Author Topic: In any other administration...  (Read 10029 times)

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #100 on: November 15, 2019, 11:52:27 AM »
Again, a politician absolutely can do charitable things - as long as they don't mention their campaign while they are handing over the check, or making a speech about their campaign. That's separating X the candidate from X the donor. This was the Trump issue.

Actually I don't think this is right. It's completely legitimate to use reputation earned off one venture to support your reputation on another. If the main feature in both cases is *you* then, yeah, it is totally legit to promote yourself. If you run a successful company on the one hand, and are asked to be on the board of a charity on the other (let's say), it's the opposite of the case that you must divorce these two. On the contrary, they want your reputation as a business owner, and likewise your presence on a charity board is totally going to affect your business credibility as a good citizen. That's how it should be. It is completely honorable to actually do good things and to be known for it, and for that to impact how people perceive other work you do, since the common denominator between them is you. You are being up your own reputation. This is exactly what happens with freelancers, by the way, where your only possible credibility is going to come from what other people have said about you on other projects, even those unrelated to the task you're doing now; like "I've never had X do this job for me before, but I know he's totally reliable from other stuff."

What I mentioned earlier about wearing different hats is a different issue, where a person may not bother to note in which capacity they're acting when doing a job. That's why formal board meetings are needed for a charity, for instance, to make it clear "we're doing the charity stuff now" and they're not discussing Trump's hotel business at the same time, mixing it all together.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #101 on: November 15, 2019, 12:05:35 PM »
But you can't use foundation funds to have a political rally, which is the argument being made. That violates the 501c rules:

Quote
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.

In this case, the targeting of Iowa charities 4 days before caucuses in and of itself suggests a violation. Adding a big event on top of it makes it worse.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #102 on: November 15, 2019, 12:09:16 PM »
But you can't use foundation funds to have a political rally, which is the argument being made. That violates the 501c rules:

I'll leave that one to Seriati, because he seems to claim that this isn't what was happening.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #103 on: November 15, 2019, 12:30:11 PM »
Quote
At one point, Lewandowski emailed a foundation official to see if money could be ready to distribute during Trump’s last campaign events before the caucuses: “Is there any way we can make some disbursements this week while in Iowa? Specifically on Saturday,” Lewandowski wrote, in an email cited by Underwood.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #104 on: November 15, 2019, 12:59:16 PM »
Quote
It sounds as though some people here think that by using his charity to help promote his campaign through positive PR that this was somehow illegal. But how can it be illegal to create PR by donating to charity? Does that essentially mean politicians should be barred from doing charitable deeds and other nice things, because it might "influence" their election chances, which therefore makes the charitable deed a 'sham'

I'm not sure how he used his charity to promote positive PR for the campaign. There is a suggesting he used money from the foundation for his campaign expenses (Not related to charity PR) but not sure if that has been proved. 

Trump did used his "charity" to promote his business interest and played in the gray area. That's who he is and what he does. I have no idea if he crossed any criminal line but IMO only a fool would have donated to that foundation unless all they wanted was Trumps favor.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #105 on: November 15, 2019, 01:13:26 PM »
Quote
The largest disbursement in the foundation’s history — a $264,231 gift to the Central Park Conservancy in 1989 — appeared to benefit Trump’s business: it paid to restore a fountain outside Trump’s Plaza Hotel.

That's using foundation funds to benefit your business, isn't it? All of you arguing that this is perfectly natural, happens all the time, rarely prosecuted, maybe even shouldn't be prosecuted - you may well be right. I'm no legal expert, nor am I an expert in charitable organizations.

It goes against the fundamental concept of a tax exempt charity, however.

It may also be true that no donor was defrauded, because the people who "donated" had no real expectation that the money would be used except to benefit Trump personally. Certainly anyone who researched it even for two minutes would probably understand it was going to be used to gain favors for Trump - and the donations were probably to curry favor with Trump.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #106 on: November 15, 2019, 01:14:45 PM »
Again, a politician absolutely can do charitable things - as long as they don't mention their campaign while they are handing over the check, or making a speech about their campaign. That's separating X the candidate from X the donor. This was the Trump issue.

Actually I don't think this is right. It's completely legitimate to use reputation earned off one venture to support your reputation on another.

Actually, there's nothing remotely illegal or unethical for a politician to mention their campaign while handing over checks.  The "ethical" or "legal" violation is of the charity itself, for "endorsing" the politician.  But why is that unethical?  Seriously, why is it unethical for a charity to endorse a politician. 

Largely, it was a rule designed to keep churches from endorsements, and to keep tax free dollars from going to support politicians.  The punishments are all targetted at making tax payments and losing tax free status.  Trump paid the excise taxes, they were literally tiny.

But you can't use foundation funds to have a political rally, which is the argument being made. That violates the 501c rules:

It's actually not the argument made.  No foundation funds were used for a political rally.  You can read the AG's statements yourself, they are absolutely clear that the CAMPAIGN paid for the charitable event (not the other way around).  The AG argued that the apparent endorsement was wrong, not that any funds were misapplied.

Quote
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.

Yes it's a tax law, designed to prevent tax free dollars from going to support politicians, the "consequence" is an excise tax (treating the dollars as taxable).  And ultimately the risk of loss of tax free status.  Note they didn't apply either of those remedies to the event - cause there was no misuse of charitable dollars.

Quote
In this case, the targeting of Iowa charities 4 days before caucuses in and of itself suggests a violation. Adding a big event on top of it makes it worse.

Again, ask yourself if this is a good result.  You literally seem to think that it should be criminal for a politician to raise money for a charity while they are campaigning.  Is that serving a greater good that I'm missing?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #107 on: November 15, 2019, 01:23:14 PM »
Quote
Again, ask yourself if this is a good result.  You literally seem to think that it should be criminal for a politician to raise money for a charity while they are campaigning.  Is that serving a greater good that I'm missing?

Nope. It should be criminal to use your charity TO campaign. Both for FEC purposes and tax purposes. It already is criminal for a campaign to coordinate with a charity and direct its activities. The same reason a Super PAC can't be directed by the campaign. Because we have limits on direct contributions to campaigns. If you can skirt past those, then there are no limits. There are limits on personal contributions to avoid having an oligarchy. The fact that it hasn't been effective isn't a reason for it to not exist.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #108 on: November 15, 2019, 01:40:43 PM »
The topic of this thread - In any other administration - is still holding true

No way those defending Trumps use of his "charity" would use the same arguments to defend Clinton if he had done the same things. (which he may have)

When I use the word 'shady' I mean a lack of transparency - smoke and mirrors misdirection. A problem with to many of these types of foundations
« Last Edit: November 15, 2019, 01:46:43 PM by rightleft22 »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #109 on: November 15, 2019, 02:37:06 PM »
The topic of this thread - In any other administration - is still holding true

No way those defending Trumps use of his "charity" would use the same arguments to defend Clinton if he had done the same things. (which he may have)

You know, going back to the thread topic, I have to completely disagree. You can say whatever you want about whether you believe Hillary was operating a pay-to-play scheme, but I have no doubt that if Saudi Arabia and QATAR started donating large sums to the Trump foundation people would be losing their crap and it would be called Treason 2019. In terms of optics what the Clintons were doing literally could not look worse, other than obviously there being an actual smoking gun of corruption. The kind of stuff we're talking about here in the Trump foundation is little league stuff compared to that, almost a joke in comparison if what we're talking about is "in any other administration." Granted Hillary wasn't the POTUS but still.

I actually do agree in general that standards are changing - for the worse - but on this specific topic it's cringy to hear talk that Trump's golf course shenanigans are anything serious when compared to what literally could amount to selling out the country in the previous admin. And make no mistake I'd make the same attacks against Trump if I heard he was doing the same.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #110 on: November 15, 2019, 02:44:12 PM »
But you can't use foundation funds to have a political rally, which is the argument being made. That violates the 501c rules:

I'll leave that one to Seriati, because he seems to claim that this isn't what was happening.

My understanding is the rally was funded by other means. The Foundation funded the donation which happened during the political rally, and it was that crossing of lines which got Trump in trouble.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #111 on: November 15, 2019, 02:50:49 PM »
Regardless, the Clinton foundation didn't violate any laws. And that's what's important, right?

Fenring:
Quote
There is no point questioning the virtue of his methods of spending money; only the legality of it is relevant.



TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #112 on: November 15, 2019, 02:52:02 PM »
But you can't use foundation funds to have a political rally, which is the argument being made. That violates the 501c rules:

I'll leave that one to Seriati, because he seems to claim that this isn't what was happening.

My understanding is the rally was funded by other means. The Foundation funded the donation which happened during the political rally, and it was that crossing of lines which got Trump in trouble.

Yes, the foundation didn't rent the venue. Is it better if we replace "have a political rally" with "promote a political rally"?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #113 on: November 15, 2019, 02:56:23 PM »
Regardless, the Clinton foundation didn't violate any laws. And that's what's important, right?

Fenring:
Quote
There is no point questioning the virtue of his methods of spending money; only the legality of it is relevant.

That comment of mine was made specifically regarding utilizing tax law to the maximum of one's advantage. If the Clintons were doing that then fine, it's legal. Pay to play is hard to prove because the donations are not going to come with a note saying "thanks for the state department favors!!!11!!" But that type of malfeasance, if it happened, is the sort of thing people worried about with the Clinton Foundation. I don't think I've ever heard a complaint about the Clintons fudging their taxes with the Foundation. We're talking about the difference between messing with your books a little to reduce spending, versus selling out to a foreign nation, and you're quoting my text back at me as if that's what I was talking about?

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #114 on: November 15, 2019, 03:01:17 PM »
Regardless, the Clinton foundation didn't violate any laws. And that's what's important, right?

Fenring:
Quote
There is no point questioning the virtue of his methods of spending money; only the legality of it is relevant.

We won't know until there is an investigation.  Isn't that how this works now?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #115 on: November 15, 2019, 05:28:35 PM »
Quote
We won't know until there is an investigation.  Isn't that how this works now?

I thought we didn't like investigations, their all political witch hunts?
Following Process is bad as well, better to work around them?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #116 on: November 15, 2019, 05:50:08 PM »
Quote
We won't know until there is an investigation.  Isn't that how this works now?

I thought we didn't like investigations, their all political witch hunts?
Following Process is bad as well, better to work around them?

Republicans take back the house, we’re gonna love them. It’s your game, you wanted it, don’t be surprised when we decide to play too. The world is changing and the rules you wanted to play by will be applied to you. I can already tell you’re not gonna like it.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #117 on: November 15, 2019, 06:00:44 PM »
But you can't use foundation funds to have a political rally, which is the argument being made. That violates the 501c rules:

I'll leave that one to Seriati, because he seems to claim that this isn't what was happening.

My understanding is the rally was funded by other means. The Foundation funded the donation which happened during the political rally, and it was that crossing of lines which got Trump in trouble.

Yes, the foundation didn't rent the venue. Is it better if we replace "have a political rally" with "promote a political rally"?

There is letter of the law, which you seem to be fixated on, and then there is intent of the law.

In terms of intent behind the law, it is very much a grey item on if what Trump did should even be considered a violation with respect to The Trump Foundation.

I'm inclined to think that prosecution of Trump for a violation of that law, in that manner, was no intended by the people who initially drafted that law.

It's very possible that the ones who made subsequent revisions to the law intended prosecution to be possible. I'm not sure that was an improvement myself.

Mostly, it just demonstrates the Tax Code in the United States turns morality into a pretzel wanting to pretend to be Gordian Knot.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #118 on: November 17, 2019, 06:37:14 PM »
That's fair. I am fixated on the letter of the law. I think a president should be beyond reproach. So any gray area should be avoided by them.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #119 on: November 18, 2019, 11:53:07 AM »
Quote
We won't know until there is an investigation.  Isn't that how this works now?

I thought we didn't like investigations, their all political witch hunts?
Following Process is bad as well, better to work around them?

Republicans take back the house, we’re gonna love them. It’s your game, you wanted it, don’t be surprised when we decide to play too. The world is changing and the rules you wanted to play by will be applied to you. I can already tell you’re not gonna like it.

Because the game was so different when it was the Benghazi witch hunt.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #120 on: November 18, 2019, 01:53:37 PM »
Quote
Republicans take back the house, we’re gonna love them. It’s your game, you wanted it, don’t be surprised when we decide to play too. The world is changing and the rules you wanted to play by will be applied to you. I can already tell you’re not gonna like it.

Your making a lot of assumptions and over generalizations that undermine your arguments and moral authority. That the left made the ‘rules’ of the game and that Everyone on the Left approve of those rules (if that former is true).
Your main argument being that because your opponent abused the system and rules "of the game" its ok for you to abuse the system and rules.   An eye for an eye for an eye.

Trump, who used to the system to his advantage, demonstrated how broken the game is, ran on how broken the system is,  implying he would fix it. Only like you he has no desire to fix anything but to continue to excuse himself from doing better and using the system as is, broken, and in the process break it even more. Just playing the game

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #121 on: November 18, 2019, 04:40:37 PM »
Quote
We won't know until there is an investigation.  Isn't that how this works now?

I thought we didn't like investigations, their all political witch hunts?
Following Process is bad as well, better to work around them?

Republicans take back the house, we’re gonna love them. It’s your game, you wanted it, don’t be surprised when we decide to play too. The world is changing and the rules you wanted to play by will be applied to you. I can already tell you’re not gonna like it.

Because the game was so different when it was the Benghazi witch hunt.

You mean where soldiers were abandoned on the ground and the ambassador was killed? That the incident you think was about nothing?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #122 on: November 18, 2019, 05:40:44 PM »
The incident happened, and it was deadly. The hoax part was claiming that they refused to deploy available assets and that they deliberately intended to deceive the public about the attacks. 9 different investigations turned up not a shred of evidence.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #123 on: November 19, 2019, 07:47:07 AM »
Yeah, everyone knows that there is no way support could have arrived onsite over a 6 hour period.

Surveillance stuff, easy. I mean, 6 hours, get those babies across the Med from military bases close by in an hour. No problem. But anything that could do more than simply watch, just impossible. Not a single air or ground asset within 1500 miles. Just nothing could be done, everything in the US military was just too far away to help. Except those drones, they’re magic.

That’s the story. You will believe it.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #124 on: November 19, 2019, 08:38:03 AM »
Go ahead and show me the testimony within the nine investigations that proves your point.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #125 on: November 19, 2019, 12:21:13 PM »
The incident happened, and it was deadly. The hoax part was claiming that they refused to deploy available assets and that they deliberately intended to deceive the public about the attacks. 9 different investigations turned up not a shred of evidence.

There was no "hoax" in Benghazi, other than the administration's decision to sell politically convenient lies about what caused it.

A better question is what was the purpose of having an investigation, or several at all?

Legitimately, the President's authority to decide a course of action in that circumstance is absolute.  Obama's judgment about what could be done is absolute and unreviewable.  It can't legitimate be any other way.

Obviously, having an investigation is in part designed to be politically damaging, almost exactly like having a sham impeachment process.  That part is not legitimate.

But does that mean there are no legitimate investigations to be made?  Not at all, there are in fact lots of legitimate questions for a Congress that cares about oversight to pursue in those circumstances.  If you think otherwise, you're actually arguing for a beyond ridiculous level of unquestionable authority in the President's hands. The fact that Congress can't pull it's head out it's political as and do a fair investigation, doesn't actually change that some are warranted.

Like for example, it's absolutely legitimate to investigate whether funds appropriated for security were applied correctly, and whether requests for additional security were improperly ignored.  Congress has spent substantial time looking at these issues overtime as our embassies have been attacked or threatened over the years.  Funding and oversight of spending and future spending needs are 100% within Congresses wheelhouse.

It would also be legitimate to investigate whether there were break downs in the response, including specifically, around command, control and communication that would have prevented Obama from having access to knowledge about options.  While I'm sure the military did so, this actually involves multiple organizations that don't report to them and accordingly, would require the higher level oversight.

It would be legitimate for the Intelligence committees to investigate if there was an intell breakdown, if not, that might lead to a more fulsome investigation of decisions made.  If there was it may lead to changes in authorizations or funding.

Pretty much this is all legit, whether or not it makes an admin look bad, the problem comes when the goal seems to be to make the admin look bad.  Of course, it a world where it's an "impeachable offense" to ask for an investigation into criminal 2016 election interference, based on which political party it helps its hard to know if an investigation was legit or not.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #126 on: November 19, 2019, 12:58:03 PM »

I’ll say that what the Trump campaign did here was wrong if that will make you happy. It’s something nearly every campaign has done for at least the last 20 years, including Obama. Given all the fabricated impeachment scams, why do you think this isn’t being used to impeach Trump? Why isn’t this a “high crime or misdemeanor” for the Democrats to use?

As for shooting someone on 5th avenue, Obama literally murdered American citizens. You guys still voted for and defended him. Your moral outrage is obviously hypocritical.
I can see how hard you're straining to justify yourself :) :) :), but you can't come right out and say Trump did something wrong and leave it at that, can you?  Not. Remotely. Possible. :D

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #127 on: November 19, 2019, 03:21:33 PM »
Go ahead and show me the testimony within the nine investigations that proves your point.

The point that there were assets in the area that could have responded during the hours of the attack? Seriously? We have entire military bases that could fit that description. There are always navy resources in the Mediterranean and they could have responded. It’s the height of ignorance to suggest that there were simply no assets within 6 hours of Benghazi. Where do you think the surveillance drone came from?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #128 on: November 19, 2019, 03:32:53 PM »
I really can't believe I'm having to do this for you, but it seems actual soldiers don't agree with you armchair ones. There were apparently four guys who could get there late, and they were told not to go.

Quote
In February, the Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Martin Dempsey, was asked by Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-New Hampshire, why F-16s at Aviano Air Base in Italy weren't deployed to Benghazi that night.
"This is the middle of the night now, these are not aircraft on strip alert," Dempsey said. "They're there as part of our commitment to NATO and Europe. And so, as we looked at the time line , it was pretty clear that it would take up to 20 hours or so to get them there. Secondly, senator, importantly, it was the wrong tool for the job."
Then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta testified that "unfortunately, there was no specific intelligence or indications of an imminent attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi. And frankly, without an adequate warning, there was not enough time given the speed of the attack for armed military assets to respond.
"That's not just my view or General Dempsey's view. It was the view of the Accountability Review Board that studied what happened on that day," he added.
"This is not 9/11," Panetta said in a February interview on CNN's "State of the Union." "You cannot just simply call and expect within two minutes to have a team in place. It takes time. That's the nature of it. Our people are there, they're in position to move, but we've got to have good intelligence that gives us a heads up that something's going to happen."
Hicks said that around 10 p.m. on the night of the first attack, he was at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli talking to State Department officials in Washington, regional security officer John Martinec at the U.S. Embassy, defense attache Lt. Col. Keith Phillips and others.
Phillips was reaching out to officials with the Libyan Ministry of Defense and to the chief of staff of the Libyan Armed Forces, as well as officials with the Joint Staff and the U.S. Africa Command.
Hicks recalled asking Phillips, "Is there anything coming?"
He said Phillips replied "that the nearest fighter planes were Aviano, that he had been told that it would take two to three hours to get them airborne, but that there were no tanker assets near enough to support a flight from Aviano."
There was one team that headed from Tripoli to Benghazi, arriving at around 1:15 a.m., Hicks said.
Phillips, Hicks recalled, "worked assiduously all night long to try to get the Libyan military to respond in some way." The Libyan prime minister called Hicks and told him that the U.S. ambassador had been killed, after which "the Libyan military agreed to fly their C-130 to Benghazi and carry additional personnel to Benghazi as reinforcements."
Hicks said that four U.S. Special Forces troops in Tripoli -- led by the leader of the U.S. Special Operations Command Africa, SOCAfrica -- planned to hitch a ride on the Libyan plan to travel to Benghazi to help.
"We fully intended for those guys to go, because we had already essentially stripped ourselves of our security presence, or our security capability, to the bare minimum," Hicks recalled.
But the four were informed by someone with SOCAfrica that they didn't have the authority to go, Hicks said.
"So Lt. Col. Gibson, who is the SOCAfrica commander, his team, you know, they were on their way to the vehicles to go to the airport to get on the C-130 when he got a phone call from SOCAfrica which said, 'you can't go now, you don't have authority to go now,'' Hicks said. "And so they missed the flight."
"They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it," Hicks said. "I still remember Col. Gibson, he said, 'I have never been so embarrassed in my life that a State Department officer has bigger balls than somebody in the military.' A nice compliment."
The C-130 left between 6 and 6:30 a.m., so the four Special Forces troops would not have arrived in time to fend off the 5:15 a.m. attack on the CIA annex in Benghazi.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #129 on: November 19, 2019, 03:52:09 PM »
And frankly, without an adequate warning, there was not enough time given the speed of the attack for armed military assets to respond.
"That's not just my view or General Dempsey's view. It was the view of the Accountability Review Board that studied what happened on that day," he added.
"This is not 9/11," Panetta said in a February interview on CNN's "State of the Union." "You cannot just simply call and expect within two minutes to have a team in place. It takes time.

So...is this intentionally or unintentionally subversive?  :-X

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #130 on: November 19, 2019, 04:12:12 PM »
Crunch, TheDrake I think you are both buying in to an overstated case.  I don't believe there was a team that could have been the right tool ready to go in the anticipated time window of 'next 6 hours.'  However, that time window is very after the fact.  For all we knew real time, the situation could have been going on for 24 hours or 3 days, or over in 15 minutes.  That was literally the President's call and he made it.

I got to say though, it's easy to question whether the go order should have been sent even if help wasn't going to get there for 12 hours.  You could always cancel, but it can't ever get there if it's not sent.  But getting their hard too late sends a message as well (and not necessary a good one).   That is literally why we have a unitary executive to make those decisions, and recourse on "being wrong" is political - as in elections - not Congress.  Congress does not have the authority to remove a President over policy disagreements (just wish the House would remember that).

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #131 on: November 19, 2019, 04:29:09 PM »
Do we have reason to believe that no one was mobilizing, and Obama decided to never evacuate them?

Here's what the investigation found out:

Quote
Within 90 minutes of the Sept. 11, 2012, surprise attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound that killed Ambassador J.  Christopher Stevens and an aide, the report tells us, Obama had told his secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to do everything possible, implicitly including using military force, to protect Americans.

These were “very clear directions,” according to Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), one of Obama’s harshest critics on the panel.

How different from the version of the president’s conduct propounded on right-wing talk radio and TV in the aftermath: that he and his aides coolly watched live video of the mayhem in Benghazi, supplied by drones flying overhead, but declined to order a rescue mission.

I think the words you are looking for are "total exoneration"?

Somebody in the chain of command told those four troops not to get on the Libyan C130. I'm not reliving all those hearings to find out who actually gave the order for them not to go, but it seems pretty clear it wasn't Obama.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #132 on: November 19, 2019, 04:35:19 PM »
Do we have reason to believe that no one was mobilizing, and Obama decided to never evacuate them?

Here's what the investigation found out:

Quote
Within 90 minutes of the Sept. 11, 2012, surprise attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound that killed Ambassador J.  Christopher Stevens and an aide, the report tells us, Obama had told his secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to do everything possible, implicitly including using military force, to protect Americans.

These were “very clear directions,” according to Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), one of Obama’s harshest critics on the panel.

How different from the version of the president’s conduct propounded on right-wing talk radio and TV in the aftermath: that he and his aides coolly watched live video of the mayhem in Benghazi, supplied by drones flying overhead, but declined to order a rescue mission.

I think the words you are looking for are "total exoneration"?

Somebody in the chain of command told those four troops not to get on the Libyan C130. I'm not reliving all those hearings to find out who actually gave the order for them not to go, but it seems pretty clear it wasn't Obama.

It would have been a good exercise if someone, from either political party, to find out who told the team not to board the plane, and that would warrant an investigation.

But people are also overlooking that some of the investigations were looking into the cover up/response to the aftermath of that attack. Where did the idea of blaming an obscure Youtube video come from?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #133 on: November 19, 2019, 05:15:52 PM »
The investigation determined that the administration was getting that from the intelligence agencies.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #134 on: November 19, 2019, 05:29:36 PM »
And the fact that same obscure YouTube video had led to a massive protest in Egypt earlier that day. The politically convenient lie as some like to refer to it had been walked back by the administration within a week. There wasn’t a long term disinformation campaign.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #135 on: November 19, 2019, 05:32:15 PM »
There wasn’t a long term disinformation campaign because the attempted disinformation campaign was laughable, it fell apart before it had a chance to become “long term”.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #136 on: November 19, 2019, 05:48:18 PM »
And yet when Trump puts out his disinformation...

Withdrawn. I know its a whatabout.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #137 on: November 20, 2019, 01:23:00 AM »
Do we have reason to believe that no one was mobilizing, and Obama decided to never evacuate them?

Here's what the investigation found out:

Quote
Within 90 minutes of the Sept. 11, 2012, surprise attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound that killed Ambassador J.  Christopher Stevens and an aide, the report tells us, Obama had told his secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to do everything possible, implicitly including using military force, to protect Americans.

These were “very clear directions,” according to Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), one of Obama’s harshest critics on the panel.

How different from the version of the president’s conduct propounded on right-wing talk radio and TV in the aftermath: that he and his aides coolly watched live video of the mayhem in Benghazi, supplied by drones flying overhead, but declined to order a rescue mission.

I think the words you are looking for are "total exoneration"?

I was actually thinking that you may have found an exoneration.  But then I decided to double check it and see if I can find context. 

Can you provide a link?  I found a total of six references for "very clear directions" and Peter Roskam on a google search.  I read part of an angry New Yorker article that seems to claim Roskam was narrating something.  It doesn't appear that Roskam stated that as true.

You can look at the final report (the words are not there) but the read is fascinating.  https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-114hrpt848/pdf/CRPT-114hrpt848.pdf  The report is huge, but the relevant part seems to be at 69-71.

If you look around that section, it looks essentially like the words were Panettas.  And that timeline goes something like this - note the "urgency" - Panetta was leaving for a regular 5 o'clock meeting with the President when he heard about the situation.  He met with the President and briefed him on the situation, and the President told him, send those troops.  Panetta so urgently followed this order that he went back to the Pentagon, which I grant you is only 3 miles, but seems like an urgent order could be sent from the white house.   "Within  the hour" of returning to the Pentago sent orders out to act.  That's great, but apparently, then the Pentagon itself took hours to pass it on, and the local groups weren't on ready status and had a poor amount of transport (by the way, apparently this was  a known issue that the military had repeatedly raised). 

Quote
Somebody in the chain of command told those four troops not to get on the Libyan C130. I'm not reliving all those hearings to find out who actually gave the order for them not to go, but it seems pretty clear it wasn't Obama.

I agree with that.  Even without reading the report in full.  He's not irresolute, once he gave an order he wouldn't have waffled.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #138 on: November 20, 2019, 07:01:58 AM »
Panettas testimony. Washington post was my original source for Roskam. They like back to the select committee report, where I assume somewhere Roskam made the statement bergamot or in writing.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #139 on: November 20, 2019, 07:38:17 AM »
It’s not as if Obama had any responsibility for the military, intelligence operations, or the state department, right? If only there was a single person who was the authority for all those agencies, someone that could direct and coordinate all of them.

Next, you guys will tell me Obama never even knew it was happening. Learned about it it on CNN the next morning.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #140 on: November 20, 2019, 08:08:35 AM »
Quote
Somebody in the chain of command told those four troops not to get on the Libyan C130. I'm not reliving all those hearings to find out who actually gave the order for them not to go, but it seems pretty clear it wasn't Obama.

I agree with that.  Even without reading the report in full.  He's not irresolute, once he gave an order he wouldn't have waffled.

I absolutely agree that a military officer may have told those men not to get on the plane. If they were still gathering what the scope of the attack was, you don't send 4 men in to fight 40, even if knowing many military personal the 4 men would have volunteered anyway. You wait until you can send a larger force in so that you don't end up with more people dead or in need of rescue.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #141 on: November 20, 2019, 08:34:53 AM »
It’s not as if Obama had any responsibility for the military, intelligence operations, or the state department, right? If only there was a single person who was the authority for all those agencies, someone that could direct and coordinate all of them.

Next, you guys will tell me Obama never even knew it was happening. Learned about it it on CNN the next morning.

Sometimes you're downright incoherent. What more do you want him to do than tell the Joint Chiefs and the SecDef that they have authority to do whatever is necessary?

Did you want him to start calling ground commanders directly and have em get on in there?

There is a chain of command. You can have a legitimate complaint that the buck stops with him, that before the incident there were systemic problems that he should have addressed. To suggest that he personally should have been directing the details of the response is bizarre.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #142 on: November 20, 2019, 11:37:52 AM »
It’s not as if Obama had any responsibility for the military, intelligence operations, or the state department, right? If only there was a single person who was the authority for all those agencies, someone that could direct and coordinate all of them.

Next, you guys will tell me Obama never even knew it was happening. Learned about it it on CNN the next morning.

I don't understand this Crunch.  You can believe Panetta was lying, but based on his testimony, Obama knew within a couple of hours and issued a clear order to move assets to help. 

Why that translated into what we got is a good question and one that it's reasonable for Congress to ask.  But blaming Obama is misplaced (unless you have reason to think Panetta was lying, or about Obama countermanding his own order).  It's not clear to me though, why in all the years of discussions Obama didn't just come out and say he ordered action taken as soon as he heard about it.  Do you think he was "covering" for the failures to implement by his administration/military?  If so, that's far more of a stand up move than I would've given him credit for.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #143 on: November 20, 2019, 12:44:35 PM »
I've been looking at this again and can't seem to get it locked down so if this is incorrect I'll be happy to be properly illuminated but the gist of what I get from the internet is that this was that proverbial 3 am phone call and since Obama had a campaign event the next day and wanted a good night's sleep he went straight back to bed. Delegation of authority is important and legitimate but in this case obviously it didn't work. I don't know if Obama told them what to do and they didn't do it or he left it up to them when hindsight shows he should have made the call himself because they got it wrong but we do know that when the crisis situation happened, its handling was ineffective and a failure. And then of course they lied about it blaming the video when they knew otherwise.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2018/09/10/obamas-benghazi-remark-a-new-low/

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #144 on: November 20, 2019, 02:53:56 PM »
So the thread that started with Trumps charity foundation has turned to be about Obama and Benghazi.
And so it go nothing will change because I think we don't want it to.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #145 on: November 20, 2019, 04:08:10 PM »
You would prefer to keep repeating our talking points back and forth on his charity? Or that we start a new thread instead of going off-topic?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #146 on: November 20, 2019, 05:48:39 PM »
You would prefer to keep repeating our talking points back and forth on his charity? Or that we start a new thread instead of going off-topic?

No, either way we end up repeating talking points. Maybe that's all their is. I'm wonder if maybe we have all become complainers, perpetually happy to be offended and wronged, just so we might feel something. I don't get the impression that any of us expect anything to change when it come to politics. 

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #147 on: November 20, 2019, 06:06:05 PM »
Oh, I think change is coming, we just haven't hit the mystical tipping point where it happens.

I think we're about to see another political party become established, and if past precedent follows suit, one of the other two is going to fade away pretty quickly after that.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #148 on: November 20, 2019, 11:04:56 PM »
You would prefer to keep repeating our talking points back and forth on his charity? Or that we start a new thread instead of going off-topic?

We could always talk about something serious, like Trump’s physical resemblance to the movie version of Goldfinger.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #149 on: November 21, 2019, 08:14:09 AM »
Oh, I think change is coming, we just haven't hit the mystical tipping point where it happens.

I think we're about to see another political party become established, and if past precedent follows suit, one of the other two is going to fade away pretty quickly after that.

I sincerely hope that’s all that happens. As the left continues to embrace violence, lies, and demonization of others, the right will eventually join and things may escalate out of control. It boils slowly but once it hits the tipping point it goes very fast and you’re pretty likely to see people hanging from streetlights.