The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Clinton agrees to testify on Benghazi, emails this month
By ERICA WERNER WASHINGTON©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
24 Comments
Login to comment
Lizz
She is willing ? Or was she compelled ? If it is under oath this could be interesting.
bass4funk
This should be very interesting.
Wolfpack
She will lie and obfuscate - and the corruption in government will go on and no one will ever be held accountable. That's just the way it is. Yes, I am cynical but I have seen too many from both parties go from 'public servant' to ultra-rich to have any illusions. No one is better at this game than the Clinton's. They have gone from pleading poverty after eight years in the White House to having a net worth of over $100 million by simply giving speeches for hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop. Often that money is paid from tax payer supported institutions or by some of the worlds worst dictators. They fly around the world in live in luxury with the money from their 'charity' paying for it all. It's not like those guys that died in Benghazi mean anything to them - 'what difference does it make'?
Lizz
It is all about using business methods and business culture for to solve the world’s problems, such as slowing global warming which I don’t agree with but that is the commercial proposition driving the Foundation’s efforts. By its own admission the Clinton Foundation is not a charity.
I do like Chelsea however. She seems a lot more hands-on and invested in a data driven, sophisticated level of organization than her parents, always talking about tighter governance and budgeting, as well as more comprehensive policies to vet donors and avoid conflicts of interest.“You can’t measure everything,” says Chelsea, “but you can measure almost everything through quantitative or qualitative means, so that we know what we’re disproportionately good at.” And by applying all that she’s learned from her decade of job-hopping, she just may bring order to the CGI organization. Only problem is her mom is going to need to tap these loyal megadonors for campaign cash....
SuperLib
Are they still investigating this?
jerseyboy
Of course they are. The Republicans are desperately looking for something to smear Clinton with even though at least three committees, including ones they led, said there was nothing there on Benghazi. But they know they have to keep the drums beating to satisfy the Tea Party folks and the Kochs, who pull all their strings. Not to mention the folks with foaming mouths over on FOX News.
gcbel
Presumably by those guys you mean the so-called investigating GOPers. In that case you'd be right - not a damned thing. I'll bet you don't remember their names.
I don't particularly like Hillary. I wouldn't vote for her. But you know what she actually said, you know what the context was, you know what she meant. To further repeat this misleading quote is dirty. Since I know you know differently, I can't ascribe to ignorance and I can only question your integrity.
bass4funk
As they should, thank God and while they're at it, they should also look deep into the Clinton's money contributions, where they put Bill out to make one of the worst excuses ever since the Lewnsky debacle. "I have to pay the bills" are you kidding me? These are one of the worst people I have ever seen. But since the Clinton's aren't transparent, we should give them a pass, because her name is Hilary?
Get real! THIS WAS BEFORE ANYONE FOUND OUT ABOUT THE SERVERS! That completely changes EVERYTHING! And NO, she shouldn't get a past because she's a woman and her last name is Clinton. She only turned over the mails SHE wanted to hand over instead of what the committee wanted which was everything and then her server was wiped clean? Why is that? Who does that? Why is she ducking the media? Why won't she answer the questions from the media? Why won't she listen and take the advice of her fellow Dems to be more transparent, give up any and all info to the investigating Senate committee? If she is so innocent of ANY wrongdoing why is she so micro managed by her team? I know many libs don't want to and can't deal with the honest truth. Hilary is in trouble and thinking she's going to sail into the White House and get and expected coronation is drinking far too much Cuervo Gold.
Nice try, but this was never about the Tea Party and FOX. It was all about the dishonesty and blatant disrespect for the truth and transparency with the American people and her polls reflect that.
Laguna
The Benghazi psuedo-scandal will only end when the GOP determines the amount of embarrassment it receives outweighs the meat it provides to its base. That is why Hillary requested that the questioning be open-session: she is well-aware of the game being played. Had the questioning been behind closed doors, the GOP could (and, of course, would - that was the whole point) have spun it on ad infinitum.
Now, for the second time, we'll be privy to the questions and to the answers. I anticipate that this will satisfy the majority of Americans, and further ado will simply serve to damage the GOP in the eyes of the voters.
Oh, and regarding Hillary's income: what ever happened to Romney's tax returns, and what has Jeb been doing with all of that Carribean investment? The GOP really does not want to go there.
bass4funk
That's not how it's looking so far for Hilary, sorry. Again, even the mass media is starting to pile on.
Scripted questioning by selected plants don't count. How about answering ANY and all questions from the entire media as suggested by the NYT, which lasts remembered was a very far left leaning paper.
As it should, if it were the opposite, the Dems would do the exact same thing and they would have every right to.
Recent Business insider poll says, nearly 61% honest describes her only slightly or NOT at all. Nearly 4 in 10 Democrats and more than 6 in 10 independents agreed that honest was not the best word for her. The woman is in serious hot water, has a very serious credibility problem and has a very serious uphill battle and for once, I'm happy that the MSM is finally, finally taking her to task.
First of all Romney is not running, so that's completely irrelevant, second as for Bush, NO one died on his watch and also, he doesn't have a history of scraping servers and taking money contributions from dubious and questionable countries. If the media, the liberal MSM would have suspected Bush of any serious wrongdoing they would have pounded on him a long time ago, on that, I promise you, but if he was involved in doing some shady and dubious deals, it too, should be out in the open, unlike you I'm not in the ideological tank, I'm just tired of 6 years of complete failed liberal polices that have made this country worse off than it's ever been. I just want a leader that puts America first and not political ideology and Hilary is by far the person that we cannot trust, noe should we.
Laguna
Well, it is and it isn't. See, as Bloomberg points out, Jeb has a "Romney problem." Now, I'm not a Hillary fan (though of course I would vote for her over any GOP candidate), but she is a known quantity. Jeb? - not so much. He's richer than the Clinton's, after all - where did his money come from?
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2014-12-11/jeb-bush-has-a-mitt-romney-problem
A second similarity is how wrong right-wingers were when they convinced themselves that Romney was a shoe-in. Despite that vaunted GOP "autopsy" following their last loss, precious little has changed.
SuperLib
GOP panel on Benghazi finds no Obama administration wrongdoing
http://www.latimes.com/world/africa/la-fg-house-benghazi-20141123-story.html
and
I'm not sure why some Republicans are so upset that the public has moved on from this issue. The only recent headlines have been GOP-led investigations that have debunked their own conspiracy theories. What do you expect? And at this point, why do you have so much anger over people thinking this might be a political witch hunt? Surely you can understand their point of view after so many investigations.
toshiko
Hillary people said she will speak only once. Does not sound GOP compelled. She will speakin voluntarily so not under oath, Maybe she want to talk now so that by August, people concentrate on GOP candidate gossips. She is expert in campaign,
bass4funk
Various investments, growing up, he did have a better life than most, but as an adult, he engaged in smart business investment. But again, if there is anything dubious, it will come out, but as of now, Hilary is the one that is in the hot seat and the heat is getting hotter for her, no doubt about it.
That is an absolute lie, NO ONE thought Romney was a shoe in, but at the time, he was seen as the most POSSIBLE candidate that could possibly oust Obama, but there wasn't a lot of enthusiasm in the party for Romney and NOT that he was a bad candidate, he was in fact very good, but the problem was likability and overall persona, didn't warm well with the public that much and he wasn't as nasty and vicious as Obama where he should have been, those were the main contributing factors why he didn't win.
Again that was before the public and the committee knew about the emails and the server, had they known that and if they had access to those servers then we all would know the truth, but as such, since her servers are now wiped clean, we just have to take her word for it? Just like Bill when he said, he never had sex with Lewinsky? You libs try so very hard.
Those people have moved forward, but I am not talking about those, I am talking about the 61% and the independents that care.
Before the servers and emails, that seemed very well the outlook at the time.
How can it be a witch hunt when the Clinton's for over 23 years have a history of lying, dodging, falsifying facts, hiding, erasing evidence. Like the old saying goes, No body, No crime even if there is strong evidence pointing to the fact without a shadow of doubt.
plasticmonkey
bass
Well, almost no one. George Will predicted the electoral count would be 321 for Romney, 217 for Obama.
The problem was that Romney was a relative moderate who tried hard to move closer to the far right rhetoric of his wacko challengers. I suspect the same dynamic will be at play in 2016. It's already happening. Policy wise, the GOP leadership and presidential field are out of step with what most Americans want.
As for Hillary, I'll have to admit there is reason to doubt her integrity on finance issues and her relationship to big money. There is something fishy there. But the Benghazi thing? Come on, give it a rest. It's been investigated over and over, and the bipartisan conclusions have cleared her of any sort of cover up, 'stand down' order, etc.
SuperLib
I just can't imagine another round of "we don't know what we don't know" is going to sell to a skeptical public, especially since so many previous GOP investigations have come up empty. The last report confirmed that the wild talking points on the right about Clinton just weren't true, and now they are asking for our trust again. I think the GOP have damaged themselves on this issue and people aren't as willing to go along with it anymore. Let us know if you find anything, but the rest of us have moved on.
Oh I'm guessing she's greased a wheel or two in her life, same with Bill. All politicians do it, but I suspect the Clintons do it better than most of them. I can't quite put my finger on why I have a hard time supporting Hillary, but that's probably part of it.
bass4funk
I'm sorry, so one pundit on TV counts as the majority and is the voice for all conservative and independents?
At that time, they did have a pool of not the highest quality candidates around, I admit that, but that's very different from now.
I doubt it, the polls are showing more distrust towards Hilary and a growing, a very fast segment of the population think that America is going in the wrong direction, NOT to mention that people think that Obana and his radical policies have been a disappointment for the country and take a look at the Black community under Obama, lower class segment of that community is fairing worse under this president than any other in history.
I agree with you up until the last part. As for Benghazi, so the parents that were promised an answer by the President and the Hilary didn't get a call back or anything, you think that's ok for the WH to make a verbal promise to the families and renege on it because they refuse to answer questions KNOWING they could be incriminating to them personally or their party? Yes, once the parents get the full answers as to what happened on that night and if Hilary would come clean and admit, she cleaned the HD, I would give her props, but I know she won't! You say, give it a rest. Had she turned over EVERY single email, handed over her servers and made them public for everyone to see, then I might have a different attitude. Funny how the documents she did provide, nothing in their on the dates of Benghazi. But she has nothing to hide, eh...
Before we found out about the servers and emails!
Once she hands over her servers unconditionally and all her emails, it'll never be over, nor should it. I would never vote for a person that would lie and have a serious problem with credibility and being truthful and thinking that she deserves the WH because she is a woman or because she dodges any and all questions about Benghazi, but if I were her and KNEW I'm innocent, I would get a glass of water and sit there and answer every question given to me to show my accountability, responsibility and transparency.
Sure, once all the servers and emails are accounted for. By the way, Hilary has other problems that are haunting her besides Benghazi and those chickens are coming home to roost. After we can get a full detailed (might be hard now, she cleaned up the evidence apparently.
Which is a reason why they can't be trusted and are and will always be dodgy.
Well, one person has to....I guess.
nath
Yeah, but to be even more accurate, you would never vote for any democrat under any circumstances whatsoever. So the rest of your reasoning about not voting for Hillary is irrelevant.
bass4funk
Hmmmm, I voted for Clinton twice, ironically if my memory still serves me, is a Democrat, so there goes your argument out the window,.
SuperLib
Actually unless they find a smoking gun, which they won't, then people are just going to keep moving on from the story. Sorry if that disappoints you but it's life.
toshiko
Even she did not campaign in Vegas, she gained more support. So far Vegas moneymen are not giving out money to any GOP candidates or potential candidates, Maybe she knows that no campaigning is more benefitial to be on national votings?
Wolfpack
Oh now I understand where the Dims are coming from, the US ambassador is dead - what difference does it make now? Move on, nothing to see here but a few rotting corpses. Wow, that's pretty cold hearted.
And by the way, there is never a desperate search for something on the Clintons, they smear themselves with some scandal or another on a regular basis. But if America doesn't care about honesty, decency, and a transparent and scandal free government, they will surely elect her. They will just need to keep a close watch on the interns. Imagine Bill roaming the halls of the White House with time on his hands....