ONCE AGAIN THE IRS SHOWS CONTEMPT FOR WE THE PEOPLE AND DISPLAY THEY THINK THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW …
US Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) ripped into IRS Commissioner John Koskinen during yesterday’s Ways and Means Committee Hearing on the investigation of the IRS targeting conservative non-profit groups and more specifically, the sudden revelation that former IRS head Lois Lerner’s emails disappeared due to a convenient hard drive crash. Ryan said to the arrogant and defiant IRS Commissioner, “I don’t Believe You”.
It’s about time some one put the IRS in its place and defended the American people against this rogue agency.
“You are the Internal Revenue Service. You can reach into the lives of hardworking tax payers and with a phone call, an email or letter you can turn their lives upside down. You ask tax payers to hang on to 7 years of their person tax information in case they are ever audited and you cant keep 6 months worth of employee emails? And now that we are seeing this investigation you don’t have the emails, hard drives crashed. You learned about this months ago and you just told us and we had to ask you on Monday. This is not being forthcoming, this is being misleading again. This is a pattern of abuse, a pattern that does not give us any confidence that this agency is being impartial. I don’t believe you.”
A defiant IRS Commissioner on Friday refused to apologize for the loss of ex-IRS official Lois Lerner’s emails, and said the agency produced what they could, at a combative hearing marked by accusations by Republicans of IRS deceit.
The meeting comes a week after the agency revealed that two years worth of emails to and from Lerner, the ex-official at the center of the tea party targeting controversy, were lost when her hard drive crashed in 2011.
“I don’t think an apology is owed,” chief John Koskinen told Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp after the Republican lawmaker asked for one at the first hearing on the email issue.
But of course the IRS claims they did not conceal anything and did not mislead the committee yet, as discussed at Hot Air, the White House notified of missing IRS e-mail 6 weeks before Congress?
Remember when IRS Commissioner John Koskinen testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform on March 26, 2014 and told Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) during the hearing that former IRS employee Lois Lerner’s emails were archived and not just necessarily in her sent box in Outlook. Koskinen said it would take a long time even as he argued whether he would would would not comply with the House subpoena.
Chaffetz asks IRS Commissioner: “Are you going to comply with subpoena?”
Watergate IRS-gate is a long way from over and the rate this is going with the Obama administration and their cronies attempting to stonewall and have the American people believe the improbable and the impossible, it is going to come to a head right around the 2016 elections.
#YOU LIE!!! Obama Administration’s Claim that Lois Lerner’s Emails Were Lost in Computer Crash, What a Crock of $hit
LIARS … WHY DON’T YOU JUST SAY THE DOG ATE HERE
HOME WORK EMAILS!!!
The IRS stated on Friday that they lost and cannot locate many of Lois Lerner’s emails prior to 2011 because her computer crashed that year. Image that, what a coincidence. House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) suggesting the Obama administration is being dishonest by saying these emails are lost stating, “Isn’t it convenient for the Obama Administration that the IRS now says it has suddenly realized it lost Lois Lerner’s emails requested by Congress and promised by Commissioner John Koskinen?” Ya think? Issa went on to comment, “Do they really expect the American people to believe that, after having withheld these emails for a year, they’re just now realizing the most critical time period is missing?” WHAT A JOKE. Imagine telling the IRS that you lost the necessary paperwork in a computer crash that they are requiring, which is more plausible than an email.
So let’s understand this … the government & NSA has a right to look at your emails, but some how they can’t retain their own? Who honestly believes this bullshit?
Liar, Liar – The Castaways
Liar, liar, pants on fire
Your nose is longer than a telephone wire
Ask me, baby, why I’m sad
You’ve been out all night, know you’ve been bad
Don’t tell me different, know it’s a lie
Come kill me, honey, see how I cry
The Internal Revenue Service says it has lost a trove of emails to and from a central figure in the agency’s tea party controversy.
The IRS told congressional investigators Friday it cannot locate many of Lois Lerner’s emails prior to 2011 because her computer crashed that year. Lerner headed the IRS division that processed applications for tax-exempt status.
The IRS acknowledged last year that agents had improperly scrutinized applications for tax-exempt status by tea party and other conservative groups.
“The fact that I am just learning about this, over a year into the investigation, is completely unacceptable and now calls into question the credibility of the IRS’s response to congressional inquiries,” said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. “There needs to be an immediate investigation and forensic audit by Department of Justice as well as the inspector general.”
The Ways and Means Committee is one of three congressional committees investigating the IRS over its handling of tea party applications from 2010 to 2012. The Justice Department and the IRS inspector general are also investigating.
House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., is suggesting the Obama administration is being dishonest by saying these emails are lost.
I could not agree more with Powerline and their post, Obama Administration’s Claim that Lois Lerner’s Emails Are “Lost” Is Ludicrous. Actually, it is beyond ludicrous, it is an outright lie. Who honestly thinks that emails are kept on your hard drive? They are collected and saved on an email server that has a redundancy of backups. Do they really think we are that stupid? If Lois Lerner’s emails really do not exist, then some one would have had to gone to the email servers and the back up tapes and purposely deleted them. There is a thing in corporate America and government called “DRE”. That is short for “Disaster Recovery Exercises”. All do it to prepare for catastrophic events like fires, floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc to ensure that there is no data lost in case of a disaster and that business can get back up and running ASAP. I should know, I have participated in them for the past 4 years to ensure such efforts are effective. Guess what … emails are apart of that to check list.
The Obama administration’s claim that the IRS has “lost” two years of Lois Lerner’s emails is implausible to anyone who understands how email systems work. This is what the administration said:
The IRS told congressional investigators Friday it cannot locate many of Lois Lerner’s emails prior to 2011 because her computer crashed that year.
This statement, on its face, is silly. Emails are collected on email servers. Each user (e.g., Lois Lerner) has an account on an email server, where that person’s emails are collected. It is common for emails to be deleted from the user’s own desktop or laptop computer, but no one worries about that. When it is time to collect emails–something I do all the time in my law practice–you go to the email server and pull out the user’s entire account. A crash of the user’s computer is irrelevant and will not cause emails to be “lost.”
Further, emails are universally backed up in some other medium, often electronic tape, for long-term storage. Thus, even if an email server is destroyed, or all emails are deleted from a server after a specified length of time, the emails are still recoverable from back-up storage media.
These people are nothing but liars. The IRS would destroy you if you ever came back and said, you did not have the data they are looking for because it is lost. Now that’s what they are claiming … BS!!! This is simply a coverup because it is obviously that there are damning emails that connect the IRS’s Lois Lerner to the Obama White House. If this is the way that government agencies like the IRS are going to conduct themselves and act in a political manner against Americans, no matter if they are on the right or the left, then they must be dismantled and be ended permanently … if a government agency is going to act this rogue, they need to be abolished.
Barack Obama Administration Heard Terrorists Using State Dept. Phones During Benghazi Attacks, Eric Stahl U.S. Air Force Commander Speaks … But What Difference Does It Make
BUT WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE, EH HILLARY?
The information keeps trickling in on Benghazi and what both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were very much aware of as the attacks occurred. The attacks in Benghazi on the US Consulate, that the Obama administration knowingly and falsely blamed on a video tape, where four Americans died including US Ambassador Chris Stevens took place on September 11, 2012. Now we learn that the Obama administration heard terrorists using US State Department phones the night of the attack. UNREAL!
Interview with Fox News and Bret Baier, ‘Special Report’.
Bret Baier: Bottom line, in the alert status you were in, conceivable if they called early enough you could have evaced those people from Benghazi?
Eric Stahl: Absolutely! If they would have called we could have been down there in 3 hours, basically … We could have gone down there and got them easily.
MUST WATCH VIDEO …
The terrorists who attacked the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 used cell phones, seized from State Department personnel during the attacks, and U.S. spy agencies overheard them contacting more senior terrorist leaders to report on the success of the operation, multiple sources confirmed to Fox News.
The disclosure is important because it adds to the body of evidence establishing that senior U.S. officials in the Obama administration knew early on that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and not a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video that had gone awry, as the administration claimed for several weeks after the attacks.
Eric Stahl, who recently retired as a major in the U.S. Air Force, served as commander and pilot of the C-17 aircraft that was used to transport the corpses of the four casualties from the Benghazi attacks – then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, information officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods – as well as the assault’s survivors from Tripoli to the safety of an American military base in Ramstein, Germany.
In an exclusive interview on Fox News’ “Special Report,” Stahl said members of a CIA-trained Global Response Staff who raced to the scene of the attacks were “confused” by the administration’s repeated implication of the video as a trigger for the attacks, because “they knew during the attack…who was doing the attacking.” Asked how, Stahl told anchor Bret Baier: “Right after they left the consulate in Benghazi and went to the [CIA] safehouse, they were getting reports that cell phones, consulate cell phones, were being used to make calls to the attackers’ higher ups.”
Stahl said members of a CIA-trained Global Response Staff who raced to the scene of the attacks were “confused” by the administration’s repeated implication of the video as a trigger for the attacks, because “they knew during the attack…who was doing the attacking.” Asked how, Stahl told anchor Bret Baier: “Right after they left the consulate in Benghazi and went to the [CIA] safehouse, they were getting reports that cell phones, consulate cell phones, were being used to make calls to the attackers’ higher ups.”
A separate U.S. official, one with intimate details of the bloody events of that night, confirmed the major’s assertion. The second source, who requested anonymity to discuss classified data, told Fox News he had personally read the intelligence reports at the time that contained references to calls by terrorists – using State Department cell phones captured at the consulate during the battle – to their terrorist leaders. The second source also confirmed that the security teams on the ground received this intelligence in real time.
Major Stahl was never interviewed by the Accountability Review Board, the investigative panel convened, pursuant to statute, by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as the official body reviewing all the circumstances surrounding the attacks and their aftermath. Many lawmakers and independent experts have criticized the thoroughness of the ARB, which also never interviewed Clinton nor the under secretary of State for management, Patrick Kennedy, a key figure in the decisions about security at the consulate in the period preceding the attack there.
Posted June 12, 2014 by Scared Monkeys
al-Qaeda, Barack Obama, Benghazi-Gate, Epic Fail, Hillary Clinton, Islam/Muslims, Islamist, Jihad, Liars, Libya, Libyan Consulate - Amb. Stevens, Military, Misleader, Misrepresentation, Murder, Radical Islam, Scandal, State Department, Terrorism, The Lying King, Transparency, United States, War on Terror, WTF, You Tube - VIDEO | 3 comments
Jonathan Turley Says Barack Obama is the President That Richard Nixon Always Wanted To Be … Constitutional Tipping Point
THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENT …
Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley went on the Hannity Show and said the unthinkable, or should we say the unmentionable when it comes to Barack Obama, he compared him to Richard Nixon. Jonathan Turley, who mostly supports the policies of Obama, stated that we are at a tipping point constitutionally. Turley went on to call the Obama presidency an “imperial presidency, an uber presidency” and one “where the president can act unilaterally.” Folks, this is coming from a liberal. Then came the money line … “Barack Obama is really the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be.”
People don’t seem to understand that the separation of powers is not about the power of these branches, it’s there to protect individual liberty, it’s there to protect us from the concentration of power. That’s what is occurring here. You know, I’ve said it before, Barack Obama is really the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be. You know, he’s been allowed to act unilaterally in a way that we’ve fought for decades.
SEAN HANNITY: We do have co-equal branches of government, separation of powers. You teach this regularly. You agree with the president politically. For you to say we are at a tipping point constitutionally — now, I agree with you. What does that mean considering our constitution is our rule of law and they are ignoring it?
JONATHAN TURLEY: Well, unfortunately our system is changing, and it’s changing without a debate. Or even a discussion about what we’re going to do in the future when we have a three branch system, a tripartite system but one branch is so dominant. What’s emerging is an imperial presidency, an uber presidency as I’ve called it, where the president can act unilaterally. This is only the latest example of that.
What’s troubling is that we have a system that has been stable precisely because these are limited and shared powers. This president has indicated that he’s just not willing to comply with some of those aspects. He told Congress he would go it alone and in our system you’re not allowed to go it alone.
SEAN HANNITY: If I broke the law, why do I think they would be the first people to hand kickoff me, perp walk me and send me off to jail. This is just my belief system. Paranoia or truth?
JONATHAN TURLEY: Well, I think that the biggest problem we have is that the system itself, if we have a dominant branch, simply begins to shut down in terms of the safeguards. People don’t seem to understand that the separation of powers is not about the power of these branches, it’s there to protect individual liberty, it’s there to protect us from the concentration of power. That’s what is occurring here. You know, I’ve said it before, Barack Obama is really the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be. You know, he’s been allowed to act unilaterally in a way that we’ve fought for decades.
THE SECRET OBAMA-HILLARY MEETING THAT BECAME A LUNCH …
So when is a secret meeting, not a meeting? When it is between current President Barack Obama and wannabe 2016 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. The unannounced lunch came to light thanks to People Magazine, which tweeted a photograph of its Washington bureau chief, political reporter Sandra Sobieraj Westfal and Hillary Clinton. However, People later deleted the tweet after it gained considerable attention among reporters. Not so fast … Washington Examiner White House Correspondent Susan Crabtree got the screenshot of the tweet. The magazine later republished the Tweet, changing “mtg” to “lunch.” So why the secrecy of the
meeting lunch? But the media is never in the tank for libs, are they?
I guess this is just more of that Obama administration transparency. Wow, do we really need a 3rd Obama term? Better yet, can America survive a 3rd Obama term.
Obama tells Hillary, the Grandmother of Obamacare, so then in order to get it passed I told the Sheeple that if they liked their healthcare plan, they could keep it, ah, ha, ha.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a secret lunch with President Barack Obama on Thursday — an unannounced meeting sure to fuel extensive speculation at a time when she’s widely expected to seek his job in 2016.
“The president enjoyed an informal, private lunch with Secretary Clinton at the White House this afternoon,” a White House official told Yahoo News on condition of anonymity.
The get-together was not on Obama’s public schedule. Word of the lunch emerged thanks to People Magazine, which tweeted a photograph of its Washington bureau chief, veteran political reporter Sandra Sobieraj Westfall, standing with Clinton, apparently at the former first lady’s home in Washington
Another Obamacare Swindle on the American Poeple … Tax Payer Bailout for Insurance Companies Who Lose $’s That Provide Coverage Through the Affordable Care Act
ITS THE GIFT THAT KEEPS GIVING IT TO THE AMERICAN TAX PAYER …
Obama administration officials for months have denied charges by opponents that they plan a “bailout” for insurance companies providing coverage under the healthcare law. Here comes a shock, guess what … THEY LIED!!! As reported at the LA Times, in yet another end run around Congress, quietly adjusted key provisions of its signature healthcare law to potentially make billions of additional taxpayer dollars available to the insurance industry if companies providing coverage through the Affordable Care Act lose money. Ever wonder why insurance companies were all in for Obamacare? Looks like they had an out to be paid back for losses through a government bailout courtesy of the American tax payers.
This law should be considered a crime perpetrated on the American people. There was an intelligent, logical and proper way to go about attempting to provide healthcare to Americans who wanted it and make it affordable … THIS WAS NOT IT AND WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE.
The Obama administration has quietly adjusted key provisions of its signature healthcare law to potentially make billions of additional taxpayer dollars available to the insurance industry if companies providing coverage through the Affordable Care Act lose money.
The move was buried in hundreds of pages of new regulations issued late last week. It comes as part of an intensive administration effort to hold down premium increases for next year, a top priority for the White House as the rates will be announced ahead of this fall’s congressional elections.
Administration officials for months have denied charges by opponents that they plan a “bailout” for insurance companies providing coverage under the healthcare law.
They continue to argue that most insurers shouldn’t need to substantially increase premiums because safeguards in the healthcare law will protect them over the next several years.
Posted May 22, 2014 by Scared Monkeys
Abuse of Power, Barack Obama, Chicago-Style Politics, collusion, Congress, Conspiracy, cronyism, Democrats, Government, Healthcare, Imperial President, Liberals, Misleader, Misrepresentation, Obamacare, Obamatax, Tax & Spend Liberals, Taxes, The Lying King, Transparency, WTF | 2 comments
70% of Americans Support Voter ID Laws, Including 51% of Blacks … Why Are Democrats Lawmakers & Obama Against the Will of the American People and Preventing Voter Fraud?
So I guess Democrat law makers and co-called Black leaders would tell you that 70% of Americans are racist.
According to a recent Fox News Poll, 70% of Americans polled agree that there should be voter ID laws passed that required an valid state or federal photo identification in order to be allowed to vote. The survey found that a majority of every demographic supported such a law, including 91% of Republicans, 66% of Independents and even 55% of Democrats. However, many Democratic lawmakers, Black activists and organizations are opposed to strict voter identification laws, claiming they are largely unnecessary and discourage minority voting. They even claim those that would want such a law are hateful, racist and only looking to suppress the minority vote. Of course one needs a valid state or federal ID to cash a check, board an airplane, buy alcohol, obtain a driver’s license at the DMV, any banking transaction including opening an account, obtain SSI disability, buy a gun, donating blood, buy cigarettes, get a US passport, attain unemployment benefits, obtaining a carry gun permit, adopt a child and even buy Sudafed from your local pharmacy. But some how requiring one to do something as important as vote is a burden to minorities. Here is the money line to the poll, 51% of African Americans support voter ID laws, while 46% oppose the laws. Does this mean that the 51% of blacks are racist?
Seven in 10 registered voters are in favor of identification laws in order to root out fraud at the ballot box, according to a Fox News poll released this week.
The survey found majority support in every major demographic, including black voters and Democrats.
The 70 percent who support voter ID laws remains largely unchanged in the past few years. Another 27 percent believe the laws are unnecessary.
The issue has resurfaced recently as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Republicans should not go too crazy over the law because they are offending people, African-Americans in particular.
He later clarified he believes the laws should not be a defining issue for Republicans, and they should be left up to the states to decide. A total of 31 states have active voter identification laws, while a handful of others have recently been struck down in state courts.
The survey found majorities of every demographic support the law. Ninety-one percent of Republicans offer support, and 66 percent of independents feel the same.
Doesn’t make one wonder why when pretty much everything in this country requires a photo ID, including to buy, own and carry a gun (a right protected in the US Constitution) that making sure that there are fair elections with no fraud would be opposed by Democrats? So are they pro-voter fraud? But then again, this is coming from the party that is perfectly fine with letting illegals into the United States and then letting them out of jail after committing crimes. If individuals think that minorities cannot some how get a photo ID, maybe something needs to be looked into that as a problem, rather than calling voter ID laws racist.
As stated at TPPN, “All in all, the case against voter ID laws is not only flimsy, it’s downright laughable in its ridiculousness.”
Barack Obama White House Told Former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to Lie to American People About Social Security Adding to National Debt
TURBO TAX TIMMY SAYS OBAMA WHITE HOUSE TOLD HIM TO LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE …
In his memoir ‘Stress Test’ former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says the Obama White House wanted him to mislead and lie to Americans about the long term costs of Social Security on Sunday talk shows. SOUND FAMILIAR? According to Geithner, the White House communications director specifically told him not to say that Social Security contributes to the national deficit in an upcoming appearance on the Sunday morning talk shows, even though he believes it does, because it might inflame and anger the Democratic base. What, say it isn’t so … the Obama Administration wanted their minions to lie to the American people?!? ‘Pfeiffer said the line was a ‘dog whistle’ to the left, signaling that we [Democrats] intended to protect Social Security. Lies, lies and more lies from the Obama administration that makes everything about politics.
However, before we give Geithner any medals for his truthfulness, maybe he would like to explain why he did not resign? It is a crime what this administration has perpetrated upon the American people. If a Republican presidency had been caught in this many lies and scandals, the MSM would have drummed them out of office.
The White House wanted Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to lie on Sunday talk shows to downplay the part Social Security played in driving the deficit, it was revealed today.
Geithner writes in his memoir Stress Test, out today, that the White House communications director asked him to downplay the long term cost of Social Security spending to mollify the Democratic Party’s base.
‘I remember during one Roosevelt Room prep session before I appeared on the Sunday shows, I objected when Dan Pfeiffer wanted me to say Social Security didn’t contribute to the deficit. It wasn’t a main driver of our future deficits, but it did contribute,’ he says.
‘Pfeiffer said the line was a ‘dog whistle’ to the left, a phrase I had never heard before. He had to explain that the phrase was code to the Democratic base, signaling that we intended to protect Social Security.’
UREAL … How many more lies must the Obama administration be caught in before “We the People” disregard everything that they say?
Hillary Clinton’s State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists … But, Hillary Called the Abduction of the Girls by Boko Haram was “Abominable, It’s Criminal, It’s an Act of Terrorism”
HOW PRESIDENTIAL … Hillary Clinton, I was for not calling Boko Haram terrorists, before I was for it.
Former Secretary of State and 2016 Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has a lot of explaining to do. In the wake of the Muslim Islamist terror group Boko Haram kidnapping nearly 300 girls and threatening to sell them into human sex slavery, Hillary Clinton like many jumped on the bandwagon of outrage. On Wednesday, Hillary Clinton called the abduction of the girls by Boko Haram was “abominable, it’s criminal, it’s an act of terrorism and it really merits the fullest response possible, first and foremost from the government of Nigeria. Clinton went on to say that as Secretary of State she had numerous meetings with Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan and had urged the Nigerian government to do more on counter-terrorism.
Oh contraire mon frère … Hillary Clinton supposedly urged the Nigerian government to do more on counter-terrorism, but as reported at The Daily Beast, Hillary’s State Department refused to brand Boko Haram as terrorists. According to accounts by Josh Rogin, what Hillary Clinton failed to mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the U.N. headquarters in Abuja. The refusal of branding Boko Haram as terrorists came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen senators and congressmen.But of course naming a new group to the terrorist list would have gone against Obama’s reelection talking points that al Qaeda was on the run.
As the folks at Hot Air opines,“Sound familiar? … Now Hillary wants to fight Boko Haram with hashtags. Too bad she didn’t fight them with real resources when she had the chance.”
Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department repeatedly declined to fully go after the terror group responsible for kidnapping hundreds of girls.
The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.
In the past week, Clinton, who made protecting women and girls a key pillar of her tenure at the State Department, has been a vocal advocate for the 200 Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram, the loosely organized group of militants terrorizing northern Nigeria. Her May 4 tweet about the girls, using the hashtag #BringOurGirlsBack, was cited across the media and widely credited for raising awareness of their plight.
What Clinton didn’t mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the U.N. headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen senators and congressmen.
But of course Clinton’s response to these questions will be, we have 300 girls threatened to be sold into sex slavery, what difference does it make that Boko Haram are terrorists.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) Says Democrats May Not Participate in Benghazi Committee, “Colossal Waste of Time” … Rep. Peter King (R-NY) Blasts Boycott of Probe as “Terribly Arrogant” and “Wrong”
Why don’t Democrats want to get to the truth?
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace that he would recommend congressional Democrats not participate in the recently announced Select Committee on Benghazi. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) responded that by doing so would be “terribly arrogant” and “wrong.” King went on to say that, “If Democrats boycott this committee, refuse to take part, the American people are going to conclude, and I think quite rightly, that they feel they have something to hide.” On Friday, House Speaker John Boehner said the House would vote on a select committee to investigate the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) will lead a Select Committee investigation on White House Benghazi scandal.
“I think it is a colossal waste of time … I don’t think it makes sense really for Democrats to participate. It’s just a tremendous red herring, and a waste of taxpayer resources … I don’t think it makes sense for us to give this Select Committee any more credibility than it deserves.”
Imagine that, Democrats think it is a waste of time to get to the truth. As stated by Protein Wisdom, “Democrats make it clear: Obama’s political reputation more important than American lives.” I would also add, protecting Hillary Clinton’s bacon.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said doing so would be “terribly arrogant” and “wrong.”
The call for a boycott was made earlier by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., during an interview on “Fox News Sunday.” He was responding to House Speaker John Boehner’s announcement Friday that the House would vote on a select committee to investigate Benghazi.
The congressman said Democrats should not give the select committee more “credibility” by joining, dismissing new evidence that Republicans have called a “smoking gun” showing the White House politicized the tragedy.
“I think it’s a colossal waste of time,” said Schiff, also a member of the intelligence panel. “I don’t think it makes sense, really, for Democrats to participate.”
King, speaking afterward with Fox News, said this would be a “mistake” for Democrats as it would show they “cannot defend the administration.”
“If Democrats boycott this committee, refuse to take part, the American people are going to conclude, and I think quite rightly, that they feel they have something to hide,” King said.