House Republicans refusing to let Ambassador Pickering and General Mullen testify publicly on Benghazi -- scared two respected men will destroy their baseless attacks

  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    May 16, 2013 6:26 PM GMT
    http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/15/issa_and_pickering_clash_over_new_benghazi_hearingIn the battle to shape the American public's perception of what happened in Benghazi, logistics is everything. On Wednesday, the two emerging rivals in this struggle, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) and retired Amb. Thomas Pickering, co-chair of the Accountability Review Board (ARB) for the incident, clashed over the appropriate venue to discuss the U.S. government's response to last September's terrorist attack.

    On Sunday, Issa announced his invitation to hear Pickering's sworn testimony in a private "deposition" to be followed by a public hearing. On Tuesday, Pickering sent a letter to Issa that essentially said thanks but no thanks -- I'd prefer a public hearing only.

    In an interview with The Cable Wednesday morning, Pickering said he opposed a private deposition for two reasons not mentioned in his Tuesday letter. First, he made no bones about his view that Issa is turning the Benghazi tragedy into a "political circus." And, "now that the circus has been launched, we want to make our case in front of the public," Pickering said, referring to himself and retired Admiral Mike Mullen, the other ARB co-chair...

    The battle over the hearing's format comes as Pickering and Mullen's ARB report takes increasing fire from Republicans for failing to focus on higher-ranking State Department personnel, including the secretary of state at the time, Hillary Clinton. During last Wednesday's hearing, Hicks, the No. 2 diplomat in Libya during the assault, said the ARB had "let people off the hook," and another witness said it failed to interview "people who I personally know were involved in key decisions."

    On Meet the Press Sunday, David Gregory picked up this line of argument, asking Pickering, "Did you not pay sufficient attention to -- and time with the secretary of state?"

    "I believe we did," responded Pickering. "We had a session with the secretary. It took place very near the end of the report. It took place when we had preliminary judgments about who made the decisions, where they were made, and by whom they were reviewed. We felt that that was more than sufficient for the preponderance of evidence that we had collected to make our decisions and you know that our decisions was two of those people should be separated from their jobs. Two others failed in their performance."
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    May 16, 2013 6:26 PM GMT
    Confirming what Americans already know: dishonest, desperate Republicans are not interested in the truth, merely in partisan attacks to feed their Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 18, 2013 3:40 PM GMT
    Truth?

    The republicans can't handle the truth
    (Channeling A Few Good Men here)
    Because the truth is that they are major F**kups ..... they trashed the economy
    Thank Bush and crew
    The filibustered the Senate into gridlock where nothing gets done and the House has passed fewer bills than any Congress in American history

    >>>>>>>> This is the reason for the Clown Car brigade because that it what it is
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3280

    May 18, 2013 5:39 PM GMT
    SAME PUBLICATION troyathlete, Your assertion isnt true.

    Issa said they were invited but was"negotiating" on to how it would occur. Pickering declined a DEPOSITION, and this was a sticking point.

    http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/17/issa_subpoenas_pickering_on_benghazi





    All week, Issa's office had been publishing open letters to Pickering requesting his participation in a private, transcribed interview, and all week Pickering declined, saying he was willing to testify publicly about his review of the State Department's response to the attack, but insisting that a private deposition was inappropriate.

    "Depositions are usually reserved for fact witnesses and people under investigation," he told The Cab
    le. "We are not fact witnesses to Benghazi and we are not under investigation."


    Basically it isnt true they dont want him to testify. They want a deposition first.
    SPIN SPIN SPIN

    Because there investigation is "under investigation". Whether he likes it or not.

    Issas committee is government oversight. And they have questions on how that Investigation conveniently was delayed months to allow witnesses and evidence to deteriorate.

    Pickering just have to accept that Congress has this right.

    Now Pickering is Subpoenaed he has no choice now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2013 7:52 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete saidConfirming what Americans already know: dishonest, desperate Republicans are not interested in the truth, merely in partisan attacks to feed their Clinton Derangement Syndrome.


    And American's also know that you are:

    RuPaul-wall-620x480.jpg
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    May 18, 2013 10:25 PM GMT
    See "six ways the GOP could screw up the Obama scandals" in today's Guardian. Who needs the truth - just turn the GOP loose.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    May 19, 2013 5:37 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    Basically it isnt true they dont want him to testify. They want a deposition first.


    A private deposition out of the public eye, so that the American people cannot hear the truth, something Issa does not want.

    Why does he want a private deposition first? Why not let Pickering testify publicly and openly? The American people know why: because Republicans are not interested in facts, merely in spreading their Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

    Because Republicans are liars and cowards. Fortunately, Pickering has demonstrated that he is not going to be bullied by dishonest, right-wing Republican hacks.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2013 6:56 AM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    musclmed said
    Basically it isnt true they dont want him to testify. They want a deposition first.


    A private deposition out of the public eye, so that the American people cannot hear the truth, something Issa does not want.

    Why does he want a private deposition first? Why not let Pickering testify publicly and openly? The American people know why: because Republicans are not interested in facts, merely in spreading their Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

    Because Republicans are liars and cowards. Fortunately, Pickering has demonstrated that he is not going to be bullied by dishonest, right-wing Republican hacks.


    You have sumthin agaist Repubs honey?
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    May 19, 2013 12:46 PM GMT
    Romney: Benghazi talking points had no bearing on presidential election

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/300581-romney-benghazi-talking-points-had-no-bearing-on-electionBut on Friday, Leno asked Romney whether he believes he might have beaten Obama in the November election if the initial narrative from the administration on the motive behind the attacks had been attributed to terrorism instead of a protest.
    “I don’t think it would have changed the election,” said Romney.
    Romney added that he doesn’t spend a lot of time reflecting on what could have been done differently during his campaign, although he said he wishes the outcome had been different.
    “I don’t go back and look at: ‘Gee, if this would have happened differently, could I have won?’” Romney said. “I wish I had won. I wish I was there now.”


    Right-wing nutjobs hardest hit
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2013 1:13 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete saidRomney: Benghazi talking points had no bearing on presidential election

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/300581-romney-benghazi-talking-points-had-no-bearing-on-electionBut on Friday, Leno asked Romney whether he believes he might have beaten Obama in the November election if the initial narrative from the administration on the motive behind the attacks had been attributed to terrorism instead of a protest.
    “I don’t think it would have changed the election,” said Romney.
    Romney added that he doesn’t spend a lot of time reflecting on what could have been done differently during his campaign, although he said he wishes the outcome had been different.
    “I don’t go back and look at: ‘Gee, if this would have happened differently, could I have won?’” Romney said. “I wish I had won. I wish I was there now.”


    Right-wing nutjobs hardest hit


    You look devine ... cunt

  • musclmed

    Posts: 3280

    May 19, 2013 4:02 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    musclmed said
    Basically it isnt true they dont want him to testify. They want a deposition first.


    A private deposition out of the public eye, so that the American people cannot hear the truth, something Issa does not want.

    Why does he want a private deposition first? Why not let Pickering testify publicly and openly? The American people know why: because Republicans are not interested in facts, merely in spreading their Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

    Because Republicans are liars and cowards. Fortunately, Pickering has demonstrated that he is not going to be bullied by dishonest, right-wing Republican hacks.


    committee staff often depose people who would testify before a committee.

    And there is usual negotiation about testimony before a witness would appears.

    The truth is , it just is not true they did not want him to testify. Just that Pickering wanted to dictate the terms of this testimony.

    Now he has no choice unless he wants to go to federal court to challenge the subpoena.

    His report is to be scrutinized, as many or all of the witness interviews were un transcribed , "paraphrased" and not recorded. This is very unusual for government review.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2013 4:35 PM GMT
    musclmed said
    His report is to be scrutinized, as many or all of the witness interviews were un transcribed , "paraphrased" and not recorded. This is very unusual for government review.

    All week, Issa's office had been publishing open letters to Pickering requesting his participation in a private, transcribed interview, and all week Pickering declined, saying he was willing to testify publicly about his review of the State Department's response to the attack, but insisting that a private deposition was inappropriate.

    "Depositions are usually reserved for fact witnesses and people under investigation," he told The Cable. "We are not fact witnesses to Benghazi and we are not under investigation."


    Izza is using the precedent for witnesses to be deposed. Pickering is not a witnesses, so just more Republican distortion and smokescreen for purely political gain.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3280

    May 19, 2013 4:45 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    musclmed said
    His report is to be scrutinized, as many or all of the witness interviews were un transcribed , "paraphrased" and not recorded. This is very unusual for government review.

    All week, Issa's office had been publishing open letters to Pickering requesting his participation in a private, transcribed interview, and all week Pickering declined, saying he was willing to testify publicly about his review of the State Department's response to the attack, but insisting that a private deposition was inappropriate.

    "Depositions are usually reserved for fact witnesses and people under investigation," he told The Cable. "We are not fact witnesses to Benghazi and we are not under investigation."

    Izza is using the precedent for witnesses to be deposed. Pickering is not a witnesses, so just more Republican distortion and smokescreen for purely political gain.



    Pickering doesn't get it. He is a witness. That committee can investigate any part of government .

    The truth is the way the report was generated is questionable. Many of the interviews of witness were not recorded or transcribed. This is highly unusual.

    Therefore the committee in addition is investigating how factual the reports conclusions were.

    so it really isnt true as the thread states he is being shut out from testifying. Its the manner in which it is being done. He doesnt have a choice now he was issued a subpena
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    May 19, 2013 5:57 PM GMT
    musclmed said
    Pickering doesn't get it. He is a witness. That committee can investigate any part of government.


    Wrong on all counts, as Republicans usually are.

    Pickering is not a witness: he was not involved in the Benghazi matter directly or indirectly. He was an outside, independent, non-partisan investigator, not a witness. Do Republicans know the difference between an investigator and a witness? The Judiciary Committee can call him to testify, but this hostile attempt to treat him as if *he* is the one on trial is falling and will continue to fall flat on its face.

    Issa is a pea-brained nobody who is barking up the wrong tree. Pickering and Mullen are not some two-bit low level IRS staffers, they are respected, seasoned international players who have been around D.C. a loooong time. If Republicans think they can intimidate these two, they're going to find out quite differently.

    Neither does the Judiacry Committe have broad power to investigate "any" part of government. Regardless, the subpoena is toothless. They are supposed to have a legislative purpose, and this clearly does not -- so the courts would never intervene. Pickering has not indicated he will submit to the subpoena, and instead he says he is seeking "legal advice." Good for him. I hope Issa dares to try to hold him in contempt -- the howls about this abuse from Democrats and level-headed, reasonable Republicans will effectively end this whole charade.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2013 6:10 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    musclmed said
    Pickering doesn't get it. He is a witness. That committee can investigate any part of government.


    Wrong on all counts, as Republicans usually are.

    Pickering is not a witness: he was not involved in the Benghazi matter directly or indirectly. He was an outside, independent, non-partisan investigator, not a witness. Do Republicans know the difference between an investigator and a witness? The Judiciary Committee can call him to testify, but this hostile attempt to treat him as if *he* is the one on trial is falling and will continue to fall flat on its face.

    Issa is a pea-brained nobody who is barking up the wrong tree. Pickering and Mullen are not some two-bit low level IRS staffers, they are respected, seasoned international players who have been around D.C. a loooong time. If Republicans think they can intimidate these two, they're going to find out quite differently.

    Neither does the Judiacry Committe have broad power to investigate "any" part of government. Regardless, the subpoena is toothless. They are supposed to have a legislative purpose, and this clearly does not -- so the courts would never intervene. Pickering has not indicated he will submit to the subpoena, and instead he says he is seeking "legal advice." Good for him. I hope Issa dares to try to hold him in contempt -- the howls about this abuse from Democrats and level-headed, reasonable Republicans will effectively end this whole charade.


    I thought according to you that is no such thing as a "reasonable republican"