WTF Schumer on Russia Inquiry: I Dont Want This to Turn Into a Benghazi Investigation

[pbmus]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/schumer-on-russia-inquiry-i-dont-want-this-to-turn-into-a-benghazi-investigation/

It better be a whole fuck of a lot more than Benghazi

It should run until they throw orange trash out of the White House

[bravenak]

1. I want it to turn into Watergate myself

[get the red out]

3. Me too!

Does Schumer get dizzy with all that bowing and scraping to Rs?

[bravenak]

5. I hope he at least gets nauseous

[get the red out]

23. Yea

Looking for crumbs that might fall off the table.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. i am going to guess he wants it done by a non partisan group

and that's what he meant

[mtnsnake]

7. That is exactly what he said this morning on the CBS morning show. nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

8. he rightfully wants it out of the house, because the house is republican controlled

why is anyone outraged about this.

by the way, i knew this without even clicking on this link. it's just the sensible think for Schumer to want.

[brush]

11. Maybe, or he just wants to soft peddle it. He's always been to weak against the repugs for my taste.

Last edited Wed Dec 14, 2016, 09:57 AM - Edit history (1)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. Do you have any proof of this attack on schumer

Or are you just sprouting anti D nonsense?

[brush]

28. This is not anti-D nonsense. It's anti-Schumer. I would've preferred a stonger Dem leader

Google his position when Netanyahu pulled that crap against the President by appearing before Congress.

I'm from NY and am not unfamiliar with Schumer.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

32. He's much more pro Israel and anti Palestine

Than I would like, but it is just one position in keeping with the state he represents.

[leftynyc]

27. Got any examples of that?

I'm finding it impossible to remember him rolling over for them unless he had literally no other choice.

[brush]

29. Google his position on Netanyahu pulled that crap against the President by appearing before Congress

[leftynyc]

31. Schumer was representing his constituents

who are STRONGLY supportive of Israel. That's his job and why we elected him. That's not rolling over for the pubs. Try again.

[brush]

33. It is in my book. I'm from NY. Most New Yorkers weren't in favor of the Netanyahu mess

And that includes most Jewish New Yorkers.

[leftynyc]

34. I wasn't in favor either

BUT that is NOT rolling over for the pubbies. That's not airing our differences when the choice was already made. You said he's ALWAYS been too weak against the pubs and I asked for examples. This is the only thing you can come up with to make your point? That would make for a strange definition of ALWAYS.

[brush]

35. You asked for an example, I gave you one. You can google you know.

[leftynyc]

41. I asked for EXAMPLES

to back up your ALWAYS.

[brush]

42. You can still google. I give you that I should have said OFTEN

And in my book, OFTEN is too much.

[leftynyc]

47. YOU made the charge

Often or always - doesn't really matter since YOU conveyed you have oodles of examples. I asked for more than 1 (as did other posters) and now you're laying it on us to google rather than back up your post. That's pretty pathetic.

[brush]

51. I don't work for you. You can google as easily as I did the Netanyahu example

[leftynyc]

53. So you got nothing

but one bullshit example that doesn't really prove a thing. Just what I suspected. I couldn't really ask for better confirmation than you throwing it back on others to do YOUR work for you. YOU made the charge, it's up to YOU to back it up.

[brush]

59. As I said, I don't work for you. For Schumer to say "I don't want this to be another Benghazi . . .

was not a good start. He should want just as many hearings on the Russians hack the election as the repugs held on Benghazi.

Be strong about it, no soft-peddling.

[leftynyc]

60. Now you're just flailing

It was OBVIOUS he meant it shouldn't be another bullshit, partisan 14 investigations to find absolutely nothing hearing. He wants an ACTUAL hearing - not the bullshit we got from the the benghazi imbeciles. So fucking obvious to anyone without a pathetic anti-democratic agenda, that is.

[brush]

62. He should've said that. And stop with the ad hominem stuff.

I can and will make my opinions known when I disagree.

I've seen your screen name many times and I've sure you've seen mine. I've agreed with you on some issues and disagreed on others but never went gutter-level by saying you have an anti-democratic agenda.

[leftynyc]

63. No - I don't take note of screen names ever

If you don't want pushback, don't make unsupportable accusations against a senator. That doesn't seem to be much to ask.

[brush]

64. We have a different opinion on Schumer.

[SaschaHM]

22. Sorry, This is DU. We have to think the worst of the Dems.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

24. Ain't that the truth

[brush]

30. Google his position on Netanyahu pulling that crap against the Obama by appearing before Congress

Last edited Wed Dec 14, 2016, 10:50 AM - Edit history (1)

[bettyellen]

36. Or you could post one thing six times as evidence he "always" fails....

To meet YOUR expectations on ONE issue that has nothing to do with the GOP.

HA

[brush]

39. Nothing to do with the GOP? Who do you think invited Netayahu?

IMO that's a pretty good indication of what we're in store for.

I hope I'm wrong and he leads the Dems to use the filibuster.

[bettyellen]

40. One thing is always? Foremost, it had to do with NYC and Israel. He has constituents.

[brush]

45. OK, I should have said OFTEN, but forget the constituents thing, Most New Yorkers . . .

including most Jewish New Yorkers, were against the nasty, unprecedented repug/Netayahu insult of President Obama.

IMO, not a good resume item for a Dem leader.

[bettyellen]

48. unless you had a list of things to point to... instead of repeating one thing that's debatable

[brush]

49. It's not debatable that he urged Dems to attend the Netayahu debacle

And as for others, you can google, right?

[bettyellen]

50. His constituents are heavily pro-Israel whether you approve or not...

But you are twisting it into something else entirely.
That's as honest as the "always" crap.

[brush]

52. I'm from NY. Most of his constituents were NOT in favor of the Netanyahu debacle

[bettyellen]

55. I am also from NY and it's always been a pro-Ireal stronghold. Sounds like you're a one issue voter.

Since you think this one thing makes him sooo very always bad!

[brush]

57. Giving an example does not make one a one-issue voter

Shumer will be tested. Let's see it he has it in him to lead the Dems to use the filibuster against Trump's agenda.

I hope so, but IMO, "not wanting this to become another Benghazi" was not a good start, a poor choice of words.

Hell, I want as many hearings on this as the repugs held on Benghazi. It's that important and shouldn't be soft-peddled.

[bettyellen]

58. A singular example proves your "always" claim was incedinary bullshit though.

[brush]

61. Didn't I concede to you I should have said "often". God, you're a pitbull with the "always".

Get to the real issue of Schumer not coming out strongly in favor of investigating the Russian hacking thoroughly.

If he meant he wanted it out of the House, say that, not some wishy-washy "I don't want it to become another Benghazi" bs which can be easily misunderstood.

[LisaM]

4. I hope he means that in this case 1) there is a point, and

2) they'll find actual wrongdoing.

[RKP5637]

6. The democratic party needs new leadership!!! n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

26. Why? Because schumer thinks a bipartisan or non partisan

Group is better at handling this, than house committees chaired by republicans??

[LaydeeBug]

9. already?? wow. nt

[bettyellen]

37. Not what you think ...

[brush]

10. I had a feeling Schumer would be too accomodating to the repugs. Backs down too easily

If the Russians installing their chosen candidate into the White House, what does it fu_king take for him to want a full-scale investigation like Watergate?

He bears watching.

Forget like Benghazi though, as that was nothing but a repug, showboat scam they kept going to damage Hillary.

[Squinch]

12. If you read the article, his comment was about the fact that it is bipartisan and serious

and not an obvious bullshit partisan waste of everyone's time.

[janx]

13. Yep.

And he's right.

[brush]

20. We'll see what he means. I'm from New York and am familiar with Schumer.

We really need him to conquer his tendency to cave and use the filibuster like the repugs did when the big SCOTUS votes come up.

[uponit7771]

16. He's right, Benghazi was bullshit.. he doesn't want it turn into a bipartisan bullshit investigation

[Crunchy Frog]

19. Sadly, I wouldn't count on it. The numbers will be against us in the Senate

and we're more than likely to lose seats. Most of the House seats are so gerrymandered as to be safe. We should be focusing more on state level races in 2018 IMO. Not as "sexy", but very important, and more likely to be successful.

Nice fantasy, though. The whole lot of them in Gitmo getting waterboarded would suit me just fine.

[okieinpain]

15. lol, and people wonder

why dems can't have nice things.

[Crunchy Frog]

17. Why the fuck not?

Because the Democrats are just supposed to take it and take it and take it, and never dish it out? Are we even sure that he's really a Democrat?

Way to make our party completely irrelevent.

[SaschaHM]

21. Benghazi was a partisan shitshow that obscured the issue to the point that no one cared about...

the core lessons from the attack.

I don't want the Russia Inquiry turning into the Benghazi Investigation either.

[bettyellen]

38. Misleading headline!

[NewJeffCT]

43. Can Democrats even start an investigation on their own?

if they're in the minority?

And, Benghazi was a Bullshit scandal in the first place - one investigation was justified because an ambassador died, but not anything more than that. But, 8 or 9 investigations was just to rile up their base and drag Clinton's name through the mud each time.

[BainsBane]

46. Yes, they can hold them

but it won't carry the authority of the Senate or House. I'm assuming that means they won't have subpoena power. McConnell and Ryan have said they want to look into the problem though.

[Cha]

44. omg.. stop pullling the "both sides do it" chuck

Do you not see the difference? Allow Hillary and President Obama to explain it to you.

[SHRED]

54. He associated the two...he went there

Thoroughly disappointed in this.

Is this our best advocate? Schumer?

FUCK!!!

[NCTraveler]

56. I would hope not. nt.