smittyoneeach's Journal: Workin' real hard, wishing I could be surprised

The supposed Benghazi "investigations" touted by some of the tools in these parts were as useless as suspected.

The timeline isn't an official committee report or publication; it's just an informal summary compiled to help members keep dates straight as they assess the State Department's lack of cooperation. The timeline doesn't include every significant date in the Benghazi investigation, but it does give readers an idea of what Republican investigators have been up against as they've tried to uncover the story of Benghazi. What follows is a fleshed-out version of the timetable--in my words, not the committee's--based on information from committee sources.

As an aside, I'd like to forgive fustakrakich for raping my quotation a couple weeks back. I realize it was a troll, but, as with false accusations from other corners, that sort of thing just destroys my interest in engaging on here.
So there's that.

The private email serve is a problem.

[BarbaraHudson]

60,000 emails, half destroyed, makes for bad optics. She's been around the White House long enough to know how things are supposed to work, and that the existence of her private server would eventually leak.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

You're on the wrong conspiracy, there. Smitty is still trying to get President Lawnchair thrown out early, and he's convinced himself that the GOP could run a ficus tree and defeat Hillary so there is no reason to fight against her campaign. Hence he doesn't care about her email, at least not while he's still busy trying to rally the troops to throw out Obama.

Re:

[BarbaraHudson]

Obama won't get "thrown out early" - he's not Tricky Dicky. And if they get rid of Hillary, they're looking at Liz Warren (even though she has continually said she won't run, she may feel obliged to on principle) and/or John Kerry.

Or if the democrats think that Clinton might be risky to run for president, even a Kerry/Clinton team.

We're going to have problems with our federal election this year - the three main parties all have good and bad points - with none of them having enough compelling good points,

Re:

[BarbaraHudson]

Spotted this today [theguardian.com] The Draft Warren folks are looking at a fallback position of her running as VP. Interesting.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Study some really basic animal psychology, and you will understand why Warren doesn't have a chance. She does not appeal to the primitive brain. The democrats will never allow a 'radical' to ruin the party. As an example, look what happened when Lieberman lost the senate primaries in 2006. The party found a way to back him anyway against the nominee voted in by the people, and the rest is history. The party is a waste and a sham, and between them and republicans it just doesn't matter. Everybody here is jus

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The only reason it leaked is because President Lawnchair wanted it leaked because he's jealous.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Blumenthol was hacked a couple of years ago. That it became newsworthy might have been the administration's contribution.

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I've never voted for a Republican.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

You don't worship at the pagan altar of Progress; therefore, you are suspect.

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

True. Never voted for a Democrat either.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

You're not "participating"! Because of *you* Bush won the election.

That is what people tell me. If you don't vote for a democrat, you're a republican, and vicey versey. Anyway, there should never be any doubt that the government has the full consent of the 98% that do vote for republicans and democrats. Those of us that don't could not care less about Hillary's email and the diabolical Dick Cheney. Their only 'crime' is their success.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Those of us that don't could not care less about Hillary's email

I think there are substantial national security issues that transcend party in that case.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Bleh, it certainly wasn't an issue before now. And it won't be when a new distraction pops up in the press. Actually people did blab about it before, but nothing ever comes of it. If the voters are concerned they will vote for the appropriate people. Right now, they, and you are just swallowing more propaganda to regurgitate to the media pollsters. It just doesn't matter. Nothing is going to happen. These stories will be repeated for many years to come. We're looking at business as usual for at least anothe

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

It's an issue for me only because it is a larger sign of political rot in the Democratic Party. But then again, I'm from Oregon, where it has just been revealed that multi millionaires being investigated for influence peddling have been granted *public defenders*, because apparently, despite over $200,000 in income in 2014 alone that failed to be reported to the IRS, they can't afford lawyers.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

The democratic party (republican faction too) is a lost cause, but only because the voters are. They put the crooks in office. I don't care about either faction the party itself, only that they still win votes, and that is only because they successfully exploit the primitive brain, *desires of the flesh*. It's an age old story we are all very familiar with. You only have to look back 85 years. If people can't/won't resist, it doesn't matter what the brand name is on the politicians lapel. NSDAP still sells,

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Yeah, I get that all the time too. What they don't seem to realize is that quite often, Republicans and Democrats are very much clones.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Been saying that for over 45 years. 98% still disagree. That's tribalism for ya. There is no competing with natural instinct. The cortex serves, it does not command.

so out of character

[Bill Dog]

fustakrakich for raping my quotation

I would've never guessed someone like that would do such a thing. I'm sure it was just a fluke. Don't give up hope.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

I suspect him of trolling me, but that didn't turn into being interested in further conversation.

raping my quotation a couple weeks back

[fustakrakich]

I'm afraid, with my short memory, I need a reminder which quote I 'raped'.

And since I'm not voting for Hillary, I also need to ask why I should be concerned with anything she has ever done, whether it's Bengayzee or hotmail, whitewater, whatever... What difference should it make to me? All I know is that she made lots of money for her associates. Is that a bad thing? I believe d_r is the one who be voting for her next year, and then start complaining the way he does for his Obama. Maybe you two can discuss

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

You had elided the word "almost" right here [slashdot.org] and then went with a tired Conspiracy Theorist gag. I forgive you, even if you don't feel anything about it.