Benghazi Hearings Cancelled After Clinton Drops Out of Race

[finehoe]

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Washington was in turmoil on Tuesday morning as a House select committee abruptly cancelled its Benghazi hearings shortly after former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that she was withdrawing from the Presidential race.

Secretary Clinton's stunning announcement came at 9:00 A.M., followed by the committee chairman Trey Gowdy's decision to cancel the hearings at 9:04.

"As you know, we have been preparing for this week's hearings for months," Gowdy said. "However, after meeting with fellow committee members over the past four minutes, we've come to the conclusion that we know all we need to know about Benghazi."

Gowdy flatly denied that the decision to cancel the long-awaited Benghazi hearings had anything to do with Clinton's sudden departure from the race. "We wish her well in whatever her future endeavors may be," he said.

But shortly after Gowdy's announcement, Clinton called an impromptu press conference at 9:13 to announce that she was jumping back into the race. "I was just trying to prove a point," she told reporters, before heading off to campaign stops in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Minutes after Clinton's second announcement, an irate Gowdy called her decision to reenter the race "beyond unethical" and revealed that the committee's investigators had just uncovered fresh evidence about Benghazi.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/benghazi-hearings-cancelled-after-clinton-drops-out-of-race

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Nailed it.

[spuwho]

Too funny!

[pierre]

Borowitz is terrific

[coredumped]

Hmmm, not sure which would be better - her dropping out of the race, or taking accountability for one of her (many) scandals.

All Uncle Joe has to do is throw his hat in the ring and he'll get the nomination - what's he waiting for?!

[Adam White]

Hmmm, not sure which would be better - her dropping out of the race, or taking accountability for one of her (many) scandals.

In this case, in the absence of evidence, it would appear that there is no scandal and any such "scandal" is purely a fabrication for political purposes. I don't think we can actually call this one a scandal until there is actually any evidence to support the claim.

[Adam White]

Hmmm, not sure which would be better - her dropping out of the race, or taking accountability for one of her (many) scandals.

In this case, in the absence of evidence, it would appear that there is no scandal and any such "scandal" is purely a fabrication for political purposes. I don't think we can actually call this one a scandal until there is actually any evidence to support the claim.

Thats never stopped the right wing nut jobs from claiming otherwise adam.  From murdering Vince Foster to the Whitewater Boondoggle to Blowjob Impeachment (which came out of white water, btw) the same old chumps who peddled this kind of nonsense about the Kennedy's have continued peddling the same stuff every time a Democrat gets elected.

True. I think Clinton was the first American President to undergo that level of scrutiny. From day one, there were attempts to dig up dirt on him. He was under constant attack for his entire two terms. It's a shame - no sense of decorum whatsoever. I'm not saying that we shouldn't investigate Presidents if they have done something wrong - but basically launching an open-ended investigation/smear campaign is wrong.

[finehoe]

From day one, there were attempts to dig up dirt on him. He was under constant attack for his entire two terms.

And with the fake Benghazi "scandal" they're attacking before the candidate has even been nominated, much less elected.

[coredumped]

Thats never stopped the right wing nut jobs from claiming otherwise adam.  From murdering Vince Foster to the Whitewater Boondoggle to Blowjob Impeachment (which came out of white water, btw) the same old chumps who peddled this kind of nonsense about the Kennedy's have continued peddling the same stuff every time a Democrat gets elected.

Comon, let's not be biased, at least not be THAT obvious about it. Lewisnky's ex-boyfiend (see what did there?) gave perjured testimony and THAT's why he should be impeached. As far as cheating on his wife, that's a contract between them.
On to the "other woman" (Hilary) - the email thing should also land her in jail. She broke the law (and it's a good law, not smoking pot, etc). Why would you want to ignore the fact they these idiots broke the law, just because they have a "D" next to their name?
Don't get me wrong, Republicans should go to jail for similar things, or if they break the law too, but let's not ignore it because some "demo-tard" (is that how it's done stephen?) did it.

But, vote for her and you deserve what you get...

[Adam White]

Thats never stopped the right wing nut jobs from claiming otherwise adam.  From murdering Vince Foster to the Whitewater Boondoggle to Blowjob Impeachment (which came out of white water, btw) the same old chumps who peddled this kind of nonsense about the Kennedy's have continued peddling the same stuff every time a Democrat gets elected.

Comon, let's not be biased, at least not be THAT obvious about it. Lewisnky's ex-boyfiend (see what did there?) gave perjured testimony and THAT's why he should be impeached. As far as cheating on his wife, that's a contract between them.
On to the "other woman" (Hilary) - the email thing should also land her in jail. She broke the law (and it's a good law, not smoking pot, etc). Why would you want to ignore the fact they these idiots broke the law, just because they have a "D" next to their name?
Don't get me wrong, Republicans should go to jail for similar things, or if they break the law too, but let's not ignore it because some "demo-tard" (is that how it's done stephen?) did it.

But, vote for her and you deserve what you get...

I would argue that Clinton did not commit perjury. He very carefully answered a question based on the definition of "sexual relations" that was provided by the Independent Counsel. Perhaps they should've been more explicit when they decided on the definition. Either way, he didn't commit perjury, as he was acquitted of the charge.

Beyond that, the whole reason he was put in the position to possibly commit perjury in the first place was an abuse of power and an abuse of process by the so-called "Independent Counsel". It never should've happened.

[spuwho]

exactly.

I used to be proud to be a republican  until the party got taken over by bedwetters and liars.

Neither party has been anything to brag about.

[finehoe]

Why would you want to ignore the fact they these idiots broke the law, just because they have a "D" next to their name?

If anyone is ignoring the facts, it's you. The Republican-led House Intelligence Committee completed and released an exhaustive, nearly two year investigation that found no deliberate wrongdoing by the Administration.

This report exonerating the Administration of wrongdoing is one of many investigations into the tragedy. There have already been seven investigations, 13 hearings, 50 briefings, and 25,000 pages of documents have been released.

If a crime was committed, why is it after all these investigations has no one has been indicted or charged?

But that won't stop Republicans from re-re-re investigating Benghazi as a part of a crass partisan ploy to turn out the far-right base in November.

The House Intelligence Committee, led by Republicans, has concluded that there was no deliberate wrongdoing by the Obama administration in the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, said Rep. Mike Thompson of St. Helena, the second-ranking Democrat on the committee. The panel voted Thursday to declassify the report, the result of two years of investigation by the committee. U.S. intelligence agencies will have to approve making the report public. Thompson said the report "confirms that no one was deliberately misled, no military assets were withheld and no stand-down order (to U.S. forces) was given." That conflicts with accusations of administration wrongdoing voiced by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista (San Diego County), whose House Government Oversight and Reform Committee has held hearings on the Benghazi attack.

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/House-panel-No-administration-wrongdoing-in-5663509.php

[finehoe]

Neither party has been anything to brag about.

But the Republicans have a lot to be truly ashamed of.

[coredumped]

Finehoe, you're fooling yourself if you think both parties aren't corrupt, bought and sold.

[spuwho]

Why would you want to ignore the fact they these idiots broke the law, just because they have a "D" next to their name?

If anyone is ignoring the facts, it's you. The Republican-led House Intelligence Committee completed and released an exhaustive, nearly two year investigation that found no deliberate wrongdoing by the Administration.

This report exonerating the Administration of wrongdoing is one of many investigations into the tragedy. There have already been seven investigations, 13 hearings, 50 briefings, and 25,000 pages of documents have been released.

If a crime was committed, why is it after all these investigations has no one has been indicted or charged?

But that won't stop Republicans from re-re-re investigating Benghazi as a part of a crass partisan ploy to turn out the far-right base in November.

The House Intelligence Committee, led by Republicans, has concluded that there was no deliberate wrongdoing by the Obama administration in the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, said Rep. Mike Thompson of St. Helena, the second-ranking Democrat on the committee. The panel voted Thursday to declassify the report, the result of two years of investigation by the committee. U.S. intelligence agencies will have to approve making the report public. Thompson said the report "confirms that no one was deliberately misled, no military assets were withheld and no stand-down order (to U.S. forces) was given." That conflicts with accusations of administration wrongdoing voiced by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista (San Diego County), whose House Government Oversight and Reform Committee has held hearings on the Benghazi attack.

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/House-panel-No-administration-wrongdoing-in-5663509.php

I wont deny there hasnt been a lot of political posturing with regards to Benghazi.  However, just like any case, if new evidence is located on any supposed crime, they reopen, examine, and decide.

The guy running the house committee said on FTNation Sunday that Hillary wasnt in the current scope of the discussion. It was about the release of several emails by Ambassador Stevens that the committee had never examined previously.

I mean geez, they re-examined the Warren Report on Kennedy years later because new technology gave them new information that wasnt available previously.

If your son was murdered wouldnt you want the authorities to examine evidence, especially if it was new?

So yes it has that huge political eye all over it, but new evidence demands some kind of review.