Bruddah IZ
DA
You don't think your brother's line is witty? How about, you still trying so hard?
Ponderable
- Thread starter Bruddah IZ
- Start date
Hey you’re out-Iz’ing yourself. Don’t be mad
Hey look, another creepy right-winger personal life weirdness...
@RepMattGaetz
·
Jun 18
Nestor is the light of my life. I couldn't imagine loving him any more if he was my own flesh and blood. I'm proud of him.
@RepMattGaetz
·
Jun 18
Nestor is the light of my life. I couldn't imagine loving him any more if he was my own flesh and blood. I'm proud of him.
Hey look, another creepy right-winger personal life weirdness...
@RepMattGaetz
·
Jun 18
Nestor is the light of my life. I couldn't imagine loving him any more if he was my own flesh and blood. I'm proud of him.
Only a tortured " Adam Schiff Style " mind would find Matt's comments " Creepy ".....
" Messy " Financial.....You have some serious issues...
Sheriff Joe
DA
Share68
| 68 Comments
Email
June 28, 2020
Judicial Watch uncovers emails showing Ben Rhodes and aides joking about Benghazi lies
By Thomas Lifson
Judicial Watch once again has proven to be invaluable (donate here) in uncovering official perfidy. This time, its Freedom of Information Act lawsuit has uncovered utterly appalling levity among top Obama foreign policy aides over their lies to the public about the September 11, 2012 attack on the Benghazi Consular Annex that took the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, and two CIA operatives, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, both former Navy SEALs. Readers will recall that UN Ambassador Susan Rice, now touted as a vice presidential nominee for front man Joe Biden, went on five Sunday morning talk shows to lie about the attack and blame it on a YouTube video seen by a handful of people. Nine days later, the-Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes yucked it up with his crew.
Ben Rhodes with his boss aborard Air Force One
Offical White House photo by Pete Souza
Here is what Judicial Watch discloses about the emails (read them here) it brought to light:
It’s hard to keep your story straight if you’re making it up as you go along, which was the modus operandi of Obama fabricator Ben Rhodes.
The Justice Department released 80 pages of records showing top Obama White House officials scrambling to “evolve” its false claims that the September 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on U.S. Government facilities in Benghazi, Libya, began “spontaneously” in response to an anti-Muslim video on the Internet.
The emails reveal top Obama White House official Ben Rhodes and Clinton State Department Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan joking about being called “liars” and “leakers.”
The records were produced in response to our 2016 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:16-cv-02046)). We filed the lawsuit after the Justice Department failed to comply with a July 7, 2016, FOIA request for records of the FBI’s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure.
On September 16, 2012, then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday television talk shows claiming the Benghazi attack was incited spontaneously by an anti-Muslim Internet video. The newly released records show a redacted official’s email from September 27 to then-Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes and then-NSC spokesman Tommy Vietor, copying then-Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan, saying, “What’s the plan here?” Rhodes responds:
Broader plan is IC [intelligence community] acknowledgement of an evolving assessment of what took place, which happens to be true (unlike just about everything else we’ve seen reported on Benghazi.)
Further along in the email thread, an official whose name is redacted, says, “Everyone know [sic] Susan [in her TV appearances] was using not just IC approved guidance, but IC created.”
Additionally, Rhodes says to Sullivan and other redacted officials:
At least you’re only a liar. Could be worse – we’re liars and also allegedly leakers. So you’ve got that going for you, which is something.
Sullivan replies: “We’re only lying footsoldiers [sic]. You’re lying masterminds. That’s cooler.”
A redacted official replies to Sullivan: “I prefer that we go by henchmen. Has more of a Marvel comic sinisterness to it. There should be a cable show where all the guests, and the anchor, have to wear polygraphs. Or, when there’s a dispute between source, the aggrieved parties take a poly, with some neutral third party rendering judgment. The Biggest Liar.”
Rhodes says to Sullivan: “I’d like to go on television and tell everybody what I think…. Look at it this way. I[t] could be worse. You could be a career bureaucrat whose greatest thrill in life is leaking half-truths, self-justifications and outright lies to the likes of Eli Lake, Kim Dozier, and whoever picks up the phone at Fox News.”
| 68 Comments
June 28, 2020
Judicial Watch uncovers emails showing Ben Rhodes and aides joking about Benghazi lies
By Thomas Lifson
Judicial Watch once again has proven to be invaluable (donate here) in uncovering official perfidy. This time, its Freedom of Information Act lawsuit has uncovered utterly appalling levity among top Obama foreign policy aides over their lies to the public about the September 11, 2012 attack on the Benghazi Consular Annex that took the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, and two CIA operatives, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, both former Navy SEALs. Readers will recall that UN Ambassador Susan Rice, now touted as a vice presidential nominee for front man Joe Biden, went on five Sunday morning talk shows to lie about the attack and blame it on a YouTube video seen by a handful of people. Nine days later, the-Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes yucked it up with his crew.
Ben Rhodes with his boss aborard Air Force One
Offical White House photo by Pete Souza
Here is what Judicial Watch discloses about the emails (read them here) it brought to light:
It’s hard to keep your story straight if you’re making it up as you go along, which was the modus operandi of Obama fabricator Ben Rhodes.
The Justice Department released 80 pages of records showing top Obama White House officials scrambling to “evolve” its false claims that the September 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on U.S. Government facilities in Benghazi, Libya, began “spontaneously” in response to an anti-Muslim video on the Internet.
The emails reveal top Obama White House official Ben Rhodes and Clinton State Department Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan joking about being called “liars” and “leakers.”
The records were produced in response to our 2016 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:16-cv-02046)). We filed the lawsuit after the Justice Department failed to comply with a July 7, 2016, FOIA request for records of the FBI’s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure.
On September 16, 2012, then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday television talk shows claiming the Benghazi attack was incited spontaneously by an anti-Muslim Internet video. The newly released records show a redacted official’s email from September 27 to then-Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes and then-NSC spokesman Tommy Vietor, copying then-Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan, saying, “What’s the plan here?” Rhodes responds:
Broader plan is IC [intelligence community] acknowledgement of an evolving assessment of what took place, which happens to be true (unlike just about everything else we’ve seen reported on Benghazi.)
Further along in the email thread, an official whose name is redacted, says, “Everyone know [sic] Susan [in her TV appearances] was using not just IC approved guidance, but IC created.”
Additionally, Rhodes says to Sullivan and other redacted officials:
At least you’re only a liar. Could be worse – we’re liars and also allegedly leakers. So you’ve got that going for you, which is something.
Sullivan replies: “We’re only lying footsoldiers [sic]. You’re lying masterminds. That’s cooler.”
A redacted official replies to Sullivan: “I prefer that we go by henchmen. Has more of a Marvel comic sinisterness to it. There should be a cable show where all the guests, and the anchor, have to wear polygraphs. Or, when there’s a dispute between source, the aggrieved parties take a poly, with some neutral third party rendering judgment. The Biggest Liar.”
Rhodes says to Sullivan: “I’d like to go on television and tell everybody what I think…. Look at it this way. I[t] could be worse. You could be a career bureaucrat whose greatest thrill in life is leaking half-truths, self-justifications and outright lies to the likes of Eli Lake, Kim Dozier, and whoever picks up the phone at Fox News.”
Bruddah IZ
DA
Blacks are figuring you people out.
Nope, nothing creepy about a, shall we say, very single and very right-wing congressman (that already tells you something about closets, doesn’t it?), who lives with a 19-year-old man, who has a dad, and refers to the man as his “stepson.”
“Our relationship as a family is defined by our love for each other, not by any paperwork...”
Nope, not creepy at all.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Nah. Not at all. Creepiness will get you the Democrat nomination for POTUS.
QUOTE="messy, post: 338621, member: 3299"
Nope, nothing creepy about a, shall we say, very single and very right-wing
congressman (that already tells you something about closets, doesn’t it?),
who lives with a 19-year-old man, who has a dad, and refers to the man as his “stepson.”
“Our relationship as a family is defined by our love for each other, not by any paperwork...”
Nope, not creepy at all.
View attachment 7971
[/QUOTE]
Whoooaaaa.....Wait a minute there Mr " Messy " Financial who supports the LGBTQ Community and
has posted numerous times in support of their inclusiveness...!
You are now going to imply that " IF " he is gay he cannot adopt a young male and mentor him to be
a successful individual.....!
YOU SIR ARE VERY CREEPY AND A FULL BLOWN FUCKING HYPOCRITE !!
Nope, nothing creepy about a, shall we say, very single and very right-wing
congressman (that already tells you something about closets, doesn’t it?),
who lives with a 19-year-old man, who has a dad, and refers to the man as his “stepson.”
“Our relationship as a family is defined by our love for each other, not by any paperwork...”
Nope, not creepy at all.
View attachment 7971
[/QUOTE]
Whoooaaaa.....Wait a minute there Mr " Messy " Financial who supports the LGBTQ Community and
has posted numerous times in support of their inclusiveness...!
You are now going to imply that " IF " he is gay he cannot adopt a young male and mentor him to be
a successful individual.....!
YOU SIR ARE VERY CREEPY AND A FULL BLOWN FUCKING HYPOCRITE !!
Whoooaaaa.....Wait a minute there Mr " Messy " Financial who supports the LGBTQ Community and
has posted numerous times in support of their inclusiveness...!
You are now going to imply that " IF " he is gay he cannot adopt a young male and mentor him to be
a successful individual.....!
YOU SIR ARE VERY CREEPY AND A FULL BLOWN FUCKING HYPOCRITE !!
[/QUOTE]
Who said anything about adopt? What are you talking about, fool?
Justices rule states can bind presidential electors' votes
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a decision flavored with references to “Hamilton” and “Veep,” the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College.
entire article:
apnews.com
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a decision flavored with references to “Hamilton” and “Veep,” the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College.
entire article:
Justices rule states can bind presidential electors' votes
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a decision flavored with references to “Hamilton” and “Veep,” the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College.
apnews.com
Fascinating stuff, isn’t it?Justices rule states can bind presidential electors' votes
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a decision flavored with references to “Hamilton” and “Veep,” the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College.
entire article:
Justices rule states can bind presidential electors' votes
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a decision flavored with references to “Hamilton” and “Veep,” the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College.
Looks like time for a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing some sort of proportional spread of electoral votes.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Is that what it looks like?
Proportional...it be.
"The number of electors each state gets is equal to its total number of Senators and Representatives in Congress.
A total of 538 electors form the Electoral College. ... The candidate who gets 270 votes or more wins."
Nowhere in the Constitution or its amendments is there a requirement that all of a state's electoral votes go to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. The SCOTUS decision allowed any state to make "faithful" voting a requirement, but did not mandate it.
Who said anything about adopt? What are you talking about, fool?
[/QUOTE]
Who said anything about the contrary....Ya " Messy " Fool...!
So?
The Constitution doesn't mention abortion.
So?
When it comes to the Constitution, be careful what you wish for...give to much power to California New York, Texas & Florida and places like Vermont, New Hampshire, Wyoming & Connecticut could very well be disenfranchised...
from CNN:
Most states (except for Maine and Nebraska, which split some of their electoral votes) give all their electoral votes to the person who wins the popular vote in that state. There are very Democratic parts of Texas and very Republican parts of California, for instance. But unless those states move to apportion their electoral votes differently, it is only the state popular vote that really matters.
...A popular vote system certainly would be simpler to understand.
However, as proponents of the Electoral College point out, if you thought that recount in Florida in 2000 was nasty, imagine a nationwide recount of more than 130 million votes. THAT would be messy. And it could happen. Some states have automatic recounts for elections that are separated by less than .1% In 2016, with 136 million voters, that would have been a margin of around 136,000 votes. You can imagine a recount in the razor-thin election of 1960, which featured a less-than .2% difference in vote totals, but a solid Electoral College victory for John F. Kennedy.
I don't know why you went off on a tangent about abortions, but abortions were legal and available almost everywhere in America at the time of the writing of the Constitution - it was not an issue.
I am opposed to eliminating the electoral vote system because it limits the damage that corruption in one state can have on the overall election. A state can invent a million imaginary votes for its favored candidate, but they will not get any added electoral votes because of it. However, I would like to see some proportionality of a state's electoral votes based on the proportion of popular votes in that state.
You just did. I know espy wont explain himself. Messy or one of our historians or teachers on here please educate me on this statement from espy. TY
DEMOCRATS = CRIMINALS
ABORTION IS A WOMAN'S CHOICE.
ABORTION IS KILLING....JUST A PLAIN TRUTH.