on private servers, she is guilty of removing official emails from those servers.  She is guilty of lying to congress and she is guilty of theft from the White House.  All documented and all known: shy isn't she in prison?  But you know all of this - when then the constant denial that she did any of it?
      
      "The need to know in the case of the congressional  investigations is purely political."
      
      Except that the "need to know" isn't what is in those emails: it is that they were sent at all.  There is just a tiny difference there, and yes, congress most certainly has a "need to know" that.
      
      Not real interested in Benghazi; that seems to me to be more a deplorable lack of interest or ability rather than a breaking of the law.  I might be wrong, but doubt it; I think she followed what laws were in effect, but her actions and attitude did nothing to solve a deadly problem.

      replyreport
3. 90

   peoplepower73posted 7 years ago

   Widerness: 
   
   Here is the conclusions of the FBI report.
   
   "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
   
   In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
   
   To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
   
   As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case."
   
   In the next to the last paragraph, they decided not to press charges.  Why because if they did, they would then have to uncover that the state department did not have policies and procedures in place and that past Secretaries of State would also have to be investigated. 
   
   I know  you don't believe the FBI's report, but that mentality is what keeps perpetuating the Hillary investigations for years to come and is the republicans way of poisoning the well.  If she gets elected, she will never be a legitimate president in the eyes of those who have been brainwashed..  They and the right wing propaganda machine have done a wonderful job of delegitimizing her as president.
   
   
   Now it turns out that we really do have national security issues as a result of those investigations.  Tump asked Putin to find the 30,000 emails that were deleted.  That was just an invitation to Russia to start the unprecedented hacking of our electoral system including the Clinton's behind the scene campaign strategy on Wikleaks.
   
   As a result of what Hillary did, what great national security event did she cause that was in the news?...Answer: nothing.  As far as them stealing things from the White House.  Here is what really happened.
   
   http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-s … furniture/

   replyreport
4. 90

   peoplepower73posted 7 years ago

   Wilderness:  I just found this on Facebook. 
   
   http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/06/2 … nce/211259

   replyreport
5. 90

   peoplepower73posted 7 years ago

   Here is the root cause of why Benghazi was not funded properly.  It turns out this is the same guy who wants to continue investigating Hillary for another four years, if she is elected.  He should be removed from office.

   replyreport
6. 90

   peoplepower73posted 7 years ago

   Sorry, if forgot to paste the link.
   
   Here is the root cause of why Benghazi was not funded properly.  It turns out this is the same guy who wants to continue investigating Hillary for another four years, if she is elected.  He should be removed from office.
   
   https://youtu.be/Y6BLMz1chEM

   replyreport
7. 62

   Live to Learnposted 7 years ago

   When is enough enough? I suppose, always after one more foolish attempt to pretend Hillary has done no wrong.

   replyreport