Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC, Benghazi) will not seek re-election.

[hakujinbakasama]

I thought the NINE investigations did that already? Or is time for #10, lol.

And this guy had years to find those answers and came up empty handed. So yeah, I am right. Thank you.

I'll also note that you didn't actually address the point, which was why people are hating on Gowdy, and instead chose to switch to posting shit about Benghazi itself. Which, ironically, supported exactly what I was talking about.

I'll link these two together as they highlight the clear dysfunctional conclusion one can arrive. What's the most boggling to me is how people can be so "dickish" in their opinion and simultaneously so oblivious to their ignorance. Yeah, they held several hearings. A rational, fully cognitive, and properly functioning adult should have walked away from them in disgust. Not because of the presumed "Republican Witch Hunt" narrative but rather in the woefully clear state of non-compliance and politically engulfed non-political agencies have become within our system. Further, it should have been and still is a fucking issue that these agencies and groups are STILL able to stonewall the living hell out of congress.

It baffles me, as a person who tries deeply to be as independent and unbiased as possible (though I am human), how so many people are constantly in the same voice on the matter.

There is one completely clear question, one that every American SHOULD give a shit about as a whole in the essence of things, with regards to the Benghazi attack and subsequent hearings which seeming gets left out of all the Gowdy bashing.

https://fas.org/irp/threat/arb/accou...ty_report.html

Why wasn't this followed? Why wasn't this addressed? This already clearly calls out how bad things were being handled.

If you are a tax-payer, especially in a system like the USA where you're forced, then whether you like it or not you have a vested interested in holding your government to task on a variety of matters as YOUR labor and YOUR money is being utilized at gunpoint. It SHOULD be a concern whether or not they are fucking around and wasting your money and putting people needlessly in danger, especially when it has such a broad range of effects.

But hey.. fuck critical thinking... let's just get all partisan on the issue.

[Machismo]

I'll link these two together as they highlight the clear dysfunctional conclusion one can arrive. What's the most boggling to me is how people can be so "dickish" in their opinion and simultaneously so oblivious to their ignorance. Yeah, they held several hearings. A rational, fully cognitive, and properly functioning adult should have walked away from them in disgust. Not because of the presumed "Republican Witch Hunt" narrative but rather in the woefully clear state of non-compliance and politically engulfed non-political agencies have become within our system. Further, it should have been and still is a fucking issue that these agencies and groups are STILL able to stonewall the living hell out of congress.

It baffles me, as a person who tries deeply to be as independent and unbiased as possible (though I am human), how so many people are constantly in the same voice on the matter.

There is one completely clear question, one that every American SHOULD give a shit about as a whole in the essence of things, with regards to the Benghazi attack and subsequent hearings which seeming gets left out of all the Gowdy bashing.

https://fas.org/irp/threat/arb/accou...ty_report.html

Why wasn't this followed? Why wasn't this addressed? This already clearly calls out how bad things were being handled.

If you are a tax-payer, especially in a system like the USA where you're forced, then whether you like it or not you have a vested interested in holding your government to task on a variety of matters as YOUR labor and YOUR money is being utilized at gunpoint. It SHOULD be a concern whether or not they are fucking around and wasting your money and putting people needlessly in danger, especially when it has such a broad range of effects.

But hey.. fuck critical thinking... let's just get all partisan on the issue.

The GOP had to come out and refute more from their own memo. The part where they said that the FISA court was not made aware of the political nature of the dossier... was wrong. Gowdy was made famous for going after Hillary, and doing his best to hide evidence that didn't go as the GOP had hoped. He got called out multiple times on the record for doing it. Mind you, I think Hillary is a terrible fucking human being, but Gowdy is the poster boy for disingenuous investigations.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...warrant-390795

Gowdy is on record as signing off on a memo he knew to be wrong.

[hakujinbakasama]

The GOP had to come out and refute more from their own memo. The part where they said that the FISA court was not made aware of the political nature of the dossier... was wrong. Gowdy was made famous for going after Hillary, and doing his best to hide evidence that didn't go as the GOP had hoped. He got called out multiple times on the record for doing it. Mind you, I think Hillary is a terrible fucking human being, but Gowdy is the poster boy for disingenuous investigations.

By all means, please provide links to this behavior. I'll be happy to review it. Secondly, I'm not talking about the recent FISA Memo as I've not been reading or keeping up with the past few months of goings on.

[Machismo]

By all means, please provide links to this behavior. I'll be happy to review it. Secondly, I'm not talking about the recent FISA Memo as I've not been reading or keeping up with the past few months of goings on.

I linked it above, enjoy. Here's other instances of Gowdy being accused of playing politics with investigations, testimony, and leaking certain parts of it, whilst not allowing the entire transcripts to come out.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...lijah-cummings

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/el...rticle/2559497

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckra...-whistleblower

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/35...anies-subpoena

It's amazing how often Gowdy seems to want to limit the story that comes out, and push a disingenuous narrative.

[Garnier Fructis]

I'll link these two together as they highlight the clear dysfunctional conclusion one can arrive. What's the most boggling to me is how people can be so "dickish" in their opinion and simultaneously so oblivious to their ignorance. Yeah, they held several hearings. A rational, fully cognitive, and properly functioning adult should have walked away from them in disgust. Not because of the presumed "Republican Witch Hunt" narrative but rather in the woefully clear state of non-compliance and politically engulfed non-political agencies have become within our system. Further, it should have been and still is a fucking issue that these agencies and groups are STILL able to stonewall the living hell out of congress.

It baffles me, as a person who tries deeply to be as independent and unbiased as possible (though I am human), how so many people are constantly in the same voice on the matter.

There is one completely clear question, one that every American SHOULD give a shit about as a whole in the essence of things, with regards to the Benghazi attack and subsequent hearings which seeming gets left out of all the Gowdy bashing.

https://fas.org/irp/threat/arb/accou...ty_report.html

Why wasn't this followed? Why wasn't this addressed? This already clearly calls out how bad things were being handled.

If you are a tax-payer, especially in a system like the USA where you're forced, then whether you like it or not you have a vested interested in holding your government to task on a variety of matters as YOUR labor and YOUR money is being utilized at gunpoint. It SHOULD be a concern whether or not they are fucking around and wasting your money and putting people needlessly in danger, especially when it has such a broad range of effects.

But hey.. fuck critical thinking... let's just get all partisan on the issue.

Fuck critical thinking all right, since you are *still* dodging the original point, which is why people are hating on Gowdy.

That you happen to think Gowdy is justified and that peoples' reasons are unfounded does not mean that it isn't the reason. And that reason is pretty clearly not just "R and hates Hillary."

[hakujinbakasama]

I linked it above, enjoy. Here's other instances of Gowdy being accused of playing politics with investigations, testimony, and leaking certain parts of it, whilst not allowing the entire transcripts to come out.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...lijah-cummings

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/el...rticle/2559497

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckra...-whistleblower

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/35...anies-subpoena

It's amazing how often Gowdy seems to want to limit the story that comes out, and push a disingenuous narrative.

1. https://youtu.be/fqmj5tpapPc

2. https://youtu.be/SOXjR5zSUwc

3. Gowdy's letter is correct. The House Intel Comitee was already doing an investigation in which the subject areas were defined. The whistle-blower was addressing matters not on that committee's agenda. Gowdy specifically addressed that the claims defined a crime and that it would be the Muller camp who would need to address any following on the matter. The quote in the article is the most telling here...

Gowdy also recommended that Cummings present the claims to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, despite Cummings’ indications in his letter Wednesday that his staff had been in touch with Mueller’s team and had been given the green light to move forward.

(more directed to the piece of shit who wrote the article but also for anyone one missing a few crayons who are reading this) It doesn't fucking matter if Cummings and staff "indicated" they had spoken to Muller's office. What matters is that Muller's office was who would handle and proceed with whatever evidence the whistle-blower would provide. End of fucking story, move the fuck on.

4. I cannot really comment on the last article as it has literally zero context within and I'm not going to sit and do the job of the writer. Was this during an already on going issue with Kushner? Was this purview of the committee in the first place? Does Cummings making a request some how automatically make Gowdy a villain? Not sure what I'm supposed to conclude from anything more than 'Hey there's a claim I demand we do this!" with zero response reported.



Lastly, addressing the memo. There is a distinct difference of language here in the presumption and claim. The Republicans (from what I can tell) are saying that under the FISA request they knew it was a DNC and Clinton Campaign financed dossier and failed to disclose as such. The Democrats are seemingly saying that no it was disclosed because there was a footnote which said "Though this could be politically motivated." (paraphrasing from what little I've seen and read.)

Now, should we have another class on here about false equivalence?

- - - Updated - - -

Fuck critical thinking all right, since you are *still* dodging the original point, which is why people are hating on Gowdy.

That you happen to think Gowdy is justified and that peoples' reasons are unfounded does not mean that it isn't the reason. And that reason is pretty clearly not just "R and hates Hillary."

I don't... it seems pretty clear that it's either "he hurt Hillary /cry" or "He's smarter than me anger!"

[Garnier Fructis]

I don't... it seems pretty clear that it's either "he hurt Hillary /cry" or "He's smarter than me anger!"

If this is really you're take away from this, then you're really not as unbiased as you claim to be.

Also, "I don't..." what? I'm having trouble seeing that as a response to any one part of my post.

[Orbitus]

Wow, I'm honestly startled by the lack of information within the comments on this thread.

From all I can see, it's a complete pile on Gowdy simply because he was a Republican and or because he shit on Hillary Clinton. I'm fucking amazed after all this time people are still so ignorantly bigoted.

That fucker is a hypocritical douche that had to try to open investigations if there was another conspiracy website that said something that might have anything to do with Hillary being the mastermind behind Benghazi. When you have 8 investigations into it, and nothing to show for it, you deserve everything you get.

[hakujinbakasama]

If this is really you're take away from this, then you're really not as unbiased as you claim to be.

Also, "I don't..." what? I'm having trouble seeing that as a response to any one part of my post.

I would take people such as your self seriously if in any way or capacity you ever brought something of substance or resembling thought to the table. Instead what you opt to do, most likely because it's gotten you by so well in life thus far, is to spew out hyperbole and wildly unsubstantiated claims.

If only there was this collective database...maybe in video form... in which one could present someone in their own words and then refute them in order to build their case. Damn you science fiction world!

- - - Updated - - -

That fucker is a hypocritical douche that had to try to open investigations if there was another conspiracy website that said something that might have anything to do with Hillary being the mastermind behind Benghazi. When you have 8 investigations into it, and nothing to show for it, you deserve everything you get.

Are you running out of crayons to eat?

[Elegiac]

I would take people such as your self seriously if in any way or capacity you ever brought something of substance or resembling thought to the table. Instead what you opt to do, most likely because it's gotten you by so well in life thus far, is to spew out hyperbole and wildly unsubstantiated claims.

Your lack of reading comprehension as regards the criticisms of Gowdy and his gaggle of fuckwits sounds like a "you" problem, rather than a lack of substance on the critics' part.

[Orbitus]

I would take people such as your self seriously if in any way or capacity you ever brought something of substance or resembling thought to the table. Instead what you opt to do, most likely because it's gotten you by so well in life thus far, is to spew out hyperbole and wildly unsubstantiated claims.

If only there was this collective database...maybe in video form... in which one could present someone in their own words and then refute them in order to build their case. Damn you science fiction world!

- - - Updated - - -



Are you running out of crayons to eat?

Thanks. You are just proving my point that you are defending a douche that had NOTHING in Benghazi, and the ONLY REASON they were doing the investigations, were to make Hillary look bad and make gullible people like you believe in it.

[Garnier Fructis]

I would take people such as your self seriously if in any way or capacity you ever brought something of substance or resembling thought to the table. Instead what you opt to do, most likely because it's gotten you by so well in life thus far, is to spew out hyperbole and wildly unsubstantiated claims.

Dude. Me telling you why people don't like Gowdy is neither hyperbole or unsubstantiated.

You're trying very hard to sound smart, but you're not putting a lot of effort into actually understanding what people are telling you.

[Machismo]

1. https://youtu.be/fqmj5tpapPc

2. https://youtu.be/SOXjR5zSUwc

3. Gowdy's letter is correct. The House Intel Comitee was already doing an investigation in which the subject areas were defined. The whistle-blower was addressing matters not on that committee's agenda. Gowdy specifically addressed that the claims defined a crime and that it would be the Muller camp who would need to address any following on the matter. The quote in the article is the most telling here...

(more directed to the piece of shit who wrote the article but also for anyone one missing a few crayons who are reading this) It doesn't fucking matter if Cummings and staff "indicated" they had spoken to Muller's office. What matters is that Muller's office was who would handle and proceed with whatever evidence the whistle-blower would provide. End of fucking story, move the fuck on.

4. I cannot really comment on the last article as it has literally zero context within and I'm not going to sit and do the job of the writer. Was this during an already on going issue with Kushner? Was this purview of the committee in the first place? Does Cummings making a request some how automatically make Gowdy a villain? Not sure what I'm supposed to conclude from anything more than 'Hey there's a claim I demand we do this!" with zero response reported.



Lastly, addressing the memo. There is a distinct difference of language here in the presumption and claim. The Republicans (from what I can tell) are saying that under the FISA request they knew it was a DNC and Clinton Campaign financed dossier and failed to disclose as such. The Democrats are seemingly saying that no it was disclosed because there was a footnote which said "Though this could be politically motivated." (paraphrasing from what little I've seen and read.)

Now, should we have another class on here about false equivalence?

- - - Updated - - -



I don't... it seems pretty clear that it's either "he hurt Hillary /cry" or "He's smarter than me anger!"

I see a man doing his damndest to deflect for a corrupt politician. Once again, it's adorable that you try and claim to be "unbiased" in your attempts. You have Trey Gowdy trying to justify his politicization and corruption. Thanks for the videos on that. The GOP just put out a memo that was inaccurate, and they had to walk back. That is monumentally embarrassing for them. This was supposed to be the mother of all reveals, and it blew up in their fucking faces. Don't worry, they still sold it to the GOP, their voters are still blissfully ignorant.

Seriously, you guys are adorable.

"It baffles me, as a person who tries deeply to be as independent and unbiased as possible (though I am human), how so many people are constantly in the same voice on the matter. "

The most hilarious part about this comment, is that you probably actually believe it.

Just look at my signature. Yeah, that was you.

[Burgerberg]

Why do people dislike Trey? I thought he was one of the more reasonable Republicans.

[Orbitus]

Why do people dislike Trey? I thought he was one of the more reasonable Republicans.

Because he wasted MILLIONS doing 8 investigations, that after the first one, didn't turn up anything new into Benghazi. Same with the IRS investigation, and the Email investigation. He was roasted by Hillary during the 13 hour testimony.

[Azadina]

Why do people dislike Trey? I thought he was one of the more reasonable Republicans.

Does that mean there should be up to 8 investigations on Trump-Russia subject, if the first 7 don't provide wanted results? That is reasonable, correct?

[Burgerberg]

Does that mean there should be up to 8 investigations on Trump-Russia subject, if the first 7 don't provide wanted results? That is reasonable, correct?

What the hell are you on about trying to put words in my mouth? I asked a simple question, I'm not even American.

- - - Updated - - -

Because he wasted MILLIONS doing 8 investigations, that after the first one, didn't turn up anything new into Benghazi. Same with the IRS investigation, and the Email investigation. He was roasted by Hillary during the 13 hour testimony.

Ok, thanks for answering!

[Azadina]

What the hell are you on about trying to put words in my mouth? I asked a simple question, I'm not even American.

I asked another simple question. If 1 investigation + 7 complete bogus ones makes him reasonable, then it would stand to reason that 1 Trump-Russia investigation + 7 possible bogus ones afterwards is also reasonable? Is that correct?

[Mormolyce]

Why do people dislike Trey? I thought he was one of the more reasonable Republicans.

At this point that's kind of like saying the least objectionable Nazi.

And that's barely a metaphor.

[Burgerberg]

I asked another simple question. If 1 investigation + 7 complete bogus ones makes him reasonable, then it would stand to reason that 1 Trump-Russia investigation + 7 possible bogus ones afterwards is also reasonable? Is that correct?

You are inferring that's what I actually think. I asked what I did for clarity, and seeing that I don't know too much about these investigations, or the scope and circumstances, I cannot really answer that.

No, what you are doing is attempt to entrap me by asking stupid questions on a topic I don't know much about.