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 information do you have about the Benghazi massacre that everyone needs to know?
I can't believe we have to keep going over the same ground but I guess we do. Nobody ever suggested that there was nothing to see here. Benghazi was a tragedy and an embarrassment to our country and to the administration. Obama and Clinton have accepted responsibility for the lax security as they should have and if the GOP wants to make this an issue in the 2016 presidential campaign, they are welcome to do so. They can also try to argue that a military response should have been considered more swiftly although they would have to counter the likes of Robert Gates who said such critics have a cartoonish view of the military. But where reasonable people need to draw the line in my opinion is with this notion that there was some kind of massive cover up where Obama misrepresented this knowledge of the circumstances of the attack or worse let the attack proceed without a military response in order to cover up..what exactly? I am still not clear on that point. And furthermore, it is still not at all clear what motivated the attack nor is it clear despite numerous claims to the contrary that the video had nothing to do with it. The claim by the right was that nobody saw the video but of course actually seeing it and knowing about it are two very different things. The New York Times extensively reported on the fact that knowledge of the video was widespread throughout the Middle East and widely discussed on various social networks. That reporting has never been refuted by anyone on the right. Finally, let's not forget it was Mitt Romney who first played politics with this event, after telling his fundraisers that he was just waiting for an opportunity to hammer Obama on a National security mistake. For that he was soundly critiqued and it was in an attempt to protect him and counter that critique that the Benghazi fever was first germinated. If only the GOP and its allies were as concerned about intelligence failures and misrepresentations concerning 9/11 and the war in Iraq, we would all be much better off.See also Five myths about Benghazi
Why is Trump's doing the exact same kind of things he accuses Hillary Clinton of doing acceptable to his base?
Rampant hypocrisy is part of the package with political tribalism.Trump’s base never had a problem with what Clinton or Obama did, but rather who they are. Liberals are the enemy. This makes them bad people. Everything they do is wrong.Let’s look at some common reasons Hillary lost:Failure to properly handle classified information.Has previously monetized her position.There are accusations of pay for play with foreign powers.Had engaged in inflammatory rhetoric.Has told lies.These were all BIG DEALS during the election. Huge red flags. Reasons to hate and distrust a person. But the current commander in chief’s sins in each category trump Hillary’s indiscretions by a large degree without bothering his supporters in the least. The message is “Our side can play as dirty as necessary to get the job done, but if your side puts one toe across the line it is proof you are evil.”The far left does the same thing (violent protests to prevent conservatives from speaking are not defensible), but tribalism is relegated to a minority of liberals. This makes sense as conservatives tend to stress the value of loyalty while liberals tend to stress the value of fairness.Only the radical leftists resort to the same level of tribalism as your average conservative. Those are the yahoos who keep holding rallies and marches to protest things. They are loud and very active, which makes them seem like there are more of them than there really are.
How can Hillary Clinton defeat Donald Trump in the presidential debates (September 2016)?
Hillary has a BIG problem. She has to stay away from the truth, that she has a 26 year track record of failures and illegal activities. If just a few of these are brought up by Trump (and not interrupted or “fact-checked” by biased mediators) they can sink Hillary’s chances of winning the next debates, and of her candidacy.Just in the past couple of years:illegally destroying and tampering with evidenceinstructing aides do so, by destroying her mobile devices with hammersperjuring herself in front of the FBI and CongressBribery of public officials to avoid prosecution: Lynch private meeting with Bill on that airplane. If it quacks like a duck…killing four Americans in Benghazidestroying 33,000 classified emails that proved her treasonTreason = exposure of clearly marked Classified documents to foreign countries’ espionageDisseminating Classified information to people without top secret clearanceuse of an unsecured personal server for top secret/classified emails,Destruction of evidence after notice of criminal investigation by FBIMissing $6 BILLION from State Dept during Hillary’s tenure!Prior to that: (Just a few)Stole $200,000 in White House furniture when she and Bill left it.Whitewater scandalHiding Rose Law Firm’s records to avoid dissemination to prosecutorsHillaryCare: complete failure, costing US $13 million in researchCraig Livingstone appointed as Dir. of White House Security:Stole 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies, led to FilegateAttempts to appoint two AG’s, both of whom were forced to remove their names from contention due to prior illegal activities and associationsKimba WoodZoe BairdAppointment of Janet Reno, who presided over trhe Branch Davidian killingsMore Hillary suggestions for appointments, and associations:Web Hubbel - ImprisonedVincent Foster: apparent suicideWilliam Kennedy in Treasury Dept., forced to resignThe bottom line is that if Trump, the moderator or Hillary starts to talk about successes, failures and illegal acts, Hillary is cooked. So if facts were used, and not innuendo and slick debating, Hillary does not stand a chance.
Are there really people out there who thought Hillary was a good choice as president, with the trail of lies, deceit, theft and email server scandals?
I found it interesting how people interpreted the many investigations into her (and her husband) to be indication of guilt. Naively, I thought that years of independent investigations spending millions of dollars and looking through every detail of her life never leading to any criminal charges — let alone convictions — should be considered evidence of innocence, not guilt.Either she is such a mastermind that even multiple independent investigations spending millions of dollars can’t nail down a single prosecutable crime, or, more plausibly, she isn’t actually the criminal mastermind they want you to think she is.(There’s the whole “innocent until proven guilty” thing too, but she never even really got to the “criminal charges” part, so there wasn’t even a crime to presume her innocence.)So I don’t know if there are people who bought into the smearing but still thought she’d make a good president, as the question asks, but there were plenty of us who thought she would make a fine president, in part because we didn’t take the absurd accusations seriously. In fact there were around 2.8 million more people who thought she’d be preferable to the guy who won.Also much of the investigations into both of the Clintons have been exaggerated nonsense. How many years and millions of dollars did they spend on Benghazi before they found the email server and decided to make that the story? And when has a Secretary of State ever been responsible for the security at an embassy? How many other Secretaries of State have presided over similar attacks & tragedies? (Attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities.)