• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

New Disclosures on Benghazi - Part II

plague311 said:
The irony of pointing out that a Presidential Candidate may have lied with regards to Benghazi, in the fact of the current political climate, is breathtaking. Actually, factually, breath taking. Wow.
Click to expand...

Candidate? She was the SoS when she lied and Obama was president when he lied.
 
The Gears of Justice Gind Forward!

The heroes at Judicial Watch have secured another stunning victory in their effort to tear back the levels of deceit of the Obama/Clinton cabal regarding the Benghazi coverup.

The Court ordered the State Department to search several Clinton cronies' email accounts regarding information relating to the Benghazi Terror Attack.

Stunningly, the judge found:

[The State Department] has not, however, searched the one records system over which it has always had control and that is almost certain to contain some responsive records: the state.gov e-mail server.
Click to expand...

http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-search-order-00692/

God Bless you Judicial Watch!
 
Argumemnon said:
And yet we're told that the Russia investigation should've yielded results by now if collusion occured.

Consistency!
Click to expand...

Witch hunts only happen against conservatives. If it's against a Democrat, it's the double plus right thing to do.

Perhaps this time it'll stick, and then all democrats can be imprisoned and outlawed forever!
 
There is no Russian investigation in regards to Benghazi.

Any comments on JW's big win?

Or just more Trump Derangement Syndrome.
 
Yawn.

Judicial Watch is an American conservative non-partisan watchdog group that files Freedom of Information Act lawsuits to investigate alleged misconduct by government officials.
Click to expand...


Says it all really.
 
Elagabalus said:
Yawn.

Says it all really.
Click to expand...

Yawn, Copypasta without attribution from wikipedia, that includes an unsubstantiated claim of conservative (that you highlighted) right *********** NEXT to the word nonpartisan (which you did not highlight because of course you didn't) and which footnote includes the following source: James V. Grimaldi (15 July 2002). "Judicial Watch Chairman Polishes Nonpartisan Credentials With Lawsuit Naming Cheney". The Washington Post. Retrieved 16 April 2017.

You know what wikipedia is good at tho:

This
 
Just so I can understand better, perhaps the anti-Clinton posters here can remind me just what they are hoping will be found in the Clinton Benghazi emails that justifies yet another investigation? After all the many Republican led investigations (plus the FBI) over the past years. I realize that The Big Dog will argue that none of these prior investigations, despite the rabid desire of the Republicans to find dirt, were adequate for one reason or another. By his definition of course any investigation that didn't destroy Clinton was inadequate.

Okay, let's say all the prior investigations were defeated by stonewalling, whatever. Just what do the Clinton haters think might possibly be in these emails that would be of any worth or relevance today? Clinton is out of office. She is certainly not a hero in the Democratic Party. She is not going to run for office again. I can see she might be embarrassed by some new revelation. But do her opponents think that there is some email so shocking it will stun the world? Or send her to jail? An email of her telling the embassy security staff to shoot the ambassador or to let him be shot? Even an email suggesting his death be blamed on the video would hardly be earth shattering at this point.

Seriously, what mortal sin might be revealed? Or isn't it time for any rationale person to move on?
 
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets said:
So far we haven't even finished the first Russia investigation.
Click to expand...
If you ask me, there are grounds for an investigation into the first and current investigations.[/quote]
That means there must be at least another 7 to go before we find anything...[/quote]
You're assuming an equivalent case, when there isn't actually anything there. In cases where there is something there it can pop up much sooner.
 
The Big Dog said:
Yawn, Copypasta without attribution from wikipedia, that includes an unsubstantiated claim of conservative (that you highlighted) right *********** NEXT to the word nonpartisan (which you did not highlight because of course you didn't) and which footnote includes the following source: James V. Grimaldi (15 July 2002). "Judicial Watch Chairman Polishes Nonpartisan Credentials With Lawsuit Naming Cheney". The Washington Post. Retrieved 16 April 2017.

You know what wikipedia is good at tho:

This
Click to expand...

Hah! Gotcha! That's the point. My original post had "How can you be conservative AND non-partisan-or liberal and non-partisan for that matter!"
 
Elagabalus said:
Hah! Gotcha! That's the point. My original post had "How can you be conservative AND non-partisan-or liberal and non-partisan for that matter!"
Click to expand...

well if your point was that wikipedia is only worthwhile if you read the citations, then we are in agreement
 
Giordano said:
JSeriously, what mortal sin might be revealed? Or isn't it time for any rationale person to move on?
Click to expand...
We both know that moving on is what this is all about. Moving on into a world where there is only a void where once were Obama and Clinton, and Trump is a reality not a dream, has got to be hard.

It's so hard for Trump he can't do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom