Skip to content


David Horsey
© David Horsey

I don’t get it. If Bill Clinton wanted to compromise the Benghazi investigation by having a sneaky private conversation with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, why would it happen in a public place?

And after dozens of Republican investigations into Benghazi, why does anyone even listen to this noise anymore?



  1. Thatguy wrote:

    You have “Benghazi” where I think you mean “email.” See, it’s still on your mind too!

    While this is clearly another non-issue, it’s still an incredibly bad look for Clinton (Bill) and Lynch. It’s just easy ammo to excite people dumb enough to believe or lean toward believing Trump & Co’s spew.

    With that said… I suppose it matters even less in the grand scheme of things.

    Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 7:07 am | Permalink
  2. Iron Knee wrote:

    The email revelations came out of Trey Gowdy’s Benghazi investigation. That’s why I said Benghazi.

    I also roll my eyes at the “incredibly bad look” arguments. You mean, worse than lying us into war, or using torture, or purposely selling arms to an enemy (Reagan), or burglarizing a political opponent’s office (Nixon)? As scandals go, this one is completely lame.

    Also, see my post tomorrow.

    Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 9:00 am | Permalink
  3. Hassan wrote:

    When Loretta Lynch herself thinks it was pretty bad, not sure why you are criticising people criticising this meeting.

    Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 9:14 am | Permalink
  4. PatriotSGT wrote:

    The meeting between the chief prosecutor of the USA and the former president is a matter if etgics in the legal world. If for another real world example, say, Eisenhower met with the AG overseeing Nixon’s case. Or if DA Mosby, the one brought the charges against the 6 officers in Baltimore, met with a politically connected member of any of the officers, or even Gray’s family. Either would immediately call into play ethical questions. Attorneys must abide by their code of ethics and impartiality.

    All that being said, meeting in an airport tarmac, out of view of the press, and essentialy in secret (well maybe not so much) is just bad optics. I’m sure Hillary and her team are looking for a dog house to send Bill to, until November.

    Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 9:31 am | Permalink
  5. Iron Knee wrote:

    If Loretta Lynch thinks it was that bad, then why did she meet with Bill Clinton?

    Look, I’m not saying that it wasn’t a mistake. But in the grand scheme of presidential mistakes, it is pretty small. For example, Trump just repeatedly solicited campaign contributions from foreign politicians. That not only has “bad optics” and has an “incredibly bad look”, but it is actually illegal.

    Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 9:44 am | Permalink
  6. Mike wrote:

    I think most of us are getting pretty tired of the “oh yeah, well they did it too” argument. Why can’t we simply hold our elected and appointed officials to some standard of conduct without the examples of what the other side did used as an attempt to excuse, justify or dismiss the offending action?

    Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 10:03 am | Permalink
  7. Hassan wrote:

    Iron Knee, she thinks it is bad now after the fact.

    Comparing people to Trump is quite a low bar.

    Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 10:07 am | Permalink
  8. Hassan wrote:

    Mike, thank you.

    Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 10:08 am | Permalink
  9. Iron Knee wrote:

    Mike, I completely agree, except that it means that we should “hold our elected and appointed officials to” the SAME “standard of conduct”. “Standard” means the same for everyone.

    It just pisses me off. Reagan sold weapons to Iraq (our sworn enemy) and nothing happened. Dubya lied us into a war and committed war crimes, and got reelected. What kind of “standard of conduct” is that?

    I am not justifying what Bill Clinton did. I’m complaining that I’m tired of the media creating mountains out of molehills for Clinton.

    Of course it is relevant to compare this to how others are punished for similar indiscretions. For example, if blacks used marijuana at the same rate as whites, but blacks were around twice as likely to be arrested for marijuana use, wouldn’t that be wrong? If a black person complained that it wasn’t fair, would you just dismiss them and say that they broke the law and the laws must be enforced?

    Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 10:23 am | Permalink
  10. Hassan wrote:

    Iron Knee, what makes you think Mike and me will not hold (or would not have held) same standard of conduct for everyone?

    Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 11:56 am | Permalink
  11. Iron Knee wrote:

    Maybe because when I try to hold Clinton to the same (low) standard of conduct as many others, you object?

    Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 12:40 pm | Permalink
  12. Hassan wrote:

    Iron Knee, did I hold others to low standard of conduct? I am consistent in my standards (whether you agree with them or not).

    Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 12:54 pm | Permalink
  13. Ralph wrote:

    I rang in on this topic yesterday under your “Trump’s Email Scandal?” post. By all means, we certainly should hold ALL elected official to the same standards. That’s why they’re called “standards”, by definition, but sometimes we understandably tend to let things slide a bit when it’s someone from our team. Still, maintaining objectivity is something that requires continuous vigilance, as politics engages our emotions (and pocketbooks) as much as the rational side of our minds.

    IMHO, Dana Milbank’s oped in the WaPo the other day put the whole Benghazi debacle in perfect context and, for me anyway, is the final word on the the whole sorry subject. Considering the intense pressure that various conspiracy-minded activist groups put on the House Benghazi committee to come up with something – anything – to pin on Hillary it’s clear that objectivity was pretty much the last thing on the agenda. With Gowdy’s failure to reel in their big fish, he himself now appears to be on their hit list.

    That’s the thing about conspiracy fanatics. Even if they fail to prove their conspiracy, there’s always another layer of deception they can invent to keep it alive. They’re still looking for the second shooter on the grassy knoll in Dallas. Apparently, Trump would have liked us to believe it’s Ted Cruz’s father, at least while Ted was still in the race.

    When we lose our objectivity and perspective, we’re in danger of losing our way, and you can argue that bell rang in Congress long ago already.

    Nick Anderson

    Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 3:20 pm | Permalink
  14. Hassan wrote:

    Ralph I like your cartoon, if not Republicans, Democrats should investigate Iraq war disaster (unless they are afraid that their nominee will get ashamed)

    Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 6:55 pm | Permalink
  15. PatriotSGT wrote:

    Gowdy reminds me of McCarthy frim the 50’s communist witch hunt.
    They other factor that is missing a lot from our elected officials (and those running for elected office) is the human factor of ” to err is human”. The personal values of honesty and integrity along with personal courage seem to be missing from those we elect, repeatedly. The only people to blame for that are us. We still clearly elect our congress, if not our president. And we donate lots of money.

    Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 9:13 am | Permalink
  16. Ralph wrote:

    Hassan – good point. The 9/11 commission report discusses Iraq mostly in historical context related to the war on terrorism and leading up to the 9/11 attacks in particular, recounting the various and flimsy evidence presented that Saddam was in cahoots with al Qaeda or Bin Laden. In contrast, it concludes “…to date we have seen no evidence…indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.” (excerpt, pg 83).

    Furthermore, the report states “…Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.” (pg 78).

    What we don’t have, so far as I’m aware, is a comparable commissioned study of how the Bush Administration came to the conclusion that invading Iraq and taking out Saddam was in our national interest or how the intelligence was orchestrated (or arguably, manipulated) to gain the support of Congress, the public and the press (ostensibly, our fourth branch of gov’t checks and balances) by convincing them Iraq was on the verge of acquiring nukes. They’d have to defer on the ramifications of the whole disaster because it’s still very much a “work in progress”, if progress is an apt description. Anyway, I suspect any such report would have a lot more content redacted from public view than even the the 28 pages of the 9/11 report we’re still waiting for!

    Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 10:42 am | Permalink
  17. ebdoug wrote:

    The invasion of Iraq is not historic, it is current. 115 more killed in the bomb in Baghdad. All those killed because Bush did not secure the boarders and IS and Al qaeda got in. Every day there is more evidence of his continuing destruction in a sovereign nation.

    Monday, July 4, 2016 at 6:33 pm | Permalink