New Benghazi E-mails Link White House to Doctoring of Talking Points

[The T]

The revelation that Hillary and Obama didn't want to list Boko Haram as a terrorist group around the same time as this Benghazi massacre is proof they were trying to downplay terrorism growing under Obama's watch.

Oh...after the Benghazi massacre, Obama eventually put Boko Haram on the terrorist list......

Yes he did...and Hillary is out there saying they are NOW when she refused to classify them as such. This is political posturing because the Dems know they are about to have their asses handed to them by the American people that are fed up with them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hey Carbine! Free them and weep!

FINDING #1: In the months before the attacks on September 11, 2012, the IC provided ample strategic warning that the security situation in eastern Libya was deteriorating and that U.S. facilities and personnel were at risk in Benghazi.

Senate Report on Benghazi, Page 10

On July 6, 2012, CIA produced a report entitled "Libya: Al-Qa'ida Establishing Sanctuary." In the report, CIA stated: "Al-Qa'ida-affiliated groups and associates are exploiting the permissive security environment in Libya to enhance their capabilities and expand their operational reach. This year, Muhammad Jamal's Egypt-based network, al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and al-Qa'ida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) have conducted training, built communications networks, and facilitated extremist travel across North Africa from their safe haven in parts of Eastern Libya.

Senate Report on Benghazi, pp. 11-12

As the Accountability Review Board found, there were at least 20 security incidents involving the Temporary Mission Facility, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and third-country nationals and diplomats in the Benghazi area in the months leading up to the September 11, 2012 attacks. The Intelligence Community reported on several of these incidents in finished intelligence reports prior to the September 11, 2012 attacks, including:

April 6, 2012--A small IED was thrown over the wall of the Temporary Mission Facility.

April 10, 2012--An explosive device was thrown at a convoy in Benghazi carrying the head of the UN mission to Libya.

May 22, 2012-- The ICRC building in Benghazi was attacked with RPGs. The Omar Abdul Rahman Brigade claimed responsibility for the attack, according to press, social media and other intelligence.

June 6, 2012--An IED exploded near the main gate of the Mission facility in Benghazi, creating a 9x12 foot hole in the exterior wall. The Omar Abdul Rahman Brigade claimed responsibility for the attack, according to press reporting and a web form.

June 8, 2012--Two hand grenades were placed under two parked UK diplomatic vehicles in Sabha (800 km south of Benghazi).

June 11, 2012--Unknown assailants using two RPGs and small-arms attacked a three vehicle convoy in Benghazi carrying the British Ambassador.

June 12, 2012--The ICRC building in Misratah was attacked by either an RPG or a bomb.

July 17, 2012--Unknown assailants attacked with small arms a three-vehicle armored UN convoy as it left Darnah (250 km east of Benghazi).

July 29, 2012--A number of IEDs are found and defused at the Tibesti Hotel in Benghazi. The Tibesti Hotel is frequented by foreign diplomats and businessmen and was previously used by Ambassador Stevens as a base of operations.

August 1, 2012--The former regime military intelligence building in Benghazi was bombed.

August 6, 2012--Two U.S. military personnel in diplomatic vehicles were forced off the road and attacked near Tripoli.

Senate Report on Benghazi, pp. 13-15

Senate Intelligence Committee report on Benghazi attack - The Washington Post

Findings and Discussion​

1. The attacks in Benghazi were security related, resulting in the deaths of four U.S personnel after terrorists attacked two separate U.S. government facilities-the Special Mission compound (SMC) and the Annex.

Identification of the perpetrators and their motivations are the subject of an ongoing FBI criminal investigation.​

The Board concluded that no protest took place before the Special Mission and Annex attacks, which were unanticipated in their scale and intensity.

-ARB Report, p. 29

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

So much for the video, eh? They were planning this attack for months. So, take your argument and go.

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[The T]

 

[francoHFW]

Hey Carbine! Free them and weep!

FINDING #1: In the months before the attacks on September 11, 2012, the IC provided ample strategic warning that the security situation in eastern Libya was deteriorating and that U.S. facilities and personnel were at risk in Benghazi.

Senate Report on Benghazi, Page 10

On July 6, 2012, CIA produced a report entitled "Libya: Al-Qa'ida Establishing Sanctuary." In the report, CIA stated: "Al-Qa'ida-affiliated groups and associates are exploiting the permissive security environment in Libya to enhance their capabilities and expand their operational reach. This year, Muhammad Jamal's Egypt-based network, al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and al-Qa'ida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) have conducted training, built communications networks, and facilitated extremist travel across North Africa from their safe haven in parts of Eastern Libya.

Senate Report on Benghazi, pp. 11-12

As the Accountability Review Board found, there were at least 20 security incidents involving the Temporary Mission Facility, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and third-country nationals and diplomats in the Benghazi area in the months leading up to the September 11, 2012 attacks. The Intelligence Community reported on several of these incidents in finished intelligence reports prior to the September 11, 2012 attacks, including:

April 6, 2012--A small IED was thrown over the wall of the Temporary Mission Facility.

April 10, 2012--An explosive device was thrown at a convoy in Benghazi carrying the head of the UN mission to Libya.

May 22, 2012-- The ICRC building in Benghazi was attacked with RPGs. The Omar Abdul Rahman Brigade claimed responsibility for the attack, according to press, social media and other intelligence.

June 6, 2012--An IED exploded near the main gate of the Mission facility in Benghazi, creating a 9x12 foot hole in the exterior wall. The Omar Abdul Rahman Brigade claimed responsibility for the attack, according to press reporting and a web form.

June 8, 2012--Two hand grenades were placed under two parked UK diplomatic vehicles in Sabha (800 km south of Benghazi).

June 11, 2012--Unknown assailants using two RPGs and small-arms attacked a three vehicle convoy in Benghazi carrying the British Ambassador.

June 12, 2012--The ICRC building in Misratah was attacked by either an RPG or a bomb.

July 17, 2012--Unknown assailants attacked with small arms a three-vehicle armored UN convoy as it left Darnah (250 km east of Benghazi).

July 29, 2012--A number of IEDs are found and defused at the Tibesti Hotel in Benghazi. The Tibesti Hotel is frequented by foreign diplomats and businessmen and was previously used by Ambassador Stevens as a base of operations.

August 1, 2012--The former regime military intelligence building in Benghazi was bombed.

August 6, 2012--Two U.S. military personnel in diplomatic vehicles were forced off the road and attacked near Tripoli.

Senate Report on Benghazi, pp. 13-15

Senate Intelligence Committee report on Benghazi attack - The Washington Post

Findings and Discussion​

1. The attacks in Benghazi were security related, resulting in the deaths of four U.S personnel after terrorists attacked two separate U.S. government facilities-the Special Mission compound (SMC) and the Annex.

Identification of the perpetrators and their motivations are the subject of an ongoing FBI criminal investigation.​

The Board concluded that no protest took place before the Special Mission and Annex attacks, which were unanticipated in their scale and intensity.

-ARB Report, p. 29

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

So much for the video, eh? They were planning this attack for months. So, take your argument and go.

The video might have THE TRIGGER. Duh. Militias don't need much planning EITHER. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

[francoHFW]

Every other embassy/mission in the ME asked for more security. AND Pubs cut funding...ZZZZZZZZ

 

[Paperman299]

First of all - without irony or sarcasm, I am flattered you went to the trouble of this long post. It's like getting a Valentine.

The only thing I don't like in this well-sourced and sturdily-written post is that it never answers my question. Take my hand; let's skip back through your post together!

Yeah, you fully realize those would be war crimes right? So, are you pissed that Obama did not call for an investigation when he had a super majority? No?

Yes. I am.

Oh, ok. We have dispatched the notion that Bush LIED about WMDS....oh 100,000 times?

Perhaps you have been making that claim, but it is demonstrably false. Bush's lies don't make Obama's lies a wash. However, it is important you understand this historical fact so you can answer my question.

Here is the OFFICIAL REPORT FROM THE UN. I get it, you probably do not know the UN voted 15-0 to get rid of Saddam for at least 17 violation. The existence of wmds was propagated by the democrats long before BOOOOOOOOSH took office. Now, to the findings.....official.


ANNEX B - STATUS OF THE VERIFICATION OF IRAQ'S CHEMICAL WEAPONS PROGRAMME

U.N. Security Council, UNSCOM noted that Iraq's biological warfare program was "among the most secretive of its programs of weapons of mass destruction." It said that Iraq "took active steps" to conceal the program, including "inadequate disclosures, unilateral destruction, and concealment activities." Therefore, the Commission concluded, "it has not been possible to verify" Iraq's statements about the extent and nature of its biological weapons program.

A 58 page annex to the final report describes what the Commission was able to learn about the BW program, despite Iraq's concealment activities, and documents discrepancies between what Iraq claimed to have developed, or destroyed, and the physical evidence. Some of the findings include:

Extensive BW program: Iraq had an extensive BW program from 1973 until at least 1991. In mid-1995, Iraq admitted that it had weaponized BW agents, but claimed that the entire BW program had been in "obliterated" in 1991 and that all BW weapons had been destroyed and all bulk BW agents had been deactivated. The Commission found, however, that the evidence produced in support of this claim was not credible, and that Iraq "retained suitable growth media, BW facilities, production equipment, teams of expert personnel, and the essential technical knowledge" after 1991.

etc etc

Scary stuff. So where was all this stuff when we invaded? Did we find...anything?

No. Bush's own inspectors found jack.

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

The best Bush can say for himself is there was a complete intelligence breakdown. No reasonable person can bring up pre-Iraq War intelligence on Hussein's imaginary WMD's as proof of something.

As to that 15-0 vote, you're confusing the vote for Resolution 1441, which basically amounted to a strongly-worded letter, with a vote to go to war that never happened. When the US put its coalition together for the Iraq invasion, it was actually in breach of the UN charter. As far as the United Nations is concerned, the war was illegal. And no-one in the UN purposefully lied about the intelligence we had. And still, none of this answers my question.

I get all of that is not enough for a brainwashed hack like you. Lets review shall we? Who signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs? Oh let me remind you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=457jp8VGhEE

Here you go, since you probably need more....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSjR9SJVobI

Yeah, perhaps you need more....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoDqN5FRpOE

Fascinating. Firstly, none of these people misreported any of the intelligence that was available to them at the time. Second, all of them insisted on adhering to a policy of containment. Thirdly, they acknowledged the need for unilateral cooperation. "We have to proceed in a practical, prudent, effective way." Why you think any of those videos is an exculpation of Bush is beyond me. Did you figure I wouldn't watch them?

Well, if you are not pissed that Obama did not call for an investigation then that makes you even a bigger piece of shit hypocrite than I say. That would mean you do not give a shit about all of those poor innocent Iraqi citizens.

Hell we already know you are pieces of shit when you call the liberation of citizens from a tyrant an "invasion."

Well, I am pissed Obama did not call for an investigation, so it looks like I've narrowly dodged being a hypocrite today. As to Iraqi civilians, according to the leaked Iraq War Logs, we killed over 65,000 of them in our "liberation."

You have been thoroughly destroyed. I hope every conservative will save this page, and use it every time one of these piles of shit brings up an irrelevant argument like Bush and WMDs when we are discussing the lies of this piece of shit in office now.

Paper boy. You have no debate skills. You are not intelligent. You are a puppet.

You suck.

"Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Every single fact you brought to play was either wrong or misleading. Your assumptions about me have been wrong, your UNSCOM intel was useless, your assertion of UN support was wrong, and your videos are all people advocating the opposite of the actions Bush took! And it was all for nothing, because none of this stuff ever answered my question:

Why are you only just now outraged over perceived government deception? Since I haven't received even one reply, let me make a suggestion: you don't. You want a toy to hit Obama on your TV with, and here one is. That's it.

I'm done here.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AIRQZAgtaE"]Youtube[/ame].

 

[Vigilante]

Every other embassy/mission in the ME asked for more security. AND Pubs cut funding...ZZZZZZZZ

The republicans did not cut security funding specifically, they cut funding for non essential discretionary spending St. Dept. wide not exclusively in Libya. That was a reaction for St. Dept. Parties and junkets.

Marine security guards are available at all US Diplomatic posts, stations, and interests. Their cost is charged to the Marine Corps and DOD budget not State's. The State Department did not avail itself of that no-cost service.

Try to stop hitting the METH before posting!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Too bad historicity has nothing to do with this thread, or why Obama and his White House lied about the deaths of four men. Bush has zero to do with what we are discussing. If you can't get that through your thick skulls, well, there's not much hope for you.

Paperman, you are done here.

 

[Vigilante]

A Benghazi Scandal That’s Already Been Revealed: The CIA Believed A Media Mistake

TIME ^

Here’s an unsolicited tip for Rep. Trey Gowdy: A smoking gun explanation for the Obama Administration’s use of false talking points has already been found. And the culprit is not a White House adviser or State Department bureaucrat. It’s the intelligence community’s reliance on the media. It’s tucked inside the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on Benghazi, which reveals a key source of the bad intelligence that made it into Ambassador Susan Rice’s famous talking points: the media incorrectly reported that before the attack on Sept. 11, 2012 there were protests outside the U.S. facilities in Benghazi when there...

 

[Vigilante]

 

[thanatos144]

I have very good perspective on this.

One of them is similar to the way a witness in a court of law is treated. Once their credibility is gone because they've perjured themselves, everything thing they say from then on should be questioned. You feel that way about Bush so strongly, yet you don't seem to feel that way about Obama. After all, he did say "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", did he not????? He also said this week that health care premiums have gone up slower the last 2 years because of Obamacare. Not only is this not true, but he said that premiums wouldn't go up at all. As a matter of fact he said this program would save us $2500.

If Obama is willing to lie about the little things I'm afraid that he'll lie about everything if the truth sheds him in an unfavorable light. List of Obama's Lies | Barack Obama Lies

It's very unfortunate that Obama lied about 100% of Americans being able to keep their doctor, when the actual number came closer to 98%. And it was very disappointing Obama lied during a debate with Romney, while defending Romney's own healthcare plan against an unbelievable string of falsehoods from Romney himself. There's no saying those things didn't happen. Of course, stories of Obama's lying streak have been greatly exaggerated. Honestly, sometimes I don't think anyone expected more out of Obama than his conservative detractors.

Now stop deflecting. It should be obvious from my posts, but once again for the cheap seats: I'm not talking about Bush and I'm not talking about Obama, I'm talking about you. And all the other Benghazi Truthers: why are you so "outraged" about this specific story, and not Bush's campaign of deception? Not the CIA lying that its "enhanced interrogation" methods were yielding results? There have been so many opportunities to be outraged about incredibly harmful government deception. Where was the outrage then, if you're not just making political hay now?

One word Hypocrites all of em ...........no matter how hard they try the World knows George W BOOSH JR was a **** up & the cons cheered him on

Your such a genius you cant even figure out George Walker Bush isn't a JR.

 

[tinydancer]

Every other embassy/mission in the ME asked for more security. AND Pubs cut funding...ZZZZZZZZ

Give it up franco. All the R's did was to decrease the massive increases.

Too bad the freaking morons running the show couldn't figure out how to transfer a small number of personnel from embassies in places like Toronto/Ottawa/London/Paris/Dublin/Brussels.

What type of moron can't figure out that Libya would need more security than any of those other places?

And I really want to know who authorized a Libyan militia to guard the consulate in Benghazi?

You know. The militia that didn't show up when they were called repeatedly the night those good Americans were slaughtered.

 

[Care4all]

Every other embassy/mission in the ME asked for more security. AND Pubs cut funding...ZZZZZZZZ

The republicans did not cut security funding specifically, they cut funding for non essential discretionary spending St. Dept. wide not exclusively in Libya. That was a reaction for St. Dept. Parties and junkets.

Marine security guards are available at all US Diplomatic posts, stations, and interests. Their cost is charged to the Marine Corps and DOD budget not State's. The State Department did not avail itself of that no-cost service.

Try to stop hitting the METH before posting!

Stevens turned down this security himself, right? Isn't that what Gen Ham said?

 

[Theowl32]

My brother was in the Us Navy on a ship in the Gulf of Tonkin in 64. Never saw the North Vietnamese PT boats that attacked, nor did any of his shipmates. But, that so called "gulf of Tonkin" incident" that started the Vietnam war. It was a phony pretext. We end up losing over 58 thousand Americans as a result. So, years later, in 1967, the Israelis attack and killed 34 American sailors. That was grounds for war. next year, in 68, the North Koreans seize the USS Pueblo and hold the crew captive... Grounds for war...years later, Iranian militants seize American Embassy workers. Grounds for war. Nothing. But, after 9/11, Bush thinks that Sadam MIGHT maybe, perhaps, has weapons of mass destruction...BOOM, lets' don't think twice about it. Bengazi...Really?

Bush... Vietnam, the Israelis, Iranian militants, your brother... none of which are the subject...

Really. Perhaps there is a issue that transcends this insular little topic.

Yeah, well that is all good and cliche driven. Here is what you or the other bleeding heart hypocrites do not get now, nor then. It was about a policy shift in regards to how we deal with perceived threats from abroad following 911.

It was an all encompassing paradigm shift. Your 20/20 vision in NOT FINDING wmds is pathetic, considering there was a country liberated from a tyrant. I swear you liberals are actually making cases that Saddam was just a completely innocent person with no blood on his hands.

I find it funny how the left, who boasts how they are on the side of the poor, down trodden, or abused would sit here and never celebrate the fact that a tyrant was deposed and torture chambers were closed.

It actually does not shock me. Liberals really stand for nothing. Actually to be more clear, liberals take on both sides of every issue. Omit facts, or manipulate information. Anything and all things to make whatever incident fit their narrative.

In the case of Iraq, WMDS existence was propagated by democrats. The Iraq Liberation Act was for WMDs was signed by Clinton. The democrats voted for the war and verbally supported it, until it was no longer politically expedient.

You left wing hacks let them get away with all of it. Regardless of the paradigm shift. Regardless what you saw the mass damage 19 men could cause without a gun. You sit there with your little left wing friends and just hate everything conservative or republican while you let all things left wing and democrat slide.

It is pathetic. The left are double talking hypocrites. It is know it alls like you that allow them to get away with all of their bullshit while they implement their socialist agendas.

You score no points with your little story.

 

[Theowl32]

First of all - without irony or sarcasm, I am flattered you went to the trouble of this long post. It's like getting a Valentine.

The only thing I don't like in this well-sourced and sturdily-written post is that it never answers my question. Take my hand; let's skip back through your post together!

Yeah, you fully realize those would be war crimes right? So, are you pissed that Obama did not call for an investigation when he had a super majority? No?

Yes. I am.

Oh, ok. We have dispatched the notion that Bush LIED about WMDS....oh 100,000 times?

Perhaps you have been making that claim, but it is demonstrably false. Bush's lies don't make Obama's lies a wash. However, it is important you understand this historical fact so you can answer my question.



Scary stuff. So where was all this stuff when we invaded? Did we find...anything?

No. Bush's own inspectors found jack.



The best Bush can say for himself is there was a complete intelligence breakdown. No reasonable person can bring up pre-Iraq War intelligence on Hussein's imaginary WMD's as proof of something.

As to that 15-0 vote, you're confusing the vote for Resolution 1441, which basically amounted to a strongly-worded letter, with a vote to go to war that never happened. When the US put its coalition together for the Iraq invasion, it was actually in breach of the UN charter. As far as the United Nations is concerned, the war was illegal. And no-one in the UN purposefully lied about the intelligence we had. And still, none of this answers my question.



Fascinating. Firstly, none of these people misreported any of the intelligence that was available to them at the time. Second, all of them insisted on adhering to a policy of containment. Thirdly, they acknowledged the need for unilateral cooperation. "We have to proceed in a practical, prudent, effective way." Why you think any of those videos is an exculpation of Bush is beyond me. Did you figure I wouldn't watch them?

Well, if you are not pissed that Obama did not call for an investigation then that makes you even a bigger piece of shit hypocrite than I say. That would mean you do not give a shit about all of those poor innocent Iraqi citizens.

Hell we already know you are pieces of shit when you call the liberation of citizens from a tyrant an "invasion."

Well, I am pissed Obama did not call for an investigation, so it looks like I've narrowly dodged being a hypocrite today. As to Iraqi civilians, according to the leaked Iraq War Logs, we killed over 65,000 of them in our "liberation."

You have been thoroughly destroyed. I hope every conservative will save this page, and use it every time one of these piles of shit brings up an irrelevant argument like Bush and WMDs when we are discussing the lies of this piece of shit in office now.

Paper boy. You have no debate skills. You are not intelligent. You are a puppet.

You suck.

"Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Every single fact you brought to play was either wrong or misleading. Your assumptions about me have been wrong, your UNSCOM intel was useless, your assertion of UN support was wrong, and your videos are all people advocating the opposite of the actions Bush took! And it was all for nothing, because none of this stuff ever answered my question:

Why are you only just now outraged over perceived government deception? Since I haven't received even one reply, let me make a suggestion: you don't. You want a toy to hit Obama on your TV with, and here one is. That's it.

I'm done here.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AIRQZAgtaE"]Youtube[/ame].

It was not an invasion, and you dismiss all of the responsibility of the democrats involvement.

You say nothing about the drone strikes that have killed countless children under your socialist in chief.

Nothing you say impresses me. You are a hack. Deal with it.

Love how you pathetic hypocrites label it as an invasion and not liberation of a country of tortured people. You pathetic morons always go on and on about torture when it comes to water boarding. Of course you pathetic morons never acknowledge, or care that our own soldiers are water boarded in training. Not that you would care, cause those are American soldiers. You only pretend to care about brown terrorists who may have critical information. Considering what one person could do with ONE OUNCE of weaponized small pox or anthrax, it is rather critical.

Like I said. You nor any bleeding heart hypocritical lefty care. You don't.

LOL at you being so pissed at Obama that you do not express it, defend him with all of his blatant lies, and voted for him again. Yeah, but you are so pissed at him. Go ahead and give us your "educated guess" on why Obama did not call for an investigation if it is SO OBVIOUS that Bush deliberately lied which supposedly led to MILLIONS of Iraqis losing their lives. Go ahead, give us your best guess.

Your debate skills suck. You are a hack. You are nothing.

 

[KNB]

Blah blah blah "liberated Iraqis from a tyrant" blah ******* blah blah "paradigm shift" ******* blah blah blah. Rafid al-Janabi admitted that he lied. It doesn't matter what Democrats said. What matters is what Bush did. The Bush administration used Curveball's lies to justify an invasion of Iraq.
https://www.google.com/search?q=curveball+lied&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

The Reagan administration supported Saddam Hussein during the height of his tyrannical crimes against humanity.
https://www.google.com/search?q=gwu+iraq&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb
https://www.google.com/search?q=gwu+torture&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

Republicans loved Saddam Hussein while he was gassing the Kurds but 9/11 (which Iraq was not involved with) changed everything.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

In the case of Iraq, WMDS existence was propagated by democrats. The Iraq Liberation Act was for WMDs was signed by Clinton. The democrats voted for the war and verbally supported it, until it was no longer politically expedient.

.

Are you trying to blame Democrats for the disaster of Iraq, or give them credit for our success in Iraq?

Which is it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The VOTE was 29 FOR 21 AGAINST for you Dimwits.... what don't you understand here?

Have you EVER heard of the House of Representatives?

Shall I ask you the same about the Senate?

I'm fascinated that you don't know we have a bicameral legislature.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm not surprised that Trey Gowdy and the Republicans have exhumed Benghazi as an issue for no other reason than to raise money.