Trey Gowdy and the Real Lesson of Watergate

[1776]

Gowdy to Clinton "Did you or did your DoS deny the Ambassador's request to keep the DoD security team in place and the request for additional security at the compound?"

Gowdy to Clinton "Did your DoS have a contingency plan in place for 9-11 for every USEMBASSY on this planet? Especially one in a terrorist haven like Libya?"

Gowdy to Clinton "Did you change the talking points? If not, then who did?"

 

[MACAULAY]

What is your version of what you told those parents in front of their son's caskets?

Are those parents telling untruths when they said you would get the video maker for causing their son's death.

By the time you were telling that tale to the parents in front of their son's caskets, the World knew the video had no contribution and that it was a pre-planned terrorist attack. So, why did you do it?

And, then she will start to spin and twist, maybe pitch a hissy fit like she did before Congess, where these questions weren't asked, because of a lack of knowledge, and incompetency...and Gowdy will have plenty of knowledge and is highly competent...and in that next hour or so, Gowdy will end her Presidency

Which is why there is going to be the damndest battle to keep her away from a deposition. It starts with calling everybody who thinks she ought to explain herself...birthers or nutters or any of the other epitaphs Socialists and Loons have learned to use when they cannot defend the point under discussion.

Socialists and Loons rum like a deer from a discussion on the merits.

 

[L.K.Eder]

What a piece of crap. Go knit a sweater

 

[Two Thumbs]

Interesting history
links in article at site


1973 Democrats blocked investigation of LBJ.


SNIP:
It is the real lesson of Watergate.

As South Carolina’s Congressman Trey Gowdy, the new chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, begins his task, it is worth recalling a lesson from Watergate. Specifically a lesson about the creation of what became known as the Senate Watergate Committee — and how the Senate Republicans of 1973 lost a fight that literally changed the course of American history.

The date is November 17, 1972. The Democrats in the United States Senate are not happy with the results of the just concluded presidential election in which their nominee and Senate colleague, South Dakota’s Senator George McGovern, had lost 49 states — all but Massachusetts and the District of Columbia — to President Richard Nixon.

In the middle of the campaign — back in June — the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee had been burglarized. Among other things, the objective was to bug the phones to monitor the DNC Chairman, ex-JFK and LBJ White House aide Lawrence O’Brien. The story had been a detail of the campaign, but a small one. Not until October had the story gained any kind of traction, moving in a bigger way from print media and the hands of the Washington Post’s young reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein to television. Walter Cronkite at CBS had spent two nights in a row on the scandal, a big deal in a day where the three TV networks only had a single half-hour news show at the dinner hour. There were strands of a story — a connection between Nixon’s re-election committee, the story of an intelligence fund at the committee. And not much else. The news reports had no effect whatsoever on Nixon’s impending landslide victory.

During that campaign there had been a Senate election in Montana, a re-election campaign for the state’s junior senator Lee Metcalf, a Democrat. His senior colleague and fellow Democrat Mike Mansfield, out campaigning hard for Metcalf, had seen the news reports on the burglary. Understanding that McGovern was about to go under in a tidal wave, Mansfield told Montana voters that when the election was over he would go back to Washington and “pave the way” (his words) for an investigation not just of the Watergate break-in but the whole business of campaign financing.

The importance? Mike Mansfield was not just a run-of-the-mill U.S. Senator. He was the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate. The Harry Reid of his day.

Mansfield kept his vow. On November 17 he wrote two letters. One to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Eastland of Mississippi. The other to another Judiciary member and Democrat, North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin. Mansfield’s flat assertion? That Republicans had manipulated the presidential election of 1972 with a “cynical and dangerous intrusion into the integrity of the electoral processes by which the people of the nation choose the trustees of federal office…”

On February 5, 1973 Mansfield went out with his resolution to create what was formally titled the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities. It would soon become known to history as the Senate Watergate Committee.

The Republican response?

If in fact the Democrats really believed that it was critical to investigate what Mansfield had called a “cynical and dangerous intrusion into the integrity of the electoral processes by which the people of the nation choose the trustees of federal office” then that was fine by them. Game on. Immediately they offered an amendment to include in the new Select Committee’s purview not just the 1972 election — but the 1968 and 1964 presidential elections as well.

Why? Specifically.

• 1964 and the Johnson-Goldwater campaign: Under the orders from President Lyndon B. Johnson, the White House was used as the headquarters of a dirty tricks “Anti-Campaign” operation — with the FBI used to wiretap the Goldwater campaign.

As Lee Edwards would later describe in his biography Goldwater: The Man Who Made a Revolution:

ALL of it here with COMMENTS HERE
Trey Gowdy and the Real Lesson of Watergate | The American Spectator

 

[MACAULAY]

What a piece of crap. Go knit a sweater

______________________________________

Here....like this.

This is your typical Socialist/Loon response.

Although, I admit I have not previously been told to knit a sweater....it is typical in that it runs like a deer from the issue.

 

[Howey]

Gowdy to Clinton "Did you or did your DoS deny the Ambassador's request to keep the DoD security team in place and the request for additional security at the compound?"

Gowdy to Clinton "Did your DoS have a contingency plan in place for 9-11 for every USEMBASSY on this planet? Especially one in a terrorist haven like Libya?"

Gowdy to Clinton "Did you change the talking points? If not, then who did?"

a. Stevens wasn't in the embassy.

b. Congress refused additional security funding for embassies. According to Republican Chaffetz, 'You Have To Prioritize Things'.

Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'

'You Have To Prioritize Things'

I just wanted to post that quote again. Hillary didn't say it, did she?

Incredible the security of our ambassadors isn't a "priority" to republicans, isn't it?

 

[L.K.Eder]

Sorry, kevin. Was busy laughing at op.your bullshit hasn't even been read yet, and won't be.

 

[depotoo]

And almost all of them have raised more questions.
Kind of hard to complete an investigation properly when documents and witnesses are withheld.

I'll bet the Republicans appreciate all the ominous warnings from Socialists and Loons about persistent questions into the Benghazi matter. Uber-Loon Pelosi has warned them to stay away for their own good.

I think they ought to persist in asking the questions until they get an answer other than "the question is not worth answering", or "trust us".

And Pelosi offering advice to Republicans "not to go there" is the clearest possible evidence that something is afoot--in this case a cover-up.

Why would any American citizen not want to know why Hillary The Wide waddled up to a grieving parent and, right in front of the casket of his dead son, told him that they were going to get the man that made the video that got his son killed---knowing it to be a lie. And that is exactly what the evidence indicates, at least to me....I can't tell what the Socialists and Loons think.

Anyone who does such a thing, is depraved...has a malevolent character...and is not fit to be President.

Are we not to inquire into whether she is fit to be President because she is running for President?

That's what Pelosi is telling us. It is typical of the nonsense that comes out of her mouth.

But, I think they are scared shitless....and with good reason.

There have been seven committee's on Benghazi. There have been numerous briefings. Depositions have been taken by the truck load and the facts stay basically the same. Do you really think an eighth committee hearing is going to change anything.
More and more you people are sounding and behaving like the birthers. "Any day now the truth will come out. Any day it will be shown Obama is a Kenyan. Any day the birth certificate will be exposed as a phony. Any day Obama will be impeached or forced to resign. Any day now ................"
The bottom line is the people do not give a shit about Benghazi. They are concerned about jobs, the economy, health care, equal pay for equal work, minimum wage, immigration, and a branch of Congress that refuses to look at the real problems this country is facing. Ask any working person in this country which is more important: Benghazi or their wages and health care. I doubt if you will get 1 in 10 who will say Benghazi.

 

[MACAULAY]

And just above is a reasonable response....the kind that the Socialist/Loon will run from.

 

[depotoo]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meIL1QaOt1s]Lack of Budget Not a Factor in Benghazi Security Decisions - YouTube[/ame]

How ridiculous you look when the State Dept. has already stated budget had nothing to do with the lack of enough security. You know, tge ones that actually dealt with the budget. Your saying so doesn't make it factual, just as the Dems dire predictions of the millions of jobs that would be lost due to the sequester.

Gowdy to Clinton "Did you or did your DoS deny the Ambassador's request to keep the DoD security team in place and the request for additional security at the compound?"

Gowdy to Clinton "Did your DoS have a contingency plan in place for 9-11 for every USEMBASSY on this planet? Especially one in a terrorist haven like Libya?"

Gowdy to Clinton "Did you change the talking points? If not, then who did?"

a. Stevens wasn't in the embassy.

b. Congress refused additional security funding for embassies. According to Republican Chaffetz, 'You Have To Prioritize Things'.

Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'

'You Have To Prioritize Things'

I just wanted to post that quote again. Hillary didn't say it, did she?

Incredible the security of our ambassadors isn't a "priority" to republicans, isn't it?

 

[MACAULAY]

I think they have all gone off to look for greener pastures....for low information posters.