Why is Trey Gowdy calling for an end to the Russia investigation when his own Benghazi probe went for 2 and a half years and produced no indictments?
What in the hell does the farce of a Russian investigation have to do with the Benghazi investigation?Gowdy is calling for an end to the investigation into Russian / Trump collusion because in the over two years since the JD began their investigation, not one shred of proof of collusion, or conspiracy, or whatever you want to call it, has been uncovered to explain why Hillary Clinton and the Democrats got their ass whipped in the November, 2016 elections.That's actually a very good reason to put the desperate attempts at excuse making and rationalization to rest. I'm thrilled for Mueller that he's uncovering multiple offenses that have absolutely nothing to do with Trump, his campaign, or his victorious bid for the Presidency. Regrettably, that was not the purpose of Mueller's appointment.It's time to wean the petulant left off of their placebo, and get them moving forward into some semblance of an attempt to have them start trying, at least, to become useful members of society and the American political process once again.
Can Russian hacking be Trump's Benghazi and email scandal triggering hearings and press for a long time?
The Question:Can Russian hacking be Trump's Benghazi and email scandal triggering hearings and press for a long time?Probably not, though it will depend on exactly what the Donald actually starts doing in office.Hearings: The Benghazi hearings went on as long and as hard as they did precisely because they were not about finding facts or justice, but about partisan snark-hunting. The Democrats aren’t going to be able to do any such from the position of minority party, and they aren’t going to get out of that position earlier than the 2018 midterms (and even that’s iffy, unless the Donald really humps the bunk pretty hard in his first year, given the GOP’s structural advantages in the House after the 2010 redistricting and the limited number of seats in the Senate likely to be up for grabs then.) If the Dems to recapture the majority, I would absolutely expect a slew of investigations, much as the Dems launched when they finally recaptured Congress at the end of Bush the Younger’s presidency.Press: This is the one that is more in the Donald’s court. Benghazi and the Clinton email scandals had legs not just because of an eternity of Congressional hearings, but because there’s a well-evolved right wing propaganda sphere that began in the early talk radio days and has only gotten more entrenched since and that keeps coming back to these things because outrage sells. The American left wing has … Trevor Noah and John Stewart. That said, while there doesn’t appear to be as solid a left-wing propaganda structure as a right wing one, that may change, as the Donald’s prickly relationship with the mainstream media drives them (further if you’re a Republican, or at all, if you’re a Democrat) towards the left. It may also become irrelevant - if the Donald strays far enough away from the desires of the most right wing parts of his base, that right wing propaganda machine will turn on him, too.
Hypothetically if Russia attempted to invade Pakistan, would the United States support Pakistan?
Nuclear Weapons: To start with Pakistan is a Nuclear Armed nation, and Russian armed forces will have to pay a serious price no matter how powerful they are. Pakistan certainly don't have the range to use Nukes in Russian Mainland, but can surely use tactical nukes against the Invading Russian armed forces. This would cause huge losses to the Russian forces, and would even force the Russians to respond with a retaliatory strike against Pakistan.Pyrrhic Victory: In plain sight, the stakes will too high for Russia, as it has everything to lose and Pakistan has nothing here to lose and will do everything in it's part to defend herself. (Nations develop WMD's for a reason, and that's to defend themselves against threats, and invasions).And to answer your question, no matter whether US helps or not, Russia will never attempt to invade Pakistan, besides Russians have nothing to gain from such an invasion. Holding Pakistan (even if the Russians manage to conquer) would prove tougher than a Nuclear war, since the Jihadists and militias will continue to fight an asymmetric warfare using Terrorist and Guerrilla tactics. In the end Russia could win battles, but could neither win the war, nor will it manage to hold ground after conquest.
Did Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama mishandle the Benghazi attacks?
We've been waiting to hear the explanation the President and Hillary are giving for their role in rescuing the Americans who were attacked in Benghazi and what steps they took to bring our people out safely. I was also wanting to find out what Hillary meant by 'what difference does it make' when she was testifying before Congress? Surely she didn't mean the deaths didn't matter to her? Can we get some clarification?
Do Republicans now understand how Democrats felt when Republicans investigated Hillary Clinton's role in Benghazi for months?
Hee hee hee... You put "republicans" and "understand" in the same sentence.
Why don't the Syrian rebels just surrender and stop killing?
Hussein Obama's ARAB SPRING is a scam. It worked in Egypt and it is working in Libya. The way it works is that the US government under the direction of H ussein Obama arms the "rebels", the rebels overthrow the government and then the rebels take over. Who are the rebels? It turns out like in Benghazi, the rebels are Al Qaeda and other arab terrorists. Hussein Obama is working for them, the Arab terrorists, not for America. Useful idiot Hillary Clinton also said it was a video that the Benghazi terrorist attack was about. Hillary doesn't have a clue what Hussein Obama is doing. Most Americans would never believe that lie after lie can be told with impunity in the country today. The press couldn't figure out what color the sky is unless the ministry of truth tells them the answer.
What is the difference between a "terrorist attack" and "act of terror"?
If it is peddled as arising out of a spontaneous demonstration resulting from a video nobody saw as opposed to a planned attack from a terrorist group who had already "sized up" the lack of security at a consul makes all the difference in the world. Stevens' diary indicated he was on a hit list. How pathetic is it to try to parse words. hehehe The Obama Administration peddled a lie for 14 days. hehehe Act of terror - any crime intended to put fear in the hearts of the victims. Terrorist attack - an act of terror committed by a terrorist group Ted Bundy =/= Al Qaeda hehehe
What will the left do if it is proven that Hillary's private server hack led to the Benghazi attacks?
Can we refer you to Trey Gowdy. He’s a congressman from South Carolina you see on tv. Before he was elected to Congress in 2010 he was a prosecutor and by most accounts an excellent prosecutor. He’s been Hillary’s personal prosecutor for the past few years. He’s had us spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to find something, anything, even a tiny, tiny little offense he can charge her with.But look at Trey now. He looks batshit crazy because he can not even charge her with spitting on a sidewalk. He’s leaving Congress at the end of this term. We can only speculate why.So, hundreds of millions of wasted spending, no crime, and only millions of hours of bad mouthing on Fox fictional entertainment and a rising star of the RWNJ wing of the Republican Party kicked to the curb.At this point, if Hillary’s private server hack is PROVEN, not gossiped about on the looney Fox network or tweeted about by some raving twit, then the left will acknowledge her as the master criminal of all time.