Posted on 03/08/2015 6:31:41 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
Chairman Trey Gowdy knew about Clinton’s secret server six months ago, and that too is a scandal.
In assessing the Benghazi select committee headed up by Chairman Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.), there are two possibilities, and they are not mutually exclusive: (1) The committee is just a Potemkin probe erected by the Republican establishment to get restive conservatives to pipe down, and (2) the committee is incompetent.
The panel, of course, was commissioned by the Republican-controlled House to investigate the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2012, attack in which al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists killed Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans — information-management officer Sean Smith and two former Navy SEALs, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, contract employees whose valor saved dozens of lives during the siege.
The select committee’s ten sleepy months of operation have not warranted much attention — except to observe its lethargy. But questions about it arise thanks to the newly erupted Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal. Mostly, it is one question: Why is the scandal newly erupted?
The Benghazi massacre was the lowlight of Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. Suddenly this week, the public was informed, for the first time, that during those four tumultuous years, she conducted State Department business through a private e-mail system designed to evade government record-keeping requirements. The scheme is redolent of Clintonian hypocrisy: (snip)
Gowdy let something else slip while unburdening himself to Politico: he and his committee have known since last summer that Mrs. Clinton conducted business by private e-mail.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
That is my understanding from SC insiders too. SCOTUS is among several possibilities floating around out there.
I think Gowdy's choice would be never. So what? He is going to conduct open hearings on Benghazi. Then we will learn what he has to say.
Right now he is simply reacting to the NYT story as he should. He is under NO OBLIGATION to titillate us with leaks and News Conferences. I suppose Andy McCarthy uses that approach. Gowdy doesn't and never lost a case as prosecutor.
I will wait for open hearnings. It beats reading posts from all the cynical Freepers who have given up all hope plus the Dem plants trying to screw with our heads.
Their M.O. was to never put anything risky in an email. It's all done by text on Blackberries, and underlings are given oral instructions that then might be put into an email. This use of cutouts gives a layer of protection to the principals. That's my take.
Let's not forget who he's up against---the cunning Clintons have the survival instincts of a cockroach.
...then-president Bill had major scandals, yet his popularity and image weren’t destroyed.....
He's now gone on to greater heights---monetizing his public service---making billions off a phony foundation....
As one FReeper insightfully observed----politically-speaking, the Clinton name is connected to relative peace and prosperity....and sex w/ younger women.
Seems the calculating Clintons cunningly fashion their political ambitions knowing which buttons push LIV to vote for them.
And your "inside info" comes from ... ?
And your "inside info" guarantees we will be disappointed?
I think I need a little more than that.
Right now I see the Libs very nervous about Hillary. There is no question that without the Gowdy committee this would not have surfaced when it did. Those 55,000 emails from Hillary's private server were generated in anticipation of a Gowdy request. Discount it if you like but I credit Gowdy for this. If it brings down the Hillary for President campaign I credit Trey Gowdy.
Yes, its mostly political theater. Gowdy is just another Republican windbag like the rest of his colleagues.
yep..... the Messiah’s Blackberry messages is the grand prize
Your treatment of two very successful ex-prosecutors is very different. McCarthy is a "tabloid reporter" while Gowdy gets a pass?
I think that McCarthy has been watching the Benghazi Committee for quite awhile and waited six months before letting his frustration build into an article like this. I think he has given Gowdy more than the benefit of the doubt to do something.
The GOP exists today to block conservatives, not represent them.
I’m in agreement with you — based on my own information about his bloviating.
Finally, a reasonable post. Thanks.
It would be to Gowdy’s detriment to grandstand to the media. He has to peel the layers of a very big onion slowly and carefully. I think he’s doing a good job.
I know people who worked inside the GOP. The dirty little secret is the party could care less about advancing the conservative agenda. The reality is that Republicans serve other masters than us.
No I"m not. I don't know anything about McCarthy except that he chose to attack our best Congressman.
He may be right to do so. Gowdy may well turn out to be under the control of Soros or the Clintons. But I don't think so. If we can't trust Trey Gowdy then I would like to know who we can trust in the current Congress. If the answer is nobody then what the heck are we doing wasting our time here on FR?
Read all about the-Pro Amnesty Fraud Trey!
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/353426/trey-gowdy-house-cant-just-defend-status-quo-immigration-will-allen
The Poor blueberry picker Gowdy.
Can we just admit the guy is just another Carnival Barker -Fraud.
He is Bonehead Jackal who marches to the K Street marching orders.
All these phony Committee sideshow are to fool the simple Bubba’s into believing this Con is not a DC insider !
He is !
Agree, but I doubt the Republicans would run with that football. They are only interested in being on the field of play and posturing, not scoring points or winning the game.
Gowdy is a Con man playing his Huckster ‘Angry Conservative ‘ role in the Pelosi run house .
His tired sideshow is now over and no one believes him.
Amnesty Shill!
“Finally, a reasonable post. Thanks.”
************
Respectfully, with respect to this overall thread, skeptical people with other opinions are not unreasonable. They are speaking from their own observations and/or personal knowledge in some cases. Unless you have similar knowledge, I don’t think you should be suggesting they are not reasonable. Just my two cents.
Bravo!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.