Why is Hillary getting sued by Benghazi victims?
Anyone can bring a lawsuit. This is America.However, despite the sacrifice of their family members, there is little chance that the lawsuit will be upheld in a civil court for wrongful death. There were many culpable actors in the Benghazi debacle. One of whom was the ambassador himself, who minimized the danger being there, while increasing his visibility upon his arrival, against security force’s wishes. Which is why Ambassador Stevens’ family holds no grudge against Secretary of State Clinton.The persons killed were members of a military force. They cannot sue either their commanders or any hierarchical entity for either their assignment or their eventual death, resulting from practically anything. They signed up voluntarily. Even if they didn’t volunteer, they couldn’t. Imagine the protracted mess if every military soldier killed in action sued the officers and commanders for fruitless/tragic operations? (They are countless and unreported on the whole.) You wouldn’t have an armed forces.Political appointees, such as the Secretary of State (Clinton’s role at the time) cannot be sued for doing their jobs in the normal course of operations which results in death to a subordinate of armed forces members of the Department of Defense. Either can the Department of Defense.It would be impossible to demonstrate intent. That Secretary Clinton INTENDED for the soldiers to be killed. WT?How could a court ever limit the eventual liability? What about Congress’s refusal to fund the security increases that had been requested? Do we hold each of them responsible, because they could have foreseen a terrorist attack? Each member who voted no to be tried in civil court for the results of their legislative refusals. Where would it end?Benghazi was a tragic and largely unpredictable outcome, given the politics of the region and Ambassador Stevens’ propensity and likelihood of exposing himself to danger, through his interest in meeting and greeting local players outside the diplomatic outpost.All of the soldiers should be honored for their bravery and sacrifice. Without them, and others like them, the United States would not survive during these times. Likewise, the scores of soldiers and embassy employees killed during the Bush administrations should also be honored for their brave sacrifices.
What do people in other countries think about Donald Trump?
CanadaWe’re concerned for our poor neighbours to the south, while simultaneously amazed at this unbelievable spectacle:UpdateI was astounded and dismayed, but not really surprised, when I read the Calgary Sun (a right-wing and very conservative news daily). They had published a poll taken of their readers to find out which presidential candidate people supported. The poll showed 48% support for Trump, 27% support for Hillary and 25% undecided.These sad numbers should not be surprising because this is an oil-producing province and Trump, a climate change denier, said that he would give his blessing to a huge pipeline project to send Alberta oil (most of it from our Athabasca “tar-sands”, a very polluting and expensive source) to the US Gulf Coast.A presidential endorsement of this “Keystone XL Pipeline” (Barack Obama already said, “No”) is something that Alberta oil barons would dearly love to see and so Trump is their man; environment and world peace be damned I suppose, as long as the oil companies keep making money. :^(Trump’s approval rating will be much lower and Hillary’s much higher in more liberal-minded parts of Canada, such as British Columbia and Ontario (maybe in Quebec, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia too). Saskatchewan and Manitoba, prairie-land in the middle of Canada, are a mystery to me.
Should Hillary Clinton be in prison?
While I agree with Sierra Spaulding’s answer, there is one aspect of this question that I believe should continue to be discussed by every citizen in America. It’s an incredibly important question.Consider that during the Republican’s politically contrived scam of an investigation into the Benghazi scandal, Hillary Clinton voluntarily put herself under oath and testified to Congress about her emails. She made many statements under oath. And as a lawyer herself, an officer of the court, she knew the importance of that oath.In FBI Director James Comey’s later testimony to Congress, immediately after his dismissal of criminal conduct, he was asked, also under oath to Congress:Hillary Clinton said “I did not email classified material. There was no classified material.” Was that true?Director Comey replied, “There was classified material emailed.” He went on to explain that 110 emails were marked classified at the time they were sent or received by Secretary Clinton. 36 of them were Secret and 8 of them were Top Secret.Secretary Clinton said she used just one device [which she said was done for convenience, which was her justification of the server]. Was that true?Director Comey replied, “She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.” He went on to explain that most of those devices had been wiped or destroyed so they could not be examined by law enforcement.Secrertay Clinton said all work-related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?Director Comey replied, “No. We found work-related emails, thousands, that were not returned.”So, the question we must continue to ask is this. Does it matter when someone is able to lie under oath? If Hillary Clinton can lie under oath without being punished for it, then why should we not just do away with the requirement of swearing under oath? It no longer means anything, does it?President Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to Congress. He was impeached because testifying to Congress used to matter. The question we should ask ourselves, as Americans, is do we care any more whether a person is sworn under oath and lies? Is perjury no longer a crime?This is a discussion that must continue.