Discussion: Gowdy: A Private Clinton Interview Would Have Been More Productive

Discussion for article #242156


When the interviews are public, the public can learn for itself what was said. When the interviews are private, like Blumenthal’s, Gowdy can leak selectively and smear him all he likes.


He really is a tick. Can’t not try to stay latched on, even when it’s been proven there’s no blood to be had.



He’s regretting that it was available for all to see because it made him look the fool.


I’m sure it would have, Trey-Trey. It’s an effing shame when the public’s business is conducted in, well, you know – public.


The private ones always produce better results.

Especially when you want to leak selected testimony to the press.


Curt Gowdy’s star chamber. This jackass should eat shit and die.


Face it, Gowdy, your committee is a partisan witch hunt. You denied it was a witch hunt, and then you took 11 hours to prove it was a witch hunt. And while you failed in your attempt, you did demonstrate how low Republicans are willing to go.


For a former prosecutor he sure is a whiny child.


The Benghazi committee chair said that while Clinton was cooperative during the hearing, he does not believe all of her answers were “accurate.”

Oh, Trey-Trey, don’t tease us. If you believe she perjured herself, just say so and deal with the slander lawsuit. Or better yet, charge her with perjury and let’s have a trial.

When asked what he learned from the hearing, Gowdy said the committee uncovered “new information” and “clarifying information.” He then said that he believes Clinton should have personally reviewed security policies.

Yes, because HRC’s professional background is so deep in security policies and methods that I’m absolutely certain that she could spot every microscopic flaw. That time machine she owns would also be really helpful in figuring out what the consequences of various actions will be.

For chrissakes, this is the best you can come up with? Give me a break: this is what we hire professionals to do. They review things in their area of expertise and make reasoned recommendations to the decision makers.

Of course, Trey-Trey wouldn’t understand that: had he understood that he wouldn’t have had the circus in the hearing room on Thursday. He would have had a couple of experienced investigators handle all the questioning. Members would ask their questions through the investigators. You know, like the Watergate hearings were handled? But if it had been handled professionally, Trey-Trey and friends wouldn’t have had the opportunity for all the political posturing.


Private interviews will not become 11 hours of Clinton campaign advertising. There’s your reason.


In which “more productive” is defined as “less humiliating for me, Trey Gowdy.”


“We would not have made complete jackasses of ourselves in a private interview.”


Yeah, I bet. I’d also bet that if the interview/inquisition had been private, there would have soon been leaks about how congresswoman Roby brought Hillary to her knees.

P.S.: If this was an “interview”, why was it necessary that she be sworn in and subject to prosecution for perjury?


Quote: "How does this person who has no formal role in government and no expertise in Libya or Benghazi, how does he have unfettered access to you…’

You mean access that a close personal would have? I can’t imagine why a close personal friend would have my email address or any other method of contacting me.


It was supposed to be a slam dunk Zippy


I’m sure you do in retrospect. Much easier to lie and spin things when you can control what parts you choose to make public and what things you can hide.

And if Sec. Clinton. had made the security decisions personally, you and your partisan scum would be attacking her for presuming to supercede the security experts whose job and function within the department who have the skill set and expertise to know how to handle it. Because then she would be on the hook for it.

So thanks for admitting you are wishing Clinton had taken it on herself to second guess and overrule the security people.


“A private interview would have been more productive”…for republicans.
As it was we (the gop) got our butts handed to us and can’t selectively leak soundbites that make us look like we are anything other than what, as out leading candidate the Donald would say,…LOSERS!



How come Bill Clinton - a dang RETIREE with zero status in the State department or even the Obama administration, someone who actually got his ass IMPEACHED one time (for lying about a b.j., or murdering some staff member who was about to blow the whistle, or a massive multi-billions real estate swindle, SOMETHING) got to waltz into the Secretary’s quarters any time he wanted, use the facilities, check out the minibar, catch up on Fox & Friends, take up the scarce attention and precious time of the Secretary and her security staff, just open the fridge and dig into the food there, or even order delivery of whatever any time of the day, mess up the carpet and the linen and extra towels, anything he felt like, whenever he felt like it - criminey, even climb into her bed starkers if he wanted FCOL - whereas an ambassador in a highly hazardous situation on the other side of the planet can’t even get her direct on her e-legal frickin’ Blackberry?


“How does this person who has no formal role in government and no expertise in Libya or Benghazi, how does he have unfettered access to you, but the ambassador, there is not a single email to or from him?”

Madam Secretary, you used an unsecured server that threatened the lives of all Americans, why didn’t you use that for high level communications with your ambassadors to communicate all the ways that the embassy was vulnerable?