Make the best choices for your Medicare needs with AARP’s Medicare Made Easy. Try it today!

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
88
Views

Re: Benghazi

88 Views
Message 1 of 23

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@easyed598 wrote:

I also understand  they are also going after the corrupt FBI agents  and also  Obama  DOJ personel(Susan Rice etc.)


In the US, any idiot can file a lawsuit for almost anything, it doesn't mean they are going to win.  Judicial Watch's history on both factual reporting and won lawsuits is poor.  I wouldn't get excited about anything this organization does.  Larry Klayman has never been shown to be trustworthy and has actually been banned from several court rooms.


How does the court winning record of Judicial Watch effect the lying of Susan Rice??


Are you assuming that Susan Rice having to give a deposition to the slime that is Judicial Watch is the same as the Government or a law enforcement agency having an interest in talking to her?  It doesn't matter if your answer to that is yes or no, since it is Judicial Watch's lawsuit, THEIR past history and reputation matter.  In both instances, it is bad and they shown a willingness to lie and stretch the truth.


No, she lied - this is not about who she gave any deposition to.


This thread is an attempt to imply that there is something new going on with Benghazi, when this is nothing but several FOIA lawsuits filed by a nuisance organization that loses the vast majority of their cases.  What they are looking for is information about Clinton's E-Mail server.  Since Rice already testified before congress, what new information do you expect them to find?


Not  really new. Rather something that was covered up by the same corrupt elements of the DOJ that attempted to stop President Trump from getting elected and then to hamper his efforts to government?


This has nothing to do with Trump.  Rice already testified before Congress.  Congress already beat Benghazi to death.  Are you implying that the Republican led Congress let all of this happen because thy were secretly for Clinton?  This is nothing but a nuisance lawsuit filed by an organization that like to think they are actually relevant.  I for one, do not want to have to fund our court system so idiots like these can feel important.  The courts have more important work to do.


The Administration's official line was that it was caused by the anti-Muslim video. Hillary had told the Egyptian Ambassador the truth, she told her daughter the truth. But then they told the American people and not long afterwards the families of the deceased their lie.

 

Rice was on all the Sunday shows spreading the lie. She may wall have some information worth hearing. 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
88
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
102
Views

Re: Benghazi

102 Views
Message 2 of 23

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@easyed598 wrote:

I also understand  they are also going after the corrupt FBI agents  and also  Obama  DOJ personel(Susan Rice etc.)


In the US, any idiot can file a lawsuit for almost anything, it doesn't mean they are going to win.  Judicial Watch's history on both factual reporting and won lawsuits is poor.  I wouldn't get excited about anything this organization does.  Larry Klayman has never been shown to be trustworthy and has actually been banned from several court rooms.


How does the court winning record of Judicial Watch effect the lying of Susan Rice??


Are you assuming that Susan Rice having to give a deposition to the slime that is Judicial Watch is the same as the Government or a law enforcement agency having an interest in talking to her?  It doesn't matter if your answer to that is yes or no, since it is Judicial Watch's lawsuit, THEIR past history and reputation matter.  In both instances, it is bad and they shown a willingness to lie and stretch the truth.


No, she lied - this is not about who she gave any deposition to.


This thread is an attempt to imply that there is something new going on with Benghazi, when this is nothing but several FOIA lawsuits filed by a nuisance organization that loses the vast majority of their cases.  What they are looking for is information about Clinton's E-Mail server.  Since Rice already testified before congress, what new information do you expect them to find?


Not  really new. Rather something that was covered up by the same corrupt elements of the DOJ that attempted to stop President Trump from getting elected and then to hamper his efforts to government?


This has nothing to do with Trump.  Rice already testified before Congress.  Congress already beat Benghazi to death.  Are you implying that the Republican led Congress let all of this happen because thy were secretly for Clinton?  This is nothing but a nuisance lawsuit filed by an organization that like to think they are actually relevant.  I for one, do not want to have to fund our court system so idiots like these can feel important.  The courts have more important work to do.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
102
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
110
Views

Re: Benghazi

110 Views
Message 3 of 23

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@easyed598 wrote:

I also understand  they are also going after the corrupt FBI agents  and also  Obama  DOJ personel(Susan Rice etc.)


In the US, any idiot can file a lawsuit for almost anything, it doesn't mean they are going to win.  Judicial Watch's history on both factual reporting and won lawsuits is poor.  I wouldn't get excited about anything this organization does.  Larry Klayman has never been shown to be trustworthy and has actually been banned from several court rooms.


How does the court winning record of Judicial Watch effect the lying of Susan Rice??


Are you assuming that Susan Rice having to give a deposition to the slime that is Judicial Watch is the same as the Government or a law enforcement agency having an interest in talking to her?  It doesn't matter if your answer to that is yes or no, since it is Judicial Watch's lawsuit, THEIR past history and reputation matter.  In both instances, it is bad and they shown a willingness to lie and stretch the truth.


No, she lied - this is not about who she gave any deposition to.


This thread is an attempt to imply that there is something new going on with Benghazi, when this is nothing but several FOIA lawsuits filed by a nuisance organization that loses the vast majority of their cases.  What they are looking for is information about Clinton's E-Mail server.  Since Rice already testified before congress, what new information do you expect them to find?


Not  really new. Rather something that was covered up by the same corrupt elements of the DOJ that attempted to stop President Trump from getting elected and then to hamper his efforts to government?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
110
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
121
Views

Re: Benghazi

121 Views
Message 4 of 23

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@easyed598 wrote:

I also understand  they are also going after the corrupt FBI agents  and also  Obama  DOJ personel(Susan Rice etc.)


In the US, any idiot can file a lawsuit for almost anything, it doesn't mean they are going to win.  Judicial Watch's history on both factual reporting and won lawsuits is poor.  I wouldn't get excited about anything this organization does.  Larry Klayman has never been shown to be trustworthy and has actually been banned from several court rooms.


How does the court winning record of Judicial Watch effect the lying of Susan Rice??


Are you assuming that Susan Rice having to give a deposition to the slime that is Judicial Watch is the same as the Government or a law enforcement agency having an interest in talking to her?  It doesn't matter if your answer to that is yes or no, since it is Judicial Watch's lawsuit, THEIR past history and reputation matter.  In both instances, it is bad and they shown a willingness to lie and stretch the truth.


No, she lied - this is not about who she gave any deposition to.


This thread is an attempt to imply that there is something new going on with Benghazi, when this is nothing but several FOIA lawsuits filed by a nuisance organization that loses the vast majority of their cases.  What they are looking for is information about Clinton's E-Mail server.  Since Rice already testified before congress, what new information do you expect them to find?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
121
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
130
Views

Re: Benghazi

130 Views
Message 5 of 23

The Benghazi attack is just another example of the dangers of American interventionism abroad.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
130
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
138
Views

Re: Benghazi

138 Views
Message 6 of 23

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@easyed598 wrote:

I also understand  they are also going after the corrupt FBI agents  and also  Obama  DOJ personel(Susan Rice etc.)


In the US, any idiot can file a lawsuit for almost anything, it doesn't mean they are going to win.  Judicial Watch's history on both factual reporting and won lawsuits is poor.  I wouldn't get excited about anything this organization does.  Larry Klayman has never been shown to be trustworthy and has actually been banned from several court rooms.


How does the court winning record of Judicial Watch effect the lying of about Susan Rice??


Because Judicial Watch is a gaggle of ninnys whose only function in life is to give GOPers something to talk about, namely their latest baseless harrassment of somebody who has actually accomplished something in life.


This is not about any "gaggle of ninnies". This is about Rice (and Hillary BTW) lying to the American public about the cause for the attack. That is the issue, not GOPers, not ninnies, and not your lengthy litany of the chronology of the attack.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
138
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
141
Views

Re: Benghazi

141 Views
Message 7 of 23

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@easyed598 wrote:

I also understand  they are also going after the corrupt FBI agents  and also  Obama  DOJ personel(Susan Rice etc.)


In the US, any idiot can file a lawsuit for almost anything, it doesn't mean they are going to win.  Judicial Watch's history on both factual reporting and won lawsuits is poor.  I wouldn't get excited about anything this organization does.  Larry Klayman has never been shown to be trustworthy and has actually been banned from several court rooms.


How does the court winning record of Judicial Watch effect the lying of Susan Rice??


Are you assuming that Susan Rice having to give a deposition to the slime that is Judicial Watch is the same as the Government or a law enforcement agency having an interest in talking to her?  It doesn't matter if your answer to that is yes or no, since it is Judicial Watch's lawsuit, THEIR past history and reputation matter.  In both instances, it is bad and they shown a willingness to lie and stretch the truth.


No, she lied - this is not about who she gave any deposition to.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
141
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
143
Views

Re: Benghazi

143 Views
Message 8 of 23

@Snoopy48 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@easyed598 wrote:

I also understand  they are also going after the corrupt FBI agents  and also  Obama  DOJ personel(Susan Rice etc.)


In the US, any idiot can file a lawsuit for almost anything, it doesn't mean they are going to win.  Judicial Watch's history on both factual reporting and won lawsuits is poor.  I wouldn't get excited about anything this organization does.  Larry Klayman has never been shown to be trustworthy and has actually been banned from several court rooms.


How does the court winning record of Judicial Watch effect the lying of Susan Rice??


What lie?


About the video.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
143
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
156
Views

Re: Benghazi

156 Views
Message 9 of 23

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@easyed598 wrote:

I also understand  they are also going after the corrupt FBI agents  and also  Obama  DOJ personel(Susan Rice etc.)


In the US, any idiot can file a lawsuit for almost anything, it doesn't mean they are going to win.  Judicial Watch's history on both factual reporting and won lawsuits is poor.  I wouldn't get excited about anything this organization does.  Larry Klayman has never been shown to be trustworthy and has actually been banned from several court rooms.


How does the court winning record of Judicial Watch effect the lying of about Susan Rice??


Because Judicial Watch is a gaggle of ninnys whose only function in life is to give GOPers something to talk about, namely their latest baseless harrassment of somebody who has actually accomplished something in life.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
156
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
172
Views

Re: Benghazi

172 Views
Message 10 of 23

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@easyed598 wrote:

I also understand  they are also going after the corrupt FBI agents  and also  Obama  DOJ personel(Susan Rice etc.)


In the US, any idiot can file a lawsuit for almost anything, it doesn't mean they are going to win.  Judicial Watch's history on both factual reporting and won lawsuits is poor.  I wouldn't get excited about anything this organization does.  Larry Klayman has never been shown to be trustworthy and has actually been banned from several court rooms.


How does the court winning record of Judicial Watch effect the lying of Susan Rice??


Are you assuming that Susan Rice having to give a deposition to the slime that is Judicial Watch is the same as the Government or a law enforcement agency having an interest in talking to her?  It doesn't matter if your answer to that is yes or no, since it is Judicial Watch's lawsuit, THEIR past history and reputation matter.  In both instances, it is bad and they shown a willingness to lie and stretch the truth.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
172
Views