Posted on Oct 15, 2015
Was the Benghazi Committee ‘Designed To Go After’ Clinton?
3.62K
109
83
2
1
1
A second House Republican has now conceded that the overarching purpose of the House Select Committee on Benghazi has been to attack former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
In September, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) argued that one of House Republicans’ successes has been using the Benghazi Committee to drive down Clinton’s poll numbers. Though McCarthy tried to walk back his controversial comments, Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY) argued on Wednesday that the Majority Leader had it right to begin with.
“Sometimes the biggest sin you can commit in D.C. is to tell the truth,” Hanna said in an interview on Keeler in the Morning, a radio show in upstate New York. The third-term congressman paused for a moment, perhaps recognizing the importance of what he was about to say, before going on to agree with McCarthy’s original statement.
“This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton,” Hanna said.
He explained further why he believes the Benghazi Committee’s purpose has been in part to attack Clinton. “After what Kevin McCarthy said, it’s difficult to accept at least a part of it was not,” Hanna said. “I think that’s the way Washington works. But you’d like to expect more from a committee that’s spent millions of dollars and tons of time.”
For years, House Republicans had claimed the Benghazi probe was about investigating the events surrounding the 2012 attack in Libya that left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, rather than undermining Clinton’s potential presidential bid.
But after McCarthy’s Kinsley gaffe, which was among the factors that doomed his seemingly-inevitable rise to the House Speakership, and now Hanna’s admission, there is growing doubt even among GOPers about the Benghazi Committee’s true purpose.
McCarthy and Hanna aren’t the only Republicans to publicly declare that the Benghazi Committee has been on a partisan quest. Over the weekend, Maj. Bradley Podliska, a Republican investigator formerly working on the Committee, revealed that he had lost his job for refusing to solely focus his investigation on Clinton. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who heads the Committee, denies the charge.
Clinton is set to testify before the Committee, which has now continued longer than the Watergate probe, on October 22nd.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/14/3712578/richard-hanna-benghazi-clinton/
In September, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) argued that one of House Republicans’ successes has been using the Benghazi Committee to drive down Clinton’s poll numbers. Though McCarthy tried to walk back his controversial comments, Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY) argued on Wednesday that the Majority Leader had it right to begin with.
“Sometimes the biggest sin you can commit in D.C. is to tell the truth,” Hanna said in an interview on Keeler in the Morning, a radio show in upstate New York. The third-term congressman paused for a moment, perhaps recognizing the importance of what he was about to say, before going on to agree with McCarthy’s original statement.
“This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton,” Hanna said.
He explained further why he believes the Benghazi Committee’s purpose has been in part to attack Clinton. “After what Kevin McCarthy said, it’s difficult to accept at least a part of it was not,” Hanna said. “I think that’s the way Washington works. But you’d like to expect more from a committee that’s spent millions of dollars and tons of time.”
For years, House Republicans had claimed the Benghazi probe was about investigating the events surrounding the 2012 attack in Libya that left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, rather than undermining Clinton’s potential presidential bid.
But after McCarthy’s Kinsley gaffe, which was among the factors that doomed his seemingly-inevitable rise to the House Speakership, and now Hanna’s admission, there is growing doubt even among GOPers about the Benghazi Committee’s true purpose.
McCarthy and Hanna aren’t the only Republicans to publicly declare that the Benghazi Committee has been on a partisan quest. Over the weekend, Maj. Bradley Podliska, a Republican investigator formerly working on the Committee, revealed that he had lost his job for refusing to solely focus his investigation on Clinton. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who heads the Committee, denies the charge.
Clinton is set to testify before the Committee, which has now continued longer than the Watergate probe, on October 22nd.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/14/3712578/richard-hanna-benghazi-clinton/
Benghazi
Hillary Clinton
Republicans
Politics
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 19
10
10
0
The fact that Hillary Rodham Clinton was Secretary of State before during after the Benghazi affair means that investigating her offices role and her own role makes perfect sense CPT Ahmed Faried. It would be very suspicious if Congress were not investigating her role in the events leading up to the Benghazi affair, during it, and afterwards during the cleanup phase.
After all the FBI is still investigating the email server(s) that she used during this period. I realize the public is not entitled to know the sensitive information that was contained in the emails and the investigative processes should be allowed to run their courses with as little fanfare and leaking as possible.
After all the FBI is still investigating the email server(s) that she used during this period. I realize the public is not entitled to know the sensitive information that was contained in the emails and the investigative processes should be allowed to run their courses with as little fanfare and leaking as possible.
(10)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
LTC (Join to see) - I am sorry to learn somebody downvoted you without leaving an explanation.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
LTC Stephen F. - Agreeing or disagreeing with a fellow service member or veteran should be with words and with respect, not with down-votes, which on a form like this are a form of personal attack.
The opinion expressed should have no relation to an up or down vote.
The opinion expressed should have no relation to an up or down vote.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
LTC Stephen F. - sadly that is what's missing in our two parties these days, the ability to disagree with respect, discuss intelligently and compromise with the knowledge that a successful compromise means that nobody is happy, but nobody loses.
Sadly my favorite 2016 candidate hasn't a chance of winning his primary (Sen Graham), and even if he did, I would still likely have to vote against him to preserve presidential veto for the extreme right the house and to keep the Supreme Court from becoming more conservative than it already is.
On almost every issue he is moderate, which I consider essential.
Sadly my favorite 2016 candidate hasn't a chance of winning his primary (Sen Graham), and even if he did, I would still likely have to vote against him to preserve presidential veto for the extreme right the house and to keep the Supreme Court from becoming more conservative than it already is.
On almost every issue he is moderate, which I consider essential.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
I'm going to add another comment here for perspective on Sec Clinton's email server transgressions...
If any of you as a Military Commander had done the same thing with a personal server, which ended up proving to be highly vulnerable to our enemies, and contained unauthorized FOUO and classified data, you'd be facing dismissal as a Commander/Officer and jail time. The motivations of the GOP to point this issue out is irrelevant.
If any of you as a Military Commander had done the same thing with a personal server, which ended up proving to be highly vulnerable to our enemies, and contained unauthorized FOUO and classified data, you'd be facing dismissal as a Commander/Officer and jail time. The motivations of the GOP to point this issue out is irrelevant.
(4)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Most of us, at least in the reserves, do use civilian email for military communications (hopefully avoiding FUOU or classified information). I actually even have my own server just as Mrs. Clinton did, its the server that provides email and calendar for my law firm, and that is the email address I use for routine communication with many soldiers.
(0)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
Using a personal account for official business has been authorized on a limited basis based on mission need. But it cannot be used as the de facto primary means to conduct that official business. The Sec of State, who controls the funding and prioritization of her own IT infrastructure, does not have that mission need. Furthermore, she also failed to address the security controls required of her to protect not only the classified information found on her servers but also the official FOUO as well. Please do not try to suggest the Sec of State does not have the ability to conduct email on the road, throughout the world, using the Dept of State infrastructure. I'm familiar with their capability and she had everything she needed at her disposal.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Randall Farr
...and just look at how much she is "getting away with it"...thus far...our Congress needs a massive heads-up...or an all-out ouster -- it reminds me much of the historical account of (the prideful leadership in) Rome before its fall!
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
As I have said before, the Benghazi issue was a template for the E-mail scandal. It will be used again successfully.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Hillary Clinton gets special treatment. She is immune from obeying the simplest rules. However they do it I don't care, get away from being POTUS.
(4)
(0)
CPT Ahmed Faried
I think that is precisely the point. They are doing it in a way specifically to hamper her run for the White House. As so far three people have publicly admitted. But that is okay because she belongs to the other party and you don't. Now let's re-imagine this if it was being done by Democrats. The law should be impartially applied, and investigations should be done without partisan biases. But we are Balkanized to the point of not caring how something is done so long as it affects the "other" guys.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
CPT Ahmed Faried - And there were SIX prior investigations. This one is clearly a partisan witch-hunt.
(1)
(0)
CPT Ahmed Faried
LTC (Join to see) - Sir this is known and all six were also GOP-headed investigations. Still no smoking gun.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google