A Complete Waste of Space

oh, I thought this was a Talking Heads thread.

I see you commented without reading.....again.

yup, don't care. Breitbart deals in lies. Try another source, if you can find one.

callmeslick wrote:yup, don't care. Breitbart deals in lies. Try another source, if you can find one.

Keep reading HuffPo....
Here's something you can watch....

http://www.c-span.org/video/?117044-1/s ... -testimony

ho-hum. Story's been debunked by about 25 co-workers, some of whom have suggested Byrne should be held in Contempt Of Congress for lying. Of course, under the Congress that gave us 63 end-ACA votes, Spent 4 years and BILLIONS investigating Bengazi and vowed to focus on preventing Obama from succeeding, that isn't happening, now is it?

callmeslick wrote:ho-hum. Story's been debunked by about 25 co-workers, some of whom have suggested Byrne should be held in Contempt Of Congress for lying. Of course, under the Congress that gave us 63 end-ACA votes, Spent 4 years and BILLIONS investigating Bengazi and vowed to focus on preventing Obama from succeeding, that isn't happening, now is it?

Show a link to the 'co-workers'....and their statements under oath...
Then 'show' me where Clinton and Obama were and what they were doing...since 'billions' was spent on Benghazi not the "Bengazi" you misspelled above...

from the Association of Uniformed Secret Service Agents public press release:
(this is a completely non-partisan group by the way)
One must question the veracity and content of any book which implies that its author played such an integral part of so many [claimed] incidents. Any critique of management by one who has never managed personnel or programs resounds hollow. Additionally, why would an employee wait in excess of ten years after terminating his employment with the Service to make his allegations public?” it reads.

The closest contact that Byrne could have had, according to Gilhooly and others, is seeing the president or the first lady pass in the hallway — far from the intimate access he would have needed to catch Bill Clinton in the act or see Hillary Clinton fly into the cursing rages he now writes have convinced him that she doesn’t have the “integrity and temperament” to be president.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/h ... z4CpATSTuU

Finally, both Benghazi and Bengazi are accepted spellings of a word in arabic that neither of us could spell.

as for the 1998 testimony, very little is available now of the commentary back in the day, but people were skeptical of his Lewinski testimony for the above reason then, but nothing was done due to politics. I'm sure some of those folks will be popping up, shortly, now that his Andy Warhol moment with his soon-to-be-forgotten-if it isn't already book is upon us.

skeptical of his Lewinski testimony

Plain and simple.

Clintons Lie under oath.

HappyHappy wrote:

skeptical of his Lewinski testimony

Plain and simple.

Lies under oath.

good to see you agree. Most do agree that he did, clearly, lie under oath.