One thing that I'm pretty glad about for the sake of Clinton winning is that no one will ever care about the facts at this point because the Republicans were so desperate to make something larger out of it than it was that the general public is completely tuned out on the subject of Benghazi in general.

Se(c) (C)linton: Headings are not classification notices and so oftentimes we’re trying to get the best information we can.
Se(c) (C)linton: Classified material has a header which says “top secret,” “secret,” “confidential.”
Se(c) (C)linton: If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.



This post was edited by excellence on Sep 7 2016 08:52pm

You mean like how millions of Demorat™ voters are going to completely gloss over the fact that our next commander-in-chief is wholly unqualified and vote for her anyways?

This is funny: after their shit "reporting" has been completely taken apart, the AP has now decided 2+ weeks later to go back and delete the tweet and card that got them in so much trouble/got so much attention for their blockbuster story on the Clinton Foundation. -- http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/09/ap-deletes-clinton-foundation-tweet-227917

It spawned hundred of articles, most of them front-page, and thousands of hours of commentary over the span of weeks and had a noticeable drag on Clinton's numbers, and it ultimately exposed absolutely nothing illegal nor corrupt in the slightest, but now they feel compelled to go back and delete the tweet. Well done.



Fortunately they did. You don't have to like the assessment shared by every investigation but we already know why that is: you live in a bubble. They all determined why the intelligence assessment changed. It happened in this case in a perfectly consistent manner.

That the House GOP's sham Benghazi Select committee that wasted $7 million took this assessment as such an article of faith should tell you something. They spent their near-2 years chasing down all these other extraneous "leads" (like wingnuts calling into wingnut radio shows claiming to have seen something, or looking for mystery "drone pilots") because they wouldn't have been able to find any other way to halfway-justify their farce, and even the justification they did present was absolute horseshit. Regurgitating 2012's talking points is pointless.

Yeah, I thought so.

You're not presenting facts; you simply saying something and laughably calling it a fact does not make it a fact. I don't know if that's how it works in your little bubble-verse but that sure as hell isn't how it works out here.

Facts are what make up those 8 reports, most of them under the unfortunate presence of a Republican majority.

Oh, so there was credible evidence that substantiates the ludicrous position taken by the state dept that the attack was in retaliation for a video? Where is it?

Are you denying that Clinton sent an email to Chelsea within 24 hours of the attack blaming an "al-quada like" group?

The intelligence community changed their assessment as better intelligence became available. It's open and shut.

If it's "open and shut," where's the evidence? Because I quoted the 800 page report when I said:



And are you denying Clinton sent an email to Chelsea within 24 hours that blamed an "al quada-like" group? Don't dodge.