Clinton Brushes Aside Human Rights, Takes Pompeo's Call to Help Prep for SoS Hearings

Submitted by Benny on Tue, 04/10/2018 - 6:42pm

CIA Director Mike Pompeo, the same asshat who hammered Hillary Clinton over "Benghazi e-mail", called Clinton for advice in preparing for the Senate confirmation hearings for the cabinet post to head the State Department.

According to a few sources, Clinton did take his call. This one is from the NY Post:

President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state once trashed Hillary Clinton for her “morally reprehensible” response to the Benghazi attack and liked a tweet that called John Kerry a “traitor,” but he’s now seeking their advice as he prepares for his confirmation hearings, according to a report Tuesday.

CIA Director Mike Pompeo reached out to the former secretaries of state and their predecessors as he gears up for his Senate hearings, and Clinton has agreed to help, Politico reported.

Clinton advised him to bolster the staff at the State Department and stop the tide of career diplomats who quit under former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

This is the same presidential candidate from 2016 who was endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign and gave a talk last fall about her misgivings concerning Trump and his ilk.

And the Human Rights Campaign position on the SoS nominee?

.@HRC joined @CivilRights, @NARAL, @NAACP, @PPact & other partner organizations in calling upon the Senate to reject the nomination of Mike Pompeo as the next U.S. Secretary of State. https://t.co/7TDd661nmx

— Human Rights Campaign (@HRC) April 10, 2018

Pompeo is expected to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday.

Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have voiced strong concerns already, although we'll see if Rand Paul falls in line with the hawks. From Bernie Sanders' tweets:

Mike Pompeo is absolutely the wrong choice for secretary of state. He is a supporter of the Global Gag Rule. He opposes LGBTQ rights. And as the top recipient of money from the Koch brothers, he's stymied action on one of our most serious security threats: global climate change.

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) April 9, 2018

Pompeo supports the use of torture. He has longstanding relationships with anti-Muslim extremists. And his hawkish views on Iran and North Korea could very well lead us into another disastrous war. I will vote no on his nomination.

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) April 9, 2018

It's time that the Human Rights Campaign distance themselves from Clinton, the faux liberal. Otherwise, she's just cozying up to the hawks again, all under the umbrella of the SoS club and patriotism.

Yes, the voice of Kissinger and the smell of Napalm in the morning. Good times!

Tags:

Hillary Clinton

Mike Pompeo

Benghazi

Senate Hearings

Human Rights Campaign

bernie sanders

Vote

Comments

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Tue, 04/10/2018 - 6:47pm

Best one-liner about Hillary evah:

(culled from the Internets yesterday)

"Help! I've fallen and I can't shut up!"

—

The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?

Submitted by Pricknick on Tue, 04/10/2018 - 8:00pm

Au contraire.

@Not Henry Kissinger
I hope she never shuts up. She's a cancer on the democratic party and I want to see her become more metastatic with time.

—

Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.

Submitted by lizzyh7 on Tue, 04/10/2018 - 7:02pm

I sent a link to the

Common Dreams article to my two former Hillbot friends. They're almost totally converted now, but one still seems to be holding out some hope for things as they are. Warmongers gotta warmonger, no partisan bullshit for them there.

—

Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Tue, 04/10/2018 - 7:26pm

Mike Pomposity taking cues from Clinton?

What great advice will he get other than how to lie with a straight face?

Submitted by Benny on Tue, 04/10/2018 - 7:38pm

@Alligator Ed Pretend he knows

@Alligator Ed Pretend he knows Kissinger personally?

—

One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--Tennyson

Submitted by Bollox Ref on Tue, 04/10/2018 - 7:32pm

By Hook or by Crook..

Her is determined to remain in the news... and retain relevance.

Principles/issues/policies be damned.

—

Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.

Submitted by ggersh on Tue, 04/10/2018 - 7:32pm

Why aint I surprised?

Koch bros probably called first to pave the way

—

I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish

"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"

Heard from Margaret Kimberley

Submitted by Benny on Tue, 04/10/2018 - 7:51pm

@ggersh I sorta thought that too,

@ggersh I sorta thought that too, to keep her Owned Together donors happy. I remember seeing how the Defense Companies' donations flowed towards the baroness during the 2016 campaign:

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/defense-industry-hillary-clinton-...

I don't get it how HRC the org (not the baroness who happens to have the same initials) still can find Clinton of any value at this juncture. She's no friend in propping up a gay-rights basher.

—

One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--Tennyson

Submitted by The Aspie Corner on Tue, 04/10/2018 - 7:38pm

Bourgeoisie gonna bourgeoisie.

Anyway, I'm sure a few Clintonites are regretting all the fuckin' pig work they did in 2016...not.

—

Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.

Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.

Submitted by Benny on Tue, 04/10/2018 - 8:00pm

@The Aspie Corner And one of the biggest

@The Aspie Corner And one of the biggest oinkers..

Mike Pompeo reportedly sought guidance from @HillaryClinton and @JohnKerry to prep for his Secretary of State confirmation hearings. As patriots, I assume they both gave the best advice they could. Honored to have worked for both of them, two exceptional Americans. https://t.co/f2HadnoNtK

— Peter Daou (@peterdaou) April 10, 2018

—

One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--Tennyson

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Tue, 04/10/2018 - 8:58pm

What bs! A patriot would not give anyone like Pompeo

@Benny

the best advice he or she could on how to be confirmed as Secretary of State. A patriot would testify against Pompeo's confirmation.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Tue, 04/10/2018 - 9:14pm

Did she advice him to form a foundation and tell him

@HenryAWallace

how he could put lots of money in it? All he would have to do is intervene for anyone who wants their problems with the state department fixed. Bill could speak to his wife and tell her how to set up a private email server and that way she could keep tabs on him so that she will know where he's going to be and then they both could get paid lots of money. Tax free, too. Plus the server can keep people from seeing what they are doing. No FOIA.

Submitted by MrWebster on Tue, 04/10/2018 - 8:27pm

Surely Hillary is demanding a consultation fee.

At least a speaking fee.

Submitted by Benny on Tue, 04/10/2018 - 8:29pm

@MrWebster

@MrWebster

Makes one wonder what Kerry is getting out of this, if he agreed to give solicited comments.

—

One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--Tennyson

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Tue, 04/10/2018 - 9:07pm

Pompeo is undesirable, to put it mildly.

However, is "trashed" Hillary Clinton what passes for objective journalism anymore?

"President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state once trashed Hillary Clinton for her “morally reprehensible” response to the Benghazi attack"

On a personal note, I happened to up all night after the Benghazi attack, checking the news. I literally watched the reports from UPI and AP online change by the hour. They began with the truth, that it was a 911 anniversary attack by Arab terrorists, which was my first thought anyway, as soon as I realized the attack had come on what in Libya was the anniversary of 911.

Overnight, the stories online morphed overnight into something much more nebulous and disassociated from the 911 date. Who do you supposed was responsible for feeding UPI and AP info, both correct and not so correct, to the extent that the news services kept changing the story from truth to nebulous while (most of) America slept?

By the time that Obama gave his speech in the Rose Garden when it was morning in the US, he made one oblique reference to terrorists, a form of plausible deniability, which sure came in handy when he debated Romney. Because of what I'd seen happening overnight before my very own eyes, I never shared the neoliberals' view that questioning the administration over Benghazi deceptiveness was purely Republican nonsense.

Then, the CIA treated us to weeks of a fabricated fairy tale that the attack was about some seventh-rate film maker, which fairy tale exposed the young, hungry US actors who had accepted roles in that film to death threats. Eventually, they arrested him, amid much publicity, on some old outstanding warrant that had absolutely nothing to do with the attack on Benghazi. https://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-blamed-me-for-benghazi ; https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/benghazi-scapegoat-innocen...

Yes, the US government, including Obama, Hillary and the CIA, was deliberately deceptive for weeks about Benghazi, intentionally misleading the American public. (I specify "American" because Europeans and Arabs seem to know more about what happens in the US and why than we do.) Worse, the pleas for more protection in Benghazi, which came before the assassinations, went unaddressed. Obama and Hillary and their fanbots can blame the Republican Congress for refusing funding all they want. The Obama administration sure didn't make much of a public fuss over the refusal or attempt to reallocate funds from other, less dangerous diplomatic posts.

As far as who trashed whom during the Benghazi hearings, does anyone remember Hillary disrespectfully pretending to brush dandruff off her shoulders, grimacing, displaying contempt for her questioners in a variety of ways, contradicting her own testimony, etc.? This while she was a Presidential candidate who supposedly knew how to work across the aisle? Imagine a business person or you or me or anyone but Hillary being called before Congress and behaving that way! I watched those hearings for a good while. Hillary was far more disrespectful to Republicans members of Congress questioning her than they were to her.

If I were a loved one of someone killed in that mess, I would have been, at a minimum, livid.

Submitted by Benny on Tue, 04/10/2018 - 8:44pm

@HenryAWallace

@HenryAWallace

Your point is well taken. But it seems kind of odd that is she perceived (or worse, the media did made the perception), he trashed Clinton (I think it was just a pile on, personally), why would she bother to help Pompeo at all, unless it was to feed her Defense donor base? Clinton doesn't do anything for free and I'm not certain whose civil service positions in the State Dept she's trying to save. It will probably come out with a stain stick sooner or later.

However, is "trashed" Hillary Clinton what passes for objective journalism anymore? "President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state once trashed Hillary Clinton for her “morally reprehensible” response to the Benghazi attack" On a personal note, I happened to up all night after the Benghazi attack, checking the news. I literally watched the reports from UPI and AP online change by the hour. They began with the truth, that it was a 911 anniversary attack by Arab terrorists, which was my first thought anyway, as soon as I realized the attack had come on what in Libya was the anniversary of 911. Overnight, the stories online morphed overnight into something much more nebulous and disassociated from the 911 date. Who do you supposed was responsible for feeding UPI and AP info, both correct and not so correct, to the extent that the news services kept changing the story from truth to nebulous while (most of) America slept? By the time that Obama gave his speech in the Rose Garden when it was morning in the US, he made one oblique reference to terrorists, a form of plausible deniability, which sure came in handy when he debated Romney. Because of what I'd seen happening overnight before my very own eyes, I never shared the neoliberals' view that questioning the administration over Benghazi deceptiveness was purely Republican nonsense. Then, the CIA treated us to weeks of a fabricated fairy tale that the attack was about some seventh-rate film maker, which fairy tale exposed the young, hungry US actors who had accepted roles in that film to death threats. Eventually, they arrested him, amid much publicity, on some old outstanding warrant that had absolutely nothing to do with the attack on Benghazi. https://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-blamed-me-for-benghazi ; https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/benghazi-scapegoat-innocen... Yes, the US government, including Obama, Hillary and the CIA, was deliberately deceptive for weeks about Benghazi, intentionally misleading the American public. (I specify "American" because Europeans and Arabs seem to know more about what happens in the US and why than we do.) Worse, the pleas for more protection in Benghazi, which came before the assassinations, went unaddressed. Obama and Hillary and their fanbots can blame the Republican Congress for refusing funding all they want. The Obama administration sure didn't make much of a public fuss over the refusal or attempt to reallocate funds from other, less dangerous diplomatic posts. As far as who trashed whom during the Benghazi hearings, does anyone remember Hillary disrespectfully pretending to brush dandruff off her shoulders, grimacing, displaying contempt for her questioners in a variety of ways, contradicting her own testimony, etc.? This while she was a Presidential candidate who supposedly knew how to work across the aisle? Imagine a business person or you or me or anyone but Hillary being called before Congress and behaving that way! I watched those hearings for a good while. Hillary was far more disrespectful to Republicans members of Congress questioning her than they were to her. If I were a loved one of someone killed in that mess, I would have been, at a minimum, livid.

—

One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--Tennyson

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Tue, 04/10/2018 - 8:53pm

Thank you. My point is about a single sentence in the article,

@Benny

the sentence that my post quoted, betraying the bias of the author. Do you disagree?

Sorry, but I was unable to discern what you were trying to convey with this and my inability threw me off:

"But it seems kind of odd that is she perceived (or worse, the media did made the perception), he trashed Clinton (I think it was just a pile on, personally)...."

Submitted by Benny on Tue, 04/10/2018 - 9:04pm

@HenryAWallace

@HenryAWallace

I picked up on that. We all know about many reporters that her campaign invited to the meet and greets to "give their thoughts" about her upcoming campaign (from the Podesta e-mails in Wikileaks).

Considering she has blamed just about everyone for her election loss, in which she could have put Pompeo in the mix, why bother taking his calls? Donors? Shares his views about Wikileaks? On the latter, he was the one that used Wikileaks tweets on his twitter feed during the 2016 election.

Mike Pompeo was sharing Wikileaks documents on his Congressional Twitter account less than a year ago pic.twitter.com/cl5P6vnXSE

— Jessica Schulberg (@jessicaschulb) April 13, 2017

Or, is it just the elite helps the elite?

—

One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--Tennyson

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Tue, 04/10/2018 - 9:11pm

Often, I have no idea why Hillary or Kerry do what they do.

@Benny

Submitted by The Voice In th... on Wed, 04/11/2018 - 10:39am

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

@HenryAWallace

—

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

Submitted by earthling1 on Tue, 04/10/2018 - 9:19pm

Clubmembers gonna be clubmembers

@Benny

—

Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.

Submitted by Benny on Tue, 04/10/2018 - 9:22pm

@earthling1

@earthling1

She is burning some bridges, maybe.

I'm glad Bernie is 180 degrees from that hypocrite.

—

One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--Tennyson

Submitted by WaterLily on Wed, 04/11/2018 - 8:39am

That last one.

@Benny

Is it just the elite helps the elite?

That, and the fact that everything in US politics these days is one giant WWE match. All a fucking act. Empty grandstanding.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Tue, 04/10/2018 - 9:31pm

"What does it matter?!!"

@HenryAWallace

Yes, I remember her brushing fake lint off her suit. Her arrogance during the hearing was plain to see.

I read something about Stevens not being on board with giving Gaddafi's weapons to the Syrian rebels and that's why he was allowed to be killed. Who knows what the truth even is, but why didn't the republicans ask any questions about what was happening during the attack? Was it because they already knew?

That must have been something watching the story keep changing so much. Oh well. The only thing that matters is that Libyans were saved from Gaddafi's troops who were raping them after he gave them Viagra that was found on tanks that were used to kill people. Dry, empty boxes of it were found on the those tanks after it had been raining and they were totally dry. Funny that.

Libyans now are safe from Gaddafi's rath and are living happily ever after. Right? This is called the Hillary doctrine, BTW. Cheryl Mills came up with that idea.

However, is "trashed" Hillary Clinton what passes for objective journalism anymore? "President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state once trashed Hillary Clinton for her “morally reprehensible” response to the Benghazi attack" On a personal note, I happened to up all night after the Benghazi attack, checking the news. I literally watched the reports from UPI and AP online change by the hour. They began with the truth, that it was a 911 anniversary attack by Arab terrorists, which was my first thought anyway, as soon as I realized the attack had come on what in Libya was the anniversary of 911. Overnight, the stories online morphed overnight into something much more nebulous and disassociated from the 911 date. Who do you supposed was responsible for feeding UPI and AP info, both correct and not so correct, to the extent that the news services kept changing the story from truth to nebulous while (most of) America slept? By the time that Obama gave his speech in the Rose Garden when it was morning in the US, he made one oblique reference to terrorists, a form of plausible deniability, which sure came in handy when he debated Romney. Because of what I'd seen happening overnight before my very own eyes, I never shared the neoliberals' view that questioning the administration over Benghazi deceptiveness was purely Republican nonsense. Then, the CIA treated us to weeks of a fabricated fairy tale that the attack was about some seventh-rate film maker, which fairy tale exposed the young, hungry US actors who had accepted roles in that film to death threats. Eventually, they arrested him, amid much publicity, on some old outstanding warrant that had absolutely nothing to do with the attack on Benghazi. https://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-blamed-me-for-benghazi ; https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/benghazi-scapegoat-innocen... Yes, the US government, including Obama, Hillary and the CIA, was deliberately deceptive for weeks about Benghazi, intentionally misleading the American public. (I specify "American" because Europeans and Arabs seem to know more about what happens in the US and why than we do.) Worse, the pleas for more protection in Benghazi, which came before the assassinations, went unaddressed. Obama and Hillary and their fanbots can blame the Republican Congress for refusing funding all they want. The Obama administration sure didn't make much of a public fuss over the refusal or attempt to reallocate funds from other, less dangerous diplomatic posts. As far as who trashed whom during the Benghazi hearings, does anyone remember Hillary disrespectfully pretending to brush dandruff off her shoulders, grimacing, displaying contempt for her questioners in a variety of ways, contradicting her own testimony, etc.? This while she was a Presidential candidate who supposedly knew how to work across the aisle? Imagine a business person or you or me or anyone but Hillary being called before Congress and behaving that way! I watched those hearings for a good while. Hillary was far more disrespectful to Republicans members of Congress questioning her than they were to her. If I were a loved one of someone killed in that mess, I would have been, at a minimum, livid.

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Wed, 04/11/2018 - 5:12am

Yes, at this point, what difference does it make that the US

@snoopydawg

government deceived Americans about what had happened in Benghazi and why. In the US, truth from government was definitely not a right when Benghazi occurred. http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-legalizes-propaganda-2012-5

Hillary was far more arrogant during that hearing than any of her questioners were to her. A Presidential candidate, disrespecting Congress that blatantly! However, the author of this article and many others portray her as the victim. "Poor Hillary" never runs out of victim cards. And, of course, her fans cheered the gif of her brushing off the shoulder of her outfit.

Yes, Snoop, it was something to watch the story change, and then to listen to Obama in the morning and watch the whole film thing unfold. It was befuddling at first, as I tried to find the original stories I'd seen, before it dawned on me that they no longer existed anywhere online because someone did not want them to. At one point, I may literally have rubbed my eyes to make sure I was seeing correctly. It had never occurred to me to take screen caps.

As for Gaddafi, his death was Hillarious! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Muammar_Gaddafi

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz3-OzcExI]

Almost as Hillarious as the prospect of bombing innocent Iranians, under the pretense that this somehow relates to the Ayatollah's being a bad guy.

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvhBoF_pCHo]

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npzN3dZR6JM]

In hindsight, Gravel (who also read the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record) looks pretty damn good. Instead, we nominated Obama, who was conveniently absent for the vote in question. Being absent for votes on issues that could trip him up was a habit he had formed as an Illinois Senator--one of many troubling things I had rationalized away in 2008.

Remember the crap Democrats posted about McCain for singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran?" But Hillary's ghoulish bellowing about the same thing is fine.

Submitted by orlbucfan on Wed, 04/11/2018 - 11:06am

Hi Benny!

Rec'd!!

—

Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.

Submitted by Bob In Portland on Fri, 04/13/2018 - 2:54pm

Read Pompeo's wiki

Mike Pompeo is more than just a politician, although that's what he's portrayed as in the media.

Also, nobody gets appointed to head the CIA without being CIA. Military career, Harvard, venture capital to set up his business. The same path to power that many politicians have followed.

And Clinton the Globalist is also CIA. We don't know exactly her position within the every-expanding organization, but I'm guessing it's higher on the leadership position than Pompeo's position. All the grief between Clinton and Pompeo was just professional wrestling, or a well-rehearsed ballet. I wrote here over a year ago what was supposed to happen when Hillary was elected:

https://caucus99percent.com/content/okeydoke-americans-were-supposed-get

And things are pretty much unfolding as I'd suspected. But here's another little nugget that you may have missed:

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/03/clinton-state-department-discourage...

Back when Clinton was SOS she sent a memo to US negotiators of chemical weapons warning them not to bring up or discuss "novichoks". Curious, no? Was Hilz holding back any discussion on "novichoks" in order to use them for the current BS surrounding the Skripal case?

Also, Robert Mueller III has a unique ability to be assigned or just wind up on cases involving the CIA. And he's managed not to see the CIA in any of them. I'll produce a more detailed article, but suffice to say: 9/11, anthrax, BCCI, Noriega, Pan Am 103, Patty Hearst, the "drug tug" for those from the San Francisco Bay Area who remember. How could an honest investigation of Manuel Noriega not see the CIA's drug-running, arms-running and money-laundering? Well, none of these were honest investigations.

Stuff to ponder.