A stupid answer to an Easy Question

Do you think that your elected officials pay attention to what you think?

For the prosecution, I submit into evidence Exhibit A:

Thank you for contacting me concerning former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  I appreciate hearing from you and am grateful for the opportunity to respond.

The U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2012.  I was deeply saddened and outraged to hear of the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.  Ambassador Stevens represented his country proudly and worked tirelessly so that Libyans may one day realize the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy and cherish as Americans.  This tragedy should remind us all of the service of American civilians who work every day to advance the interests of the United States throughout the world.

I was disappointed by the conflicting reports coming from the Obama Administration in the days and weeks following the attacks.  That is why I worked with Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) in writing three letters to then-Secretary of State Hilary Clinton demanding that the State Department fully disclose all communications relevant to the security situation in Benghazi between the architects of the U.S. Mission to Libya and the State Department, including cables sent from Ambassador Stevens.  As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I am committed to ensuring that the administration is held accountable for its actions and response to the events surrounding the tragedy in Benghazi.  I believe it is important to fully investigate attacks on U.S. diplomats or consular facilities and any security breaches that could potentially leave U.S. diplomatic missions exposed to further attacks.  I am supportive of the House Select Committee on Benghazi’s investigation and I am eager to see its final findings.

Secretary Clinton’s decision to delete all emails, including some possibly work related, from her personal server inhibits the Select Committee on Benghazi from administering a complete investigation into the events of the attack.  Such disregard for transparency is alarming, particularly from individuals at the highest levels of government who should recognize the value of honest and open communication.  It is the U.S. government’s responsibility to get to the bottom of this issue and to send a clear message to our Foreign Service officers and service members around the world that we will protect them in times of conflict. Further, I believe Secretary Clinton’s use of personal server to communicate about sensitive or classified operations raises very troubling security questions that are appropriately being investigated by federal law enforcement officials.

I believe it is important for Congress to provide these proper checks and balances to the Executive branch as envisioned by our founding fathers. Rest assured, I will keep your thoughts in mind as I work on these important matters.

Johnny Isakson
United States Senator

(emphasis mine, for further discussion)


The easy question was, “Many of your colleagues have been quite vocal in their calls to investigate Hillary Clinton on the basis of “foreign donations” or “entanglements,” implying that the U.S. President should be above suspicion when it comes to money matters and foreign entities. Do you share their view, and do you intend to apply the same ethical standard to the presumptive president-elect’s business affairs?

So not only did no one in Johnny Isakson’s office even read the email, his bot is sending out an incredibly outdated response to any email that has the magic shibboleth “Clinton” in it.

Because no matter what your opinion of the Great Satan Hillary Clinton might be, the bare facts on the ground are that both the  Select Committee on Benghazi (the seventh or eighth of its name—I’ve lost count) and the FBI probe(s) into EmailGate have long since concluded their investigations.  They both came up empty, not that this simple fact is important where the Clintons are concerned.

Johnny Isakson is smarter than this.  Or at least he used to be.

Verdict: Johnny Isakson avoided the question with an incredibly stupid automated answer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *