Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll say it again, there was no reason they could not have told us it was a terrorist attack, none.
They did not have to tell us every thing that they had a legitimate reason not to but there was not reason to deceive the American at all that it was indeed an attack that was planned.
We expect much more from our Leaders and this performance is indicative of Hillary Clinton being no leader to be considered.
Tell me how that translates into Hillary being at fault for the death of 4 Americans. I'm curious.
Because first we heard it was about the video, and then Republicans said well, no, it's about making sure we know what happened with regards to the security . . .
I'm no fan of hers, at all, but come on - if you can charge her for some crime, whether it be lying or whatever, just do it! Are people still surprised that people in these positions lie?
Hillary is not responsible for the 4 dead. That is the fault of the terrorists that did the killing.
Hillary IS responsible as Secretary of State, to properly advise the President of dangerous situations so HE can take make the decisions both on orders to the diplomats and to the military to insure that situations like this don't happen. Clearly there was a complete failure here.
Hillary IS responsible, as much as delegated by the White House, to explain to the American citizens what happened to the staff & soldiers, and Ambassador killed by terrorists. She clearly failed to do this with the ever changing stories about youtube videos.
To anyone paying attention, this suggests one of two things, and probably a bit of both.
She really didn't know what in the hell was going on meaning that she either didn't do her job because she didn't consider it important, or she is totally incompetent. It's exactly the kind of president the USA does not need, yet again.
Hillary knew exactly what happened, but made a calculated decision to shift the blame away from her in hopes that it would blow over before it could affect her future plans to become president. For example she was quite happy for Susan Rice to take the fall for a lot of it. This is a classic Clinton tactic, and IMO, the most likely scenario.
You guys can argue all day long about whether the GOP committee got blood out of her or not of if she looks "Presidential". The fact of the matter, everyone knows about the Clintons. And this was classic Clintionism on display.
Last edited by WaldoKitty; 10-25-2015 at 01:22 PM..
What was the law in 2012? Serious question, and I'm asking instead of googling because you seem like you might know.
Its been the same since servers were introduced to the DOD, Government. Its been like this for a very long time. The UCMJ is applicable too, as it describes any data that can cause exceptionaly grave damage to US..., which TS is, is punishable up to including death during time of war.. Think about it.. People want to protect her, yet they are blind to the big long term picture of her actions.. Her server was hit by potential hackers 5 times, via Russia, NK, China, and Germany
Its been the same since servers were introduced to the DOD, Government. Its been like this for a very long time. The UCMJ is applicable too, as it describes any data that can cause exceptionaly grave damage to US..., which TS is, is punishable up to including death during time of war.. Think about it.. People want to protect her, yet they are blind to the big long term picture of her actions.. Her server was hit by potential hackers 5 times, via Russia, NK, China, and Germany
But the issue, as I understand it, is that she was also using a private account. And while I agree this is not the smartest thing she ever did, I didn't think it was against the law at the time she did it. In fact, it is still pretty common for people who have "24-hour" jobs, private or public, to use both "official" and private email accounts. I know several such people who have more than one email address.
So if using a private server was not illegal, and if she didn't use non-secure channels to discuss classified info, how would she be criminally liable?
But the issue, as I understand it, is that she was also using a private account. And while I agree this is not the smartest thing she ever did, I didn't think it was against the law at the time she did it. In fact, it is still pretty common for people who have "24-hour" jobs, private or public, to use both "official" and private email accounts. I know several such people who have more than one email address.
So if using a private server was not illegal, and if she didn't use non-secure channels to discuss classified info, how would she be criminally liable?
Her Private server was used for Official US Government Operations. Thjs isnt Macdonalds or Nordstroms..
If she wanted to use that server, there is a weak chance to have it done as Obama did for his Blackberry. But shenowingly chose to keep it private without any approval. She was not authorized to approve it. And they , FBI, have found she pulled old documents from Bush era, for what reason its obvious to some...but to others they just roll their eyes because they are complicit.
I'll say it again, there was no reason they could not have told us it was a terrorist attack, none.
They did not have to tell us every thing that they had a legitimate reason not to but there was not reason to deceive the American at all that it was indeed an attack that was planned.
We expect much more from our Leaders and this performance is indicative of Hillary Clinton being no leader to be considered.
How do you know this? "I'll say it again, there was no reason they could not have told us it was a terrorist attack, none."
Only fools think we are told the truth by any govt repub or Dem. Overall we don't need to know although we want to know. Telling everything will get many people behind the lines in big trouble or worse.
Wasn't it Snowden that leaked the names of some of our foreign spies? How did that turn out?
How do you know this? "I'll say it again, there was no reason they could not have told us it was a terrorist attack, none."
Only fools think we are told the truth by any govt repub or Dem. Overall we don't need to know although we want to know. Telling everything will get many people behind the lines in big trouble or worse.
Wasn't it Snowden that leaked the names of some of our foreign spies? How did that turn out?
Her Private server was used for Official US Government Operations. Thjs isnt Macdonalds or Nordstroms..
If she wanted to use that server, there is a weak chance to have it done as Obama did for his Blackberry. But shenowingly chose to keep it private without any approval. She was not authorized to approve it. And they , FBI, have found she pulled old documents from Bush era, for what reason its obvious to some...but to others they just roll their eyes because they are complicit.
I'm still confused. Was it prohibited for a government employee to exchange any work-related emails on a non-government server? Under the law in 2012, was she required to ask for approval to use a private server?
Please understand, I am not trying to discuss whether her use of a private email server was wise. I'm just trying to understand what the law was.
Numerous emails were read aloud that showed Hillary knew all along it was a coordinated terrorist attack and had nothing to do with a film about Islam. She lied to us. She lied to YOU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
What hearing did you watch ??
Quote:
CLINTON: ... several of you have raised the video and have dismissed the importance of the video. And I think that is unfortunate, because there's no doubt, and as I said earlier, even the person we have now arrested as being one of the ringleaders of the attack on our compound in Benghazi, is reputed to have used the video as a way to gather up the attackers that attacked our compound. So, I think it's important. These are complex issues, Mr. Congressman. And I think it's important that we look at the totality of what was going on. It's like that terrible incident that happened in Paris.
Arguing that the inspiration for terrorism shouldnt matter is not the same thing as saying the video was not involved.
Have you considered that she made up "is reputed to have used the video as a way to gather up the attackers that attacked our compound"? That is such lawyer-speak..total BS
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
