Democrats Accuse Gowdy of Politicizing Investigations

Editor’s Note – Democrats are accusing Rep. Gowdy, Chairmen of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, of using the investigation for fundraising. Elijah Cummings and his troops are once again trying to take the focus off of Hillary.

Once again, they are doing a great disservice to those they represent; all for political ends in their now famous protection racket tactics.

The Democrats are doing their best to find something—anything—to puncture Gowdy’s image. Guilt transference to keep America in the dark and confused. Shameful…

Democrats Try to Erode Gowdy’s Standing on Benghazi

By Ben Geman – National Journal

For Republicans probing Benghazi and Hillary Clinton’s private email use, Rep. Trey Gowdy’s just-the-facts-ma’am approach has been a shield against charges that it’s a nakedly political investigation.

But Democrats are doing their best to find something—anything—to puncture that image.

So now they’re pointing to the Select Committee on Benghazi chairman’s comments about the probe at a GOP event over the weekend. Gowdy spoke to the National Federation of Pachyderm Clubs, an organization of local GOP clubs that held a convention in Chattanooga.

download (1)

Gowdy lauded Tennessee Republican Rep. Chuck Fleischmann for the Appropriations Committee push to withhold some State Department funding until the agency is more responsive to document demands from Gowdy’s panel.

“We have tried public shame, it didn’t work. We have tried threats and subpoenas and letters, that hasn’t worked.

What has worked is when we partnered with our friends on Appropriations and let the State Department and other agencies know: Your money will be cut if you do not provide us with documents,” Gowdy said to applause near the beginning of his remarks at the event.

 Correct The Record, which is a pro-Clinton super PAC, and Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the Benghazi panel, pounced on the comments, which were reported by theChattanooga Times Free Press.

“Trey Gowdy has politicized his investigation to benefit Republicans, proving that his Benghazi investigation is a political hit job against Hillary Clinton—nothing more, nothing less,” said Correct the Record President Brad Woodhouse, a longtime Democratic strategist and operative, on Monday.

Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, has sought to distance himself from Republican efforts to politically wound Clinton over Benghazi and her use of a private email server while secretary of State.

In March, Gowdy backed out of a planned GOP fundraiser in Richmond, Virginia, after finding out that the event would feature a discussion about Benghazi.

Later that month, The New York Times reported that Gowdy (among some congressional Republicans) was frustrated by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus citing the email controversy to attack the Democratic frontrunner.

But Cummings and Correct The Record alleged that Gowdy’s comments represented fundraising on behalf of Republicans, noting that the National Federation of Pachyderm Clubs describes itself as an “allied” organization of the Republican National Committee. Registration for their convention was $150-$200.

benghazi 9-11

“Republicans continue to use the deaths of four brave Americans in Benghazi as a political rallying cry and fundraising tool, which is offensive, reprehensible, and contrary to the promises we made to the loved ones of those who were killed during the 2012 attacks,” Cummings said.

The GOP group and Gowdy’s aides dismissed the criticism, flatly disputing the allegation that it represented GOP fundraising.

“Associations and groups regularly charge fees to attend conventions to help offset expenses. Our convention included eight meals and many speakers.

Chairman Gowdy was not paid for his appearance, nor did we raise money at the luncheon at which he spoke. Rep. Elijah E. Cummings and the Democrats are flat-out wrong,” said Holly M. Lintner, the executive director of the National Federation of Pachyderm Clubs.

She and Gowdy’s committee office noted that Benghazi came up only briefly in Gowdy’s remarks to the convention.

Jamal Ware, a spokesman for Republicans on the Benghazi panel, defended his comments about efforts to force the State Department’s hand with the appropriations bill.

“Many news outlets have reported on a recent appropriations bill that withholds non-security related funds to incentivize the State Department to ensure the American people and Congress gain access to what should be public records,” Ware said.

“Chairman Gowdy noted this fact in his speech. If some do not see the importance of government transparency for the people and don’t think it should be mentioned, then that is their own issue, but Chairman Gowdy believes in it.”

Alan Keyes – GOP Complicit in Benghazi Coverup

Editor’s Note – Much is owed the men who sacrificed their all at Benghazi.  This is especially the case concerning uncovering the truth in getting to the answers to the critical questions of the families of “THE BENGHAZI FOUR”. Is the GOP complicit, you decide! After all, why has it taken so long?

GOP COMPLICIT IN BENGHAZI COVERUP

What did they know and when did they know it?

By: Alan Keys – WND Exclusive

“They seek to hide and distract attention from their faction’s collaboration with key elements of the global infrastructure of terrorism (including, in connection with al-Qaida, the very forces responsible for the 9/11 attacks in the U.S.)” 

In a post published on my blog in May 2013, I wrote about the Obama administration’s Benghazi cover-up: “They seek to hide and distract attention from their faction’s collaboration with key elements of the global infrastructure of terrorism (including, in connection with al-Qaida, the very forces responsible for the 9/11 attacks in the U.S.)”

unnamed (11)

I thought of this as I read Jerome Corsi’s report about the declassification of documents showing that the Obama administration aided the rise of ISIS. In the article Mr. Corsi quotes Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, who observed:

“If the American people had known the truth – that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaida terrorist attack from the get-go – and yet lied and covered this fact up – Mitt Romney might very well be president.

These documents also point to connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists.”

Fitton concludes by saying that the declassified documents “show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits.”

But back in 2013 when I wrote about the purpose of the Benghazi cover-up I also noted the incongruous reaction of key GOP leaders in Congress:

Sen. John McCain cheerfully smiles upon Hilary Clinton despite the lies deployed at the behest of officials subject to her authority. Rep. Darrell Issa inscrutably declares that neither Obama nor Clinton are targets of the search for truth about the Obama administration’s decision to leave an American ambassador naked to our enemies.

This contributes to a ‘business as usual’ atmosphere in which it is supposed to be unthinkable to consider the possibility that the ambassador’s fate is a portent of the fate intended for the American people and our way of life.”

article-2203298-1504F5A5000005DC-604_634x588

I’m sure that some of you assume that the nonchalance of the GOP’s leaders has a simple explanation: They were simply unaware of the Benghazi station’s role in shipping supplies to the anti-Assad jihadists in Syria.

My experience dealing with national security affairs makes that hard for me to believe.

To be sure, things may have deteriorated enormously since my government service during the Reagan years.

But given the obvious political repercussions, it makes sense to assume that Obama and Hillary Clinton would take steps to cover their political backsides by making sure a few key leaders in the U.S. House and Senate were brought into the loop.

After all, Saudi Arabia was probably a key player in the effort to supply the Sunni Muslims opposing Assad and his Shiite Iranian backers.

People such as those Rand Paul recently decried as “the hawks in my party” might very well have appreciated the cold-blooded nerve required for a policy of helping our enemies in al-Qaida destroy our enemies in Syria. (Just to be clear, I think Netanyahu got it right during his recent visit: Sometimes the enemy of our enemy is still our enemy.)

They might also have reveled in the thought that Obama and Clinton were the ones who would have to “take one for the team” (in this case the elitist faction interests they all serve) if and when the Benghazi cover story was blown.

Well, that cover is blown. The GOP’s habitually self-serving quisling leadership want us to accept the line that it was all Hillary Clinton’s fault. This despite the fact that the secretary serves at the pleasure of the person who occupies the Oval office.

Barack Obama bears the ultimate responsibility for the use or abuse of the U.S. government’s executive power. Barack Obama must have approved his secretary of state’s collaboration with America’s terrorist enemies.5ad3e9df1bb623026b0f6a706700c349

Barack Obama must have signaled his assent to the years of stonewalling required to prevent the Benghazi cover-up from unraveling prematurely.

But what if the GOP leadership had deployed the impeachment process to launch a national inquest into what can be portrayed as traitorous policies, giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States? Would the truth have come to light sooner?

Would it have come out in time to prevent ISIS thugs from murdering a multitude of innocent Christians, Yazidis and even fellow Muslims? Would it have come in time to keep ISIS from graduating out of the junior leagues (to which Obama snidely assigned them) to become a major threat that is now extending itself to reach within the borders of the United States?

Who knows? All we know for certain is that the GOP leadership steadfastly, adamantly refused to meet their constitutional responsibility. If their excuse is ignorance, why did they reject the most effective means to remedy their ignorance?

What if they did so precisely because key GOP leaders in Congress knew something of the U.S. government’s role in supplying arms to the anti-Syrian jihadists? What if they did so because, by laying off Obama and his cohorts, they were averting scrutiny from their own complicity?

 

Given this possibility, critical questions cry out for true answers: Were key congressional leaders briefed on the Benghazi operation? If so, what did they know and when did they know it? If so, is their guilty complicity still preventing an effective U.S. response to the regime of atrocious terrorism that now threatens to blight what’s left of decent order in a world now descending into a sinkhole of fanatical violence?

In last week’s column, I reacted against the view that effective oversight exists in the U.S. government to prevent NSA’s mass data collection activities from threatening the constitutional rights, privileges and immunities of people in the United States.

Is that the same “effective” oversight meant to assure that the U.S. government’s covert activities do not verge into atrocity and treason?

If oversight failed, with literally atrocious results, when it comes to the Obama faction’s scheme to arm our terrorist enemies, what reason have we to believe it is succeeding when it comes to upholding the constitutional provisions that secure liberty itself?

Media wishing to interview Alan Keyes, please contact media@wnd.com.

Gowdy Letter to Clinton Lawyer – 2 Appearances Now

Editor’s Note – As the recent bombshells dropping in anticipation of Peter Schweizer’s book “Clinton Cash,” the pressure is mounting on the Clinton campaign and the Clinton Foundation.

Last month the pressure was on Gowdy as well, when he apologized for taking six months to subpoena her emails.

With the new revelations about the Clinton Foundation’s practices and her possible ‘influence peddling,’ coupled with her refusal to appear privately for transcribed testimony, he has ratcheted up the pressure to force her to appear openly in front of the nation now.

It is clear, her emails are pertinent to Benghazi, but now all her emails may reveal much more about Libya and her foundations actions. There may even be a tie to Benghazi. We all anticipate the release of the book; it should be eye-opening.

Trey Gowdy asks Hillary Clinton to appear twice on emails, Benghazi

The House Committee investigating Benghazi is asking Hillary Clinton to appear for two public hearings on the 2012 terrorist attacks and her email use, according to a letter sent to her lawyer on Thursday.

HillaryBill.ClintonCash.FatigueThis is a departure from what Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy originally requested from the former secretary of state.

The South Carolina Republican wanted a private, transcribed interview on Clinton’s email use and a public hearing on the terrorist attacks.

But Clinton had refused to appear in private to take questions on her use of a private email address while at the State Department.

Her lawyer, David Kendall, had insisted that Clinton was prepared to take questions about her emails, the server that stored them and the Benghazi attacks during a single, public hearing.

Gowdy wrote to Kendall Thursday saying the committee plans to schedule a hearing by the week of May 18 on the emails.

“If that hearing results in assurances the public record is indeed complete, the Committee will schedule Secretary Clinton’s public hearing with respect to the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi no later than June 18, 2015, with specific date being selected after consultation with you,” Gowdy wrote.

Gowdy added in the letter that he is still willing to hold a private hearing on the emails if Clinton has security concerns about answering sensitive questions in public.

This is a departure from what Gowdy originally requested from the former secretary of state. | AP Photo
This is a departure from what Gowdy originally requested from the former secretary of state. | AP Photo

The hearings, if they occur, would generate intense scrutiny on Clinton and the congressional Republicans questioning her.

Democrats will be on watch for any overreach on the part of the panel’s seven GOP members.

Any Clinton appearance on the Hill would spark a media frenzy; her recent entrance into the 2016 presidential race promises to only exacerbate it.

Gowdy said in the letter he wants to quickly schedule Clinton so her interviews are not a protracted affair.

“With her cooperation and that of the State Department and administration, Secretary Clinton could be done with the Benghazi Committee before the Fourth of July,” said Gowdy.

“It is necessary to call Secretary Clinton twice because the committee needs to ensure we have a complete and responsive record and all the facts before we then substantively question her on the Benghazi terrorist attacks.

McCarthy – Obama ISIS "Management" – A National Discussion?

Editor’s Note – So what will our illustrious leader, President Obama, tell us tonight regarding ISIS, Iraq, Syria, and terror threats the day before the second anniversary of Benghazi and the 13th anniversary of 9/11/01?

Are we in for a ‘fireside chat’, or a ‘come to Jesus moment’, maybe this is when Obama becomes an adult, not just a bad actor trying to look Presidential? Only the teleprompter knows! The irony of this moment is palpable – especially when we see the image below of his speech from 2010 declaring the end of our Iraqi combat mission – he looked like an adult then, didn’t he?

President Obama delivers an address to the nation on the end of the combat mission in Iraq from the Oval Office August 31, 2010
President Obama delivers an address to the nation on the end of the combat mission in Iraq from the Oval Office August 31, 2010. The irony is palpable indeed.

Does anyone think he will manage this mess in the Middle East well? Doubtful, the reason things are so bad across the globe now are directly attributable to his inability to manage to begin with. Of course, no matter what actions he chooses to take, we are all supposed to back him as he does. We are supposed to unite behind our “Commander-in-Chief” aren’t we?

The old axiom of leaving politics at our shoreline was crossed off the list by Obama himself beginning with his 2009 Cairo speech and his apology tour, so forgive us if we have no faith in his ability to manage any foreign policy, let alone a war, especially in regard to anything Islamic.

If you have family in the military now, like many of us, be very worried – we do not have to explain why, now do we? Using Obama and the word management in the same sentence is clearly an oxymoron, now isn’t it?

We could go on and on but Andy McCarthy has summed it up so well. Please read below:

A Mismanage-able Problem

Obama’s belief that he can “manage” the Islamic State may collide with reality.

By Andrew C. McCarthy – National Review Online

Hillary-wary Dems – Yes, She is Toxic

Editor’s Note – Are some Democrats becoming weary and wary of Hillary Clinton? We sure are, and so should the rest of America!

It is puzzling how so many people still back Hillary Clinton, completely ignoring the massive amount of baggage she has in tow. The baggage of course includes Benghazi, and having absolutely zero success in any of her previous incarnations and positions.

U.S. Secretary of State Clinton pounds her fists while testifying on the Benghazi attacks during Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in WashingtonHillary Clinton has reportedly pressured the Democratic leadership to fill all five seats available on the Select Committee on Benghazi. Why, because she needs cover, she needs an Elijah Cummings to conduct circus acts to obfuscate the outcome. Why, because she is up to her eyeballs in it, and is responsible in part, or whole, for the debacle and horror that came before, during, and after that second 9/11.

We have asked ourselves many times if there are any statesmen on the left anymore – but alas, we knew of none. But wait, maybe some are getting wary of her at least. Having to defend her and Obama incessantly seems to be bringing some to that breaking point. Maybe they see that we want people who are Americans first, not the typical politician we so often now.

Even the most tried and true liberal must at some point get very tired of suspending all disbelief to stay in lock step with the leadership to get her elected and to save Obama.

If it were not for the mass ignorance in the populace to rely upon, the Democrats would have long ago jettisoned her for someone who was a bit more palatable or certainly someone with fewer ghosts hanging over their heads.

Wake up America; Hillary Clinton is toxic, and you need to make sure all know. We cannot afford another ‘cult-of-personality’ candidate for anything and survive as the Representative Republic we were created to be. We need true American women warriors – we need “Women at War…for America!”

The ‘Wary of Hillary’ Democrats

By Maggie Haberman – Politico

Everyone knows about the “Ready for Hillary” Democrats — the rapidly proliferating parade of elected officials and activists getting behind Hillary Clinton’s increasingly likely 2016 presidential campaign.

But there’s also a smaller but increasingly vocal group making its presence felt lately — call these Democrats the “Wary of Hillary” Democrats. They’re not outwardly opposing a Clinton candidacy. But they are anxious about the spectacle of a Clinton juggernaut, after seeing what happened when she ran a campaign of inevitability last time.

Some feel a competitive primary, regardless of the outcome, is good for the party. Others say Clinton, who’s been out of electoral politics for five years, needs to be tested. And some Democrats are merely concerned that the party won’t have an open airing of views on economic policy.Hillary-Clinton-2016

The reservations, expressed mostly in private company, have been given voice in recent days by some of the party’s most prominent governors.

“She is an enormously capable candidate and leader, but I do worry about the inevitability, because I think it’s off-putting to the average voter,” Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, a longtime Obama ally, told CNN earlier this month. “And I think that was an element of her campaign the last time. As an enthusiastic Democrat, I just hope that the people around her pay attention to that this time around.”

The public commentary about the risks of Clinton as fait accompli seems less a harbinger of a messy primary fight than an effort to nudge Clinton to the left. There’s no apparent candidate with President Barack Obama’s political skill to catch Clinton by surprise this time. But the Democratic base doesn’t want Clinton to get a free pass, lest she give short shrift to the progressive agenda and tack to the center before the primary campaign is even fully underway.

California Gov. Jerry Brown, who was endorsed by Bill Clinton in his 2010 gubernatorial race but who challenged him for the presidency in 1992, also praised Clinton but suggested she needs to act with care in the coming months.

“She’s got the capacity,” he told ABC News. “But like any front-runner, she has to be cautious and wise in how she proceeds forward.”

Patrick recently told POLITICO “maybe” when asked if he would consider a national run, although not necessarily in 2016. Obama said in March that Patrick, one of his close supporters, shouldn’t rule out 2016. Brown, who sought the presidency three times in the past, had been seen as leaving his options open for 2016, but he told reporters in January that running this cycle is “not in the cards. Unfortunately.”

Whatever concerns Patrick and Brown have about Clinton, said former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, they’re not something she is bringing on herself.

“Secretary Clinton’s inevitability, or what appears to be inevitability, is something that is happening [on its own],” Strickland, a Clinton supporter, said in an interview. “So what to do about it? You accept it for what it is — a grass-roots movement.

“I don’t know that there’s a lesson to be learned from what happened several years ago. The circumstances were very different then,” he added.

The comments by Patrick and Brown came on the heels of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid remarking to NBC News’ Chuck Todd earlier this month that the bloody primary fight between Clinton and Obama six years ago was “an extremely healthy process.

“I think it was wonderful. People learned about these two people” things that they didn’t know before, he added.

Reid prefaced that by noting that “everybody knows I love the Clintons … including Chelsea.” (Read more here at Politico.)