As Clinton testifies it is an education.
 

I watched as much as I could stand and of the course the news media is replaying what they want you all to see.

However....party no matter. She is a case study in behavior. Just watch her eyes. She just cannot make or keep eye contact. Always looking at anything other than the speaker or the camera.

As a lawyer schooled in the art and theatrics of testimony preparation, note how well prepared she is to include some notes to read from dependent on the issue/subject/question.

No matter what or how she reponds she just cannot separate herself from the wrong that is Benhhazi from the oh it was the movie to who read what and did not tell her what. And of course the ever present confidant "who is not a confidant" but she seeks his advice. And on and on.

I could not help but think this is a potential POTUS. Not if one is objective and honest.

For those who are stiffled by party allegiance you obviously have no choice.....right?

She is about as presidential as a kid who just broke the front window or stole the cookies (and the jar).

Some points made:

She knew that the video was not responsible for the attack. She emailed her daughter and someone else this information.
Stevens was ready to leave because of the lack of security. From email from her assistant. She denied that Stevens was having a problem with security.
She said she had nothing to do with security of embassies and didn't approve or disapprove. BS!

A totally wasted day. Politics as usual. Congress accomplishes little or nothing. Our government has regressed to a dictatorship where POTUS uses executive orders to run our country. With this system in place how can anyone wonder why Trump is so popular.

I watched quite a bit of the hearings today, and my impressions.

1. Democrats are going to be happy with Ms Clinton's performance relative to not giving up any sound bites and she DID do a great job in that vein.

2. I cannot speak to her body language, etc but she did maintain her composure.

3. AP already has begun a FACT CHECK...most of what they print thus far is based on "spin" and not lies. One interesting catch is when Ms Clinton said that she never emailed during the day. AP says that at least 1/3 of her emails were sent on workdays between 8 and 6 ! Also interesting is her backing off quite a bit on Blumenthal when caught saying she didnt solicit then hearing emails read showing not the case. Here is the link to the short and quick fact check.

News from The Associated Press

4. The Republicans are playing some political games with the committee, and frankly I find no fault with that. I recall Speaker Pelosi actually bragging about the number of hearings that she had conducted on Iraq. I think perhaps the gaffe made a few weeks ago allowed the Democrats to drop any pretenses and simply ignore Benghazi today and instead spend the time backing Ms. Clinton.

More on my not having a problem with the Republicans making politics out of this. First, has there been any shootings in this country, especially those involving a white policeman and a black male or a mass shooting that was not made into a political issue immediately ?

And of course, her infamous quote from the debate when she called the enemy to be Republicans. Joe Biden sort of cleared the air on that one but she did say it and sure she meant it.

5. I felt and will wait for the pundits to go through it but I think her remarks on the emails were confusing and every changing.

6. Lastly not on Benghazi, but in politics in general. I hope that Paul Ryan election to House Speaker, along with this committee will mark the beginning of a new policy with the Republicans. For so long, and allow me to compliment the Democratic party, the Democrats has been the aggressor. For some reasons the Republicans find that difficult to do. I am hoping that the party will now come together and join the fray.

I am not looking for a fight here; I sincerely believe that the Republicans have been lackeys for years and part of it, maybe the largest part, the lack of unity within the party. I am hoping they will now come together and begin to be more aggressive THAT might bring everyone together once they both are on the attack. Sometimes, it takes that and for so many years, it has been a one way street.

Amen!!!!

This entire thing could have been avoided had it not been an election year when it occurred.

The rush to insure that Obama would not have to answer questions about terrorist attack is what caused the whole thing.

I did not know that Ms Clinton told her daughter and in addition the President of Egypt that it was a terrorist attack with no conditions or buts.

All the while insuring the public was being told something else.

Had that not occured....had those lies not been told, there would have been no committee.

Of course, had there been no committee we would not have known about the emails.

Once again, covering something up causes the problem.

So it is political...it began that way and stays that way.

I watched for a good part of the day....to me it was a bunch of lawyers wording questions in such a way to trip up the one being grilled. I was once grilled like that during a deposition, not fun at all.

Rep. Roby's were you alone all night....so stupid. What did she think perhaps Hillary contacted for the "Boys from Down Under" to come in.

Well thought out and well stated. I agree with nearly all you've said here. My Mrs. watches the NBC morning show so I will see that slant. I will have to search out other perspectives on my own.

So far in the early going this has been a very good thread. Wondering if by the time I check it again in the morning if it will have deteriorated into the normal drivel almost all political post turn into.

The thread and it's intent and the counterpoint thus far will not deteriorate.
But you are right. We shall see how long it takes before the rocks are thrown into the pond.

Hillary clinton was on the prosecuting staff that went after Nixon's Watergate. She has been embroiled in one scandal after another since her days in Arkansas. She has had three years to prepare for the Benghazi hearing and understood that composure was required. so I did not expect a break down and confession so depicted in Law and Order series. Beside which she insulates her self worth well ( "What difference does it make at this point") and would never admit to any act of omission or commission. Recall her role model under oath saying Ï did not have sex with that woman...."

Before the attached there was ample warnings. Even the Red Cross had pulled out of Benghazi before this attack. The Embassy in Tripoli requested more security causing the a joint embassy CIA recommendation in mid August of that year to consolidate personnel into the CIA compound Joint chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey testified that the rising threat of terrorists in Libya was well known. Following the deposing of Gadhafi this part of the world was no backwater for the Obama Administration

The day of the attack Hillary Clinton disappeared. She was no where to be found. She left the building. There is no evidence she nor Obama did anything except monitor the situation
Was Hillary Clinton using her private email server while her desk went empty?
She claims she was fully connected but the records indicate that she spoke only once at 10: PM to the president when he called her concerning the Muslim video tape. A video tape used to explain the fog of war.
How did Hillary Clinton perform as a leader?
Why did she go along with the Obama Administration's specious claim that a video caused this riot when she knew instantly that as not the case?
Why has only one terrorist been identified and nothing even to him has been accomplished since? ( John Bolton WSJ 10/21)


Did Obama's reelection prospects enter into this equation?
Why did Hillary Chousands of emails?
Why does she deflect any responsibility by referring to her subordinates?
Why was she soliciting funds from foreign governments during her years as Secretary of State under the guise of the Clinton Charitable Foundation?

I did not watch the hearing because it was evident that she would perform well and with good reason. Because all she had to do was show up play the victim to a right wing conspiracy and the liberal media would tidy up the rest just as it has done for every single scandal that has come out of this Whit House even before Obama entered it.

Anyone finding solace in Hillary Clinton walking away from this is complicit by omission

No justice no peace

Personal Best Regards

I only watched about an hour of the hearing. As another poster stated, it was asking and re-asking the same questions just in order to see if Sec. Clinton would say another answer. She did an excellent job.

On Bill O'Reilly later on last night, Dana Perino also agreed that the hearings were purely political. She, a Republican, said all Sec. Clinton has to do now is to coast into the Oval Office. That statement left O'Reilly kind of sputtering.

Perino said those that hate Sec. Clinton will not change their minds, those that love her will not change their minds, and there is about a 50-50 split. She said the electoral college votes favor Sec. Clinton by a good percentage.

Good post. I am a Democrat but would love to see more checks and balances-- other than incompetence-- in the Beltway.

Here is a brief take:

Eleven hours and nothing new.
Definitely partisan.
Clinton appeared poised and came out unscathed.
Any plan to discredit her Presidential aspirations may have backfired.

It will be interesting to see poll results following this.

Yet another display of a supposedly high ranking, supposedly capable, supposedly qualified politician to be secretary of state and have ambition to becoming POTUS.

Why do I say supposedly? ANY executive who thinks for one second that they can have something in their area of responsibility go wrong, then be able to in good conscience blame someone who works for them is beyond any intelligent comprehension.

To sit there and say the messages for increased security were handled by an underling!!!!! To even have the gall to state if the messages had gotten to her things might have turned out differently!!!!

Politician or not. Anybody who thinks they are not responsible and accountable for what goes on or not in their organization is not qualified for the job.

Anybody who agrees with her position is not qualified to make any organization judgement.

She demonstrates what has become the hallmark of the current administration...blame someone else....even in their organization.

When she states she did not do anything illegal that side steps the issue of whether what she did or did not do was right or wrong. Lawyers do not care.

They are trained to use, abuse or hide behind the letter of the law.

The political system of phony representation needs an enema. Re-elect no incumbents. Elect no lawyer to any position of fiscal or security position.
Anybody in office for more than two terms to be given notice this is their last assignment.

Just for starters.

If what you are say is true regarding executives being responsible for what goes on in their corporation, did you vote for Rick Scott for Florida governor? He was the CEO of Columbia HCA at the time of the massive Medicare fraud conviction. Scott claimed he knew nothing of the fraud even though the hospital consortium was fined the largest amount in Medicare history.

Just a reminder he took the Fifth 75 times

Attachment 55701

He is a politician.
Why do people elect such folks?

Don't take as defending Hillary. Given the size of the State Department, every ambassador doesn't have a direct line to the Sec. Of State. A former ambassador to Russia stated that the process is to send a cables to State Dept. Given the importance of the cable determines who at State, that it is sent to. If it is of great importance, you send it to someone at State that has a direct line to the Secretary.

The blame game in Washington is a common practice for everyone there. She may have a leg although very shaky to stand on. She will acceot the responsibility for Benghazi, but not the blame. Because the people that take the blame get fired, or her case not elected president.

The Republicans were looking for her to contradict her first appearance at the hearing. She didn't, and they didn't learn anything new. There is a saying, "it is very easy to tell the truth, when you are telling the truth".

She may have been telling the truth along. If that is the case, why prepare three days for the hearing yesterday?

This Benghazi is nothing more than a political witch hunt. As I have stated before, they have the witch to attack. The whole lot of them should be embarrassed with this nonsense. There is no grey area here. As it has been stated, you are either for Hillary or against her. Anybody that was sitting on the fence is back on the fence given McCarty's statements. This hearing can't be taken seriously.

Concerning your last statement about incumbents is right on point. John Kasich was interviewed on Morning Joe this morning. He stated when he and Joe were sent to Congress in mid 90's, they went there to get things done. They weren't worried about getting reelected. They did things that they thought were right. If that cost them their seat, so be it. The absolute opposite is true now. Getting reelected is the only thing that counts now. He also stated that both parties have to work together to get thing done. To do this, you have to stop worrying about getting reelected. He stated , if he is elected president, he can change the current attitude in Congress. It will be hard, and will, take time. Why isn't he, a reasonable person, getting more support among Republicans?

Maybe in their worst day they are better than the political encumbent???:shrug:

I'm not sure I get it....

She stated that she allowed the security experts; the ones on the ground make the call on security requirements for the compound. Also, the CIA had a hand in deciding security requirements and/or requests.

If Hillary had unilaterally decided to increase or decrease security, would most of you not say she should have followed the recommendations of the experts?

I guess you can't have it both ways....Which is it?

Why don't you email Hilary and ask her? :1rotfl:

Every cable sent to the State Dept is addressed to SecState and someone close to her had better be reading them and briefing her on the contents. She has NO/NO excuse for not knowing what is going on.
Every Ambassador is in contact with the SecState. Every embassy I have worked at, required special cables sent directly to the Secstate on a periodic basis, giving a situation report. She has NO/NO excuse, but she sure seems to be able to get over on these yokels that know nothing about how embassies are run.
Hilary Clinton had classified information on an unclassified computer system. I've seen the redacted emails and could still tell by the coding that they were highly classified. She is violation of Federal Law and should be prosecuted. Hopefully we have an FBI that is not as corrupt as our politicians in congress and in the White House.

She also said that she did NOT have anything to do with approving or disapproving of security changes. BS! She is a liar. Anyone that has worked with the StateDept knows how much she is lying and no one in congress can tell because they don't know how the State Dept works.

It appears to me that the so called "security experts" took no action and made no recommendation with regard to the 600+ requests from Ambassador Stevens. In fact, the security force in Libya was reduced from 38 to 9 during Clinton's stewardship at the State Department.

Billary knew that the attack was a planned terrorist attack on Stevens. She even said so in an email to her daughter. She lied to the public, probably on orders from Obama. Both of them insisted that it was due to a video. Funny how that video only had 40 Youtube hits on it, and yet all the attacks on the embassies in Libya and Egypt were supposed to be a result of that terrible video. Immediately violating that guy's 1st Amendments rights, he was snatched out of his home in the middle of the night, reminiscent of the KGB raids in the old Soviet Union.
Billary lied, of course. Anyone voting for her has to be too stupid to tie their own shoes, or just as corrupt and criminal as she is. If that is the best that the Dems have, then they should hide their heads in shame.

Dear Guest: You beat me to it as no on before you addressed this issue. In fact those that claim nothing at all to the hearings do not understand that by virtue of the fact that this new information has been presented is the beginning of the end. This fact is an opening into other areas.

The Committee even the Democrats knew she was going to lie and she was going to present herself as presidential. she had many years to think about it and many months to practice her performance. The Committee has many more witnesses.

People who have never been present in legal or congressional hearings do not understand that question and answer format (Q&A) are a carefully orchestrated event. The Committee already knows how Clinton is going to answer. And Clinton already knows what questions the Committee is going to ask (the known knowns) What the meetings are about is trying to open up the (known unknowns) and that is like building a puzzles or play chess.

I often have wondered why progressives continued with the specious claims that 9-11 was on Bush's watch and so Bush was responsible. Or that WMD were not found and so despite faulty intelligence it was Bush's fault.

Yet 4 people were killed in Benghazi and that Clinton was no where to be found on 9-11 but knew Libya was about to explode. That on that same night told a number of people it was a terrorist attack but blamed a video
As to security her response was to push responsibility downward. None of it her doing. she refuses to this day to own it and yet progressives have the audacity to defend this excuse of a human being.

An honorable leader would in a proverbial sense fall on her sword. Instead she places four families and this nation in turmoil and at great expense because she doesn't know how to tell the truth

Personal Best Regards:

To those on this thread who feel as though Sec. Clinton was not forthcoming in her testimony and does not deserve the Office of President, don't vote for her.

It is relatively easy. Just vote for the Republican nominee or if you do not like that nominee either, stay home and do not vote. Entirely, your choice.

Hillary does not need your vote to win the State of Florida electoral votes. She has it locked with the Democrat blocs in Tampa-Clearwater, Miami-Dade, and Orlando.

Meaning they could care less about the person or qualifications as long as it is a democrat and the freebies continue!

I will most likely vote for Hillary, certainly not Trump nor Carson, and I have never taken a handout of any kind.

If you are pleased with Obama's performance during the last 6 years, you will be ecstatic with Hillary's.

Hillary will be Obama on steroids.

[QUOTE=Guest;1134085]Every cable sent to the State Dept is addressed to SecState and someone close to her had better be reading them and briefing her on the contents. She has NO/NO excuse for not knowing what is going on.
Every Ambassador is in contact with the SecState. Every embassy I have worked at, required special cables sent directly to the Secstate on a periodic basis, giving a situation report. She has NO/NO excuse, but she sure seems to be able to get over on these yokels that know nothing about how embassies are run.
Hilary Clinton had classified information on an unclassified computer system. I've seen the redacted emails and could still tell by the coding that they were highly classified. She is violation of Federal Law and should be prosecuted. Hopefully we have an FBI that is not as corrupt as our politicians in congress and in the White House.[/QUOTE

I don't question what you are saying. However, the former ambassador to Russia contradicts what you are saying. Ambassador Pickering was also in that MSNBC interview, and he never corrected the former Russian ambassador. If what you are saying is right, the yokels that don't know how their embassies works includes the ambassadors.

The FBI is going to have to determine when the classified tag was put on the emails. Since common sense isn't something that is in great supply in Washington, that may be hard to do. She is going to float on the charges, and the FBI are going to be tagged with in the pocket of Obama, and Clinton. A blind man can see this coming.

The IRS just gave their higher ups a free pass on targeting of Tea Party chartable organizations, and they are being tagged with in the bag of Obama. If you lose an argument, just say the other party cheated. It seems to make the loser feel better about himself.

Now that is an ambiguous statement is it not?