Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

‘Hillary killed my son’ (Sean Smith's Mother Responds to NYT Article on Benghazi)
World ^ | Dec. 31, 2013 | J.C. Derrick

Posted on 01/01/2014 7:25:48 PM PST by xzins

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-107 next last
To: xzins

When I think of all the mainstream media coverage given to that whackjob Cindy Sheehan all in the effort to destroy Bush, it is enraging to see and hear how the same press has ignored Pat Smith’s living hell over Benghazi. Hillary’s State Dept. refused to give her information, using the lame excuse that she is not immediate family of her son. Likewise, Tyrone Woods’ father Charles Woods endures the same hell as both parents have testified in front of Issa’s panel and have been totally kept in the dark.

This catastrophe supercedes politics and is all about our corrupted government and leadership from both parties. The media is at the core of the spread of corruption, lies and cover-ups. The only network I have seen covering this scandal properly is Fox, and we all know how the rest of the media empire tries relentlessly to destroy them.

As much as the GOP disgusts and disappoints, they have a golden opportunity to report, compare and contrast the media’s blackout of this story and Mrs. Smith’s and Mr. Woods’ living hell, to the nauseating saturation coverage they gave to Cindy Sheehan. Run the ads, compare, contrast and just tell the truth. It’s all there. Will the GOP do it or are they too busy telling us how dangerous the Tea Party is? Will we ever see subpoenas and get some indictments? Will the Congress finally stand up and fight? Just once can Boehner lead on this matter of utmost importance and fight? Not holding my breath.


51 posted on 01/01/2014 10:27:48 PM PST by untwist (One Bad-Assed Mistake, America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

My heart goes out to the parent, who has not been treated properly by her government. That sort of hurt wont go away and is made worse by Hillary’s weak little lies that fool no one, not even the dunces who voted for him are fooled.


52 posted on 01/02/2014 12:39:44 AM PST by lee martell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

The former presidents wife and thats it! My only nightmare is the wookie running for prez in the future


53 posted on 01/02/2014 2:57:55 AM PST by ronnie raygun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
As far as I can tell from all my sources, she was responsible—directly.

This is what we need to get the truth out. Go ahead and demonize a fallen soldiers mother you maggots.

54 posted on 01/02/2014 3:11:19 AM PST by McGruff (I stand with Phil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

A lot of mothers could come together and form a club calle “Hillary Killed Our Sons”. Vince Fosters mother could be a charter member.


55 posted on 01/02/2014 3:14:28 AM PST by Old Yeller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

That’s why we need to impeach Obama now and see who’s left twisting in the wind. It will rip the Democrats apart. Obama versus Clinton in the Octagon. I’ll take Obama to survive. I don’t see the Democrat machine abandoning the magic Negro. What would happen to the plantation vote if they did?


56 posted on 01/02/2014 3:15:00 AM PST by meatloaf (Impeach Obama. That's my New Year's resolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

I’m in no position to defend Hillary against the information gathered by the mother of Sean Smith, a dead former Seal who was “on assignment” as a Foreign Officer (black op). She says “her sources”. That means that Sean Smith’s buddies have back-channeled her.

Now, she is saying that “Hillary killed” her son. Since it’s obvious to everyone that Hillary didn’t use the weapon, then we are left to interpret that Hillary’s actions/inactions rise to the level of murder in the eyes of a mom who has back-channel sources.

I trust the mom to be competent and knowledgeable. And I don’t know you or your sources.


57 posted on 01/02/2014 3:35:14 AM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Two years this has been going on!!!!!!

And our FERAL Government, Republicans and Democrats, have not given a truthful answer to the AMERICAN Citizen as to what happened in Bengazi.

Fricking digraceful. They should ALL be hung.


58 posted on 01/02/2014 3:39:48 AM PST by eartick (Been to the line in the sand and liked it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
“Hillary killed my son. … As far as I can tell from all my sources, she was responsible—directly.”

Hillary was in over all command of the transfer of Libyan weapons to Al-CIA-duh in Syria, just like she was behind the overthrow of Gaddafi. Stevens was running the op on the ground and was having second thoughts about giving them thousands of shoulder launched SAMs. And you know what they say, dead men tell no tales.

The hit would have gone down with out a hitch if weren't for those men on the ground who disobeyed direct orders and tried to rescue their fellow Americans under attack.

59 posted on 01/02/2014 5:43:25 AM PST by Count of Monte Fisto (The foundation of modern society is the denial of reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

She looks all bloated in that picture. By the time 2016 rolls around she’ll deflate and look worse.


60 posted on 01/02/2014 5:46:30 AM PST by jersey117
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Count of Monte Fisto; P-Marlowe; jazusamo; nathanbedford

Throughout the Middle East this administration has taken the side of the islamo-fascists...even against Israel.

It only makes sense that they were funneling them weapons.

What’s curious to me is that it appears there’s some kind of cell within our intel/spec ops communities that was trying to recover those weapons and deny them to the enemy.

It makes me wonder if there’s a black ops clandestine war going on between our socialists and our patriots.


61 posted on 01/02/2014 5:49:07 AM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: meatloaf
That’s why we need to impeach Obama now

First, we need a Senate that will impeach. A House impeachment is nothing more than an indictment.

That is why the Dems are scared to death of Nov 2014 and the damage done by Obamacare.

62 posted on 01/02/2014 5:59:50 AM PST by RoosterRedux (The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing -- Socrates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine

Thanks for the ping.


63 posted on 01/02/2014 7:21:50 AM PST by GOPJ ("Remember who the real enemy is... ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5; xzins

“...not the same thing as picking up an AK47 ....”

Actually - Hillary committed formal cooperation so is culpable for the deaths. Formal cooperation is the willing participation on the part of the cooperative agent in the sinful act of the principal agent.

Hillary is as culpable as if she held the gun (and she knows it -just look at her)


64 posted on 01/02/2014 8:16:25 AM PST by stonehouse01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine

can you add me to the ping


65 posted on 01/02/2014 8:17:42 AM PST by stonehouse01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

“...Dems scared to death...”

I wish. The dems are not scared in the least becaue the plan is working. On topic - the next day 9/12 that Hillary got away with her coverup by blaming the “video” was the day it became clear that the tipping point had been breached.


66 posted on 01/02/2014 8:23:59 AM PST by stonehouse01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01

I not only can, but I have. Welcome.


67 posted on 01/02/2014 8:35:52 AM PST by MestaMachine (My caps work. You gotta earn them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Forward the Light Brigade

“...Hillary needs to toss Obama under the bus...”

She won’t. The Clintons could theoretically; However Clinton knows that Obama gave the stand down.

Obama gave the stand down and she covered it up. They are BOTH in it to the point that if one gives the other away they are exposed themselves.

Corruption - stinking bloated corruption.


68 posted on 01/02/2014 8:53:40 AM PST by stonehouse01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01

She didn’t willingly cooperate with the mob of terrorists, though. She might have had a business relationship with them, mistakenly (?) giving them anti-aircraft missiles that Stevens was trying to buy back when they killed him.

But she did not have a cooperative relationship with them in which she actively helped and encouraged them kill an ambassador and three marines. She passively allowed them to do so by not beefing up security and by sending him on a fool’s errand to fix her unbelievably stupid mistake, but that doesn’t make her an accomplice.

Was President Grant an accomplice in the killing of Custer by Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse? He also didn’t send a relief column. He also sent Custer’s single cavalry regiment into harm’s way on a fool’s errand, to subdue the Sioux and Cheyenne, who were united against them.


69 posted on 01/02/2014 9:41:35 AM PST by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Count of Monte Fisto

If hitlery was put in jail for Vince Foster’s murder, then this lady’s son would probably be alive today.


70 posted on 01/02/2014 9:51:34 AM PST by Caribou ( www.ktok.com Red State Radio free streaming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

Comment #71 Removed by Moderator

Comment #72 Removed by Moderator

To: null and void

Argo was released August 31, 2012.


73 posted on 01/02/2014 11:05:00 AM PST by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: digger48

Hillary! finally got that dreaded “3 a.m.” phone call....and rolled over and went back to sleep.


74 posted on 01/02/2014 11:12:08 AM PST by Zman516
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: xzins

All I know is what’s in the public eye, that what information is in the public eye doesn’t constitute murder, and that bereaved mothers do not necessarily use the same logic that is in circulation in courtrooms. If she has back-channel information that refutes that assumption, fine. Let’s see it and then we’ll judge.


75 posted on 01/02/2014 12:32:17 PM PST by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

Once upon a time, long, long ago, I touched on that community, and I guarantee that she has back channel information. In fact, in this article she says “my sources”.

There are so many who have been refused permission to testify. For many of them, logic would indicate they are willing to testify so they had to be prevented from doing so. For others, they probably don’t want to testify, so the refusal of permission is a protection for them.

People talk. People traverse those communities by simple paperwork changes. They bump into each other. They have a coffee together.


76 posted on 01/02/2014 1:31:00 PM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: xzins

True. But I can’t draw conclusions based on information that I haven’t seen.


77 posted on 01/02/2014 2:41:49 PM PST by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

You can draw a conclusion if you believe this mother who says her son was murdered and that Hillary is involved.

You have these two people and you have your gut. You know the character of Hillary, and you have the character of this son, raised by this mother, who gave his life refusing to desert his fellow Americans in their time of dire need. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, so you have some kind of insight into the character of the mother.

Who will you pick to believe?


78 posted on 01/02/2014 3:01:11 PM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: xzins

A well planned coordinated attack involving a pincer movement supported by pre-adjusted indirect fire by heavy weapons, “is not” a spontaneous operation by average rioters. But the uninformed voter doesn’t know about those things, anymore than they know how to write cursive. Even if Hillary shot our guys at point blank range, the UVs would still elect her.


79 posted on 01/02/2014 3:52:52 PM PST by Bringbackthedraft (Remember Ty Woods? Glenn Doherty ? Forgot already?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I can disbelieve the mother not because I believe she is lying, but because she is a bereaved mother who wants somebody to blame, which is understandable, and would need more information than what I have to evaluate the facts.

That does not mean that I believe Hillary’s version, that it was all over a video and she really did try to save those poor men, but just then she fell and hit her head, and it doesn’t make any difference at this point if she’s guilty. She’s lying and she’s covering up, and she’s fallen and hit her head too many times if she says arrogant things like that out loud on TV.

But that does not establish what the truth is. At minimum, she is guilty of letting an ambassador and three servicemen get butchered without lifting a finger to cover up her transfer of shoulder-fired Surface to Air missiles to terrorists in Syria, and that might be what she’s lying to cover up. But it does not follow from that that she was complicit in their murder, other than by a failure to act. It would have been in her interest for Stevens to succeed in repurchasing the missiles she stupidly put in the wrong hands. Him being murdered would not help her cover up that act. So for those reasons, I’m skeptical, and would like to see more info.


80 posted on 01/02/2014 3:57:46 PM PST by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5
other than by a failure to act.

That's the misunderstanding. It was not a "failure to act".

We know it made it to the situation room. Therefore, it was an intentional decision not to act.

This cannot be written off as a "Omigosh...we didn't know anything was going down...so we failed to act."

81 posted on 01/02/2014 4:01:57 PM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: xzins

An intentional failure to act is still a failure to act. If you see a man drowning, and you refuse to go rescue him, or even to send a subordinate to go rescue him, you are not guilty of murder.


82 posted on 01/02/2014 5:11:51 PM PST by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5
At minimum, she is guilty of letting an ambassador and three servicemen get butchered without lifting a finger to cover up her transfer of shoulder-fired Surface to Air missiles to terrorists in Syria, and that might be what she’s lying to cover up. But it does not follow from that that she was complicit in their murder, other than by a failure to act.

If you're the lifeguard, then you are guilty of negligence. The only question then is if it rises to the level of criminal negligence.

Reference the above quote from your 2nd (3rd?) most recent exchange with me, it doesn't make sense that you don't see it as an intentional, knowing failure to act even though totally capable of initiating action...is that accurate?

83 posted on 01/02/2014 5:32:58 PM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: xzins

That’s the law. A lifeguard can get sued, fired, and blacklisted for letting someone drown. But they don’t go down for murder unless they pretend they’re coming to the rescue to ward off other would-be rescuers, and then let the person they’re supposedly rescuing drown.

With government, it’s even worse. A policeman or paramedic is not obligated to save anyone. Someone can bleed to death within feet of a paramedic carrying all the gear he needs, and he isn’t even civilly liable. A policeman can watch someone get robbed, gang raped and murdered and just stand there swinging his club. He’ll be drummed out of the police department and never work as a cop again, but nobody can even sue him, or the city, unless he starts out coming to the rescue, thereby creating a ministerial relationship with the victim, and then just stops and turns around, or at least does a negligent job of rescuing the victim.

After the Crown Heights pogrom, I was part of the team preparing the Notice of Claim to start action against the city, and this was the question raised each time. It’s the case of Dunham vs. Village of Canisteo, settled law in New York State for over a century, and widely accepted in other jurisdictions throughout the nation.

In the case of the SOS, they would not be criminally liable for knowingly letting federal agents be butchered. Not unless they told them, “don’t try to escape through that secret tunnel. Help is on the way” and then abandoned them, because then they would be telling them to refrain from saving themselves in exchange for a ministerial promise of rescue.


84 posted on 01/02/2014 6:17:13 PM PST by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle

Do you realize that scene from 1925 Fritz Lang classic movie Metropolis they just restored it recently


85 posted on 01/02/2014 6:21:14 PM PST by SevenofNine (We are Freepers, all your media bases belong to us ,resistance is futile)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

You talk about law?

You - who think the Secretary of State could “accidentally” sell SAMs to terrorists?

You - who thinks the State Government Code applies to the Secretary of State under conditions of attacks against a US Ambassador which LEGALLY comprise Acts of War?

The Secretary of State had the OBLIGATION to act to save the lives of those people, who included the Ambassador to the United States.

The Secretary of State had the MEANS and OPPORTUNITY to act through intelligence and combat assets, and repeatedly REFUSED.

That refusal IS the “act” of murder.

And as that refusal enabled, empowered and knowingly, deliberately succeeded in the murder of American forces and the American Ambassador, it is an act of TREASON - an act of aiding and abetting WAR against the United States of America.

Law?

You know NOTHING about the law.

Or you’re LYING.

Which is it?


86 posted on 01/02/2014 6:31:34 PM PST by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“We DON’T CARE”

-The MSM


87 posted on 01/02/2014 6:32:59 PM PST by Libertarian444
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

I don’t think the New York State penal code applies to the Secretary of State. I extrapolate from my knowledge of the New York State penal code to federal law, as I already told you.

State penal codes and the federal penal code are usually very similar, and while Dunham vs. Village of Canisteo is New York law, it is widely respected, as are many of the old New York cases, and is based on old principles of British Common Law, which have had a huge influence on American jurisprudence, and especially something as well settled as this..

She sold it to terrorists. Maybe she didn’t know they were terrorists, and in that sense it was an accident. Maybe she’s just plain stupid. Maybe it was part of an evil scheme. Note the question mark by “accidentally” in my actual words.

“The Secretary of State had the OBLIGATION to act to save the lives of those people, who included the Ambassador to the United States.”

Is this obligation statutory? So then cite the statute and its language. Is it based on case law? Cite for me the case. Is it based on your own feelings and is therefore a mere assertion? Put Rogain on it and then it won’t be bald.

Try venting spleen at me if you want. I’m not impressed. Law is law. Failing to act is not murder in any jurisdiction that I know of, with or without knowledge of the danger, except on the high seas with a ship in distress. Other ships have an obligation to come to its aid unless they’re imperiling themselves.


88 posted on 01/02/2014 8:32:10 PM PST by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

BTW, Stevens was not the Libyan ambassador to the United States. He was the American ambassador to Libya. America has many ambassadors in many dangerous places. It does not have one ambassador. I realize you’re upset and typing very fast, but that doesn’t make it true.


89 posted on 01/02/2014 8:46:09 PM PST by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

“And as that refusal enabled, empowered and knowingly, deliberately succeeded in the murder of American forces and the American Ambassador, it is an act of TREASON - an act of aiding and abetting WAR against the United States of America.”

It might well have been treason. Wouldn’t know. There’s no parallel to treason in the NY Penal code, CPLR, or constitution, so it’s outside my field. But it wasn’t murder and you aren’t being logical here. In Reagan’s time, the Soviets shot a US serviceman by the Berlin wall and let him bleed out, refusing to allow anyone to cross over the wall to aid him. Was Reagan’s SOS a murderer, too? Was Reagan? Were they guilty of treason for not going to war?

“Law?

You know NOTHING about the law.”

I don’t know everything about the law. I never said that I did. But I know a good deal more than you, which isn’t saying much.

“Or you’re LYING.

Which is it?”

OK. Time for your meds. ‘bye.


90 posted on 01/02/2014 8:53:14 PM PST by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5
I don’t think the New York State penal code applies to the Secretary of State. I extrapolate from my knowledge of the New York State penal code to federal law, as I already told you.

In other words, you are applying the New York State penal code applies to the Secretary of State.

And to do so, you are then applying your extrapolated federal statutory law involving corporate governance indemnification to a sworn-in Secretary of State in time of war, during a combat incident, involving the Ambassador of the United States whose person represents this country.

And then you are ignoring her oath of office, the fact that massive military assets were at her disposal, military intelligence was availible to her, that the incident lasted over eight hours, and that she was involved in repeatedly ordering off intelligence and military assets who were repeatedly insisting that they be allowed to stage a rescue.

You write: Is this obligation statutory? So then cite the statute and its language. Is it based on case law? Cite for me the case. Is it based on your own feelings and is therefore a mere assertion? Put Rogain on it and then it won’t be bald.

Here's the statute:
18 U.S. CODE § 2381 - TREASON
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Do you have anything other than stupid lawyer tricks? The preponderence of evidence and responsibility was to act to protect the Ambassador and his party in time of war. It is YOUR assertion that there was no obligation towards a sworn cabinet member of the Office of the President in direct charge of the incident. YOU provide exculpatory statutes and their language which forgive treason. Bald? You have NOTHING but arrogance and bullsh!t. You really DID work for lawyers, didn't you?

91 posted on 01/02/2014 9:00:56 PM PST by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5
Failing to act is not murder in any jurisdiction that I know of, with or without knowledge of the danger, except on the high seas with a ship in distress. Other ships have an obligation to come to its aid unless they’re imperiling themselves.

IIRC, the law of the high seas is Admiralty law, which is concurrent in jurisidctional application on land as statutory law, which regulated by administrative law at the sate and federal levels.

So the translation of this little "addendum" of yours is that "Failing to act is not murder in any jurisdiction that I know of, with or without knowledge of the danger, except under US law."

Thanks for playing. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

92 posted on 01/02/2014 9:07:25 PM PST by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

“IIRC, the law of the high seas is Admiralty law, which is concurrent in jurisidctional application on land as statutory law, which regulated by administrative law at the sate and federal levels.

So the translation of this little “addendum” of yours is that “Failing to act is not murder in any jurisdiction that I know of, with or without knowledge of the danger, except under US law.”

So you’re saying that Stevens and Smith were murdered on the high seas by their ship foundering (terrorists were scuttling the hold?), and Hillary was right nearby on a freighter in calm seas and let her go down?

Admiralty law does not apply to Libya and terrorists running amok in Libya and killing US personnel. Neither does it apply to dry land all together, even within the United States, or even on American embassy grounds.

If you let a ship sink on the high seas, and then dock your ship in Gloucester and head into town for a drink, you can be arrested for letting a ship sink on the high seas, and they can do the same thing to you in Portland or New York City. They do not have to arrest you on the high seas for the Admiralty Law to have jurisdiction, or in the state adjacent to the stretch of wet in which you did it. That’s all that bit of garbled legalese you site means.


93 posted on 01/02/2014 9:31:29 PM PST by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.So the translation of this little "addendum" of yours is that "Faili)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5
What I wrote was, “IIRC, the law of the high seas is Admiralty law, which is concurrent in jurisidctional application on land as statutory law, which regulated by administrative law at the State and federal levels.

Reading comprehension is your friend. Law is often made up of subtleties and defined jurisdictional relationships. Read up on it.

You ask: So you’re saying that Stevens and Smith were murdered on the high seas by their ship foundering (terrorists were scuttling the hold?), and Hillary was right nearby on a freighter in calm seas and let her go down?

And I reply, through constructive jurisdictional application, YES.

And not only that - you know it's true. But you also know that the linkages of constructive authority and obligation are so bizarre to those untrained in law, they will think it's a farce. And, of course, they're right, when it is applied to non-government employees. But it IS applicable to government employees, and it DOES derive its constructive application from Admiralty law contractual authorities and obligations, as applied to specific jurisdictions, as indicated by statutory and administrative operations.

But then there's the other thing - the basic fraud of you saying that failure to act can never be held as murder. Never is a big, big word, and NEVER applies absolutely. I could go on and talk about criminal negligence, criminal failure to act under sworn obligation, etc., and then you'd go on about the limits of specificities, etc. But the very argument is nonsense, because the obligation Hillary had to save those people was inescapable and obvious. And what you are doing, in trying to spin away that obviousness and common sense and LAWFUL OBLIGATION, is, IMO, sedition through fraudulent misrepresentation.

94 posted on 01/02/2014 9:42:54 PM PST by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

“I don’t think the New York State penal code applies to the Secretary of State. I extrapolate from my knowledge of the New York State penal code to federal law, as I already told you.”

In other words, you are applying the New York State penal code applies to the Secretary of State. Just taking an educated guess as to what the USCS says about the elements of homicide and its several levels. You are extrapolating from your lack of knowledge and visceral rejection of what you don’t want to hear that the US Code says what you want to hear. I have about 20 years’ experience in law, and from that I can be allowed an educated guess, which I honestly inform you ahead of time is just a guess. There is nothing strange about the NY Penal Code. Look in any penal code, including the federal, and you’ll see a lot of very similar language.

“...to a sworn-in Secretary of State in time of war”

The US was not at war with Libya, and the acts were not performed by the Libyan government.

“, during a combat incident, involving the Ambassador of the United States”

There is no such post. He was the United States ambassador to Libya.

” whose person represents this country.”

Yes, he did represent the United States. And it was Hillary’s call to let him die and fail to take precautions ahead of time, a national disgrace. Disgusting. But not murder, anymore than Reagan, Bush Sr. or Eisenhower committed murder in their international incidents.

“And then you are ignoring her oath of office, the fact that massive military assets were at her disposal, military intelligence was availible to her, that the incident lasted over eight hours, and that she was involved in repeatedly ordering off intelligence and military assets who were repeatedly insisting that they be allowed to stage a rescue.”

I don’t ignore those things. She did. But even so, it’s not murder.

“18 U.S. CODE § 2381 - TREASON
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

“Levies war against them” OK. Hillary didn’t pick up a gun and start shooting. “Adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” Only to the extent that she didn’t stop them, which as I’ve said is not a legal obligation to the best of my knowledge, and nowhere in the Constitution is “failing to stop the enemies of the United States from waging war against them” enumerated as an act of treason. If it was, Dwight Eisenhower would have been guilty of treason for failing to retaliate for the downing of a US air jet, and George HW Bush for failing to declare war on N. Korea for shooting down a US jet.

“Do you have anything other than stupid lawyer tricks?”

Just because you don’t understand what I’m saying does not make them a “stupid lawyer trick”. I carry no brief for lawyers;-) I’m glad I’m out of that field. But the law is the law is the law, and Dunham vs. Village of Canisteo and its progeny and its predecessor case law control.

” The preponderence of evidence and responsibility was to act to protect the Ambassador and his party in time of war.”

You’re frothing at the mouth and talking gibberish.

Read Dunham and get back to me.


95 posted on 01/02/2014 9:52:58 PM PST by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.So the translation of this little "addendum" of yours is that "Faili)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

“Reading comprehension is your friend. Law is often made up of subtleties and defined jurisdictional relationships. Read up on it.”

Jurisdiction in this case means procedural, as I’ve explained. Maritime laws of conduct on the high seas do not apply to dry land. If a man falls out your window and hurts himself in New York State, he can sue you in New York court under the procedure outlined in the CPLR for negligence. He can’t sue you under the Jones Act. If a man falls overboard and a crewman tosses him a frayed rope that fails to save him, his widow can sue you under the Jones Act, but not under NY Products Liability case law, because it didn’t happen in NY State.

I know all about the subtleties of law and how it defines jurisdictional relationships. I had twenty years of that, and a couple of years of schooling. And all twenty-two years of it are giving you a great big horse laugh right now.

To wit:

And I reply, through constructive jurisdictional application, YES.

And not only that - you know it’s true.

HAAA!

Read Aesop’s Fables, the Donkey and the Lion’s Pelt, and stop flaunting your ignorance. Goodnight.


96 posted on 01/02/2014 10:01:08 PM PST by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.So the translation of this little "addendum" of yours is that "Faili)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5
Read Aesop’s Fables, the Donkey and the Lion’s Pelt, and stop flaunting your ignorance. Goodnight.

Read up on incorporation, corporate shells and positive law, irrespective of wet or dry applications.

Twenty-two years? That's it? You must not be trusted.

Maybe it's your horse laugh. It always indicates a bounder.

Goodbye.

97 posted on 01/03/2014 12:14:00 AM PST by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5
Yes, he did represent the United States. And it was Hillary’s call to let him die and fail to take precautions ahead of time, a national disgrace. Disgusting. But not murder, anymore than Reagan, Bush Sr. or Eisenhower committed murder in their international incidents.

“And then you are ignoring her oath of office, the fact that massive military assets were at her disposal, military intelligence was availible to her, that the incident lasted over eight hours, and that she was involved in repeatedly ordering off intelligence and military assets who were repeatedly insisting that they be allowed to stage a rescue.”

I don’t ignore those things. She did. But even so, it’s not murder.

Yeah, it is murder. And it's also treason. And it's indefensible.

And your vague and unsupported demonization of "Reagan, Bush Sr. or Eisenhower" identifies you as a liberal. Reagan, Bush Sr. or Eisenhower NEVER did what Hillary did in Benghazi. The open, deliberate murder of an American Ambassador by his own government is unprecedented.

I won't bother with the rest of your disconnected legalisms - by refusing to acknowledge the forest for the trees, you're just adding petulancy and irrelevency to being dead wrong - like all liberals.

98 posted on 01/03/2014 12:26:19 AM PST by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

Nothing vague about it. I refer to specific instances in which American citizens and servicemen were left on their own to face assaults on foreign soil, and in some cases died as a result. Look in the history books and stop making an ass of yourself. I have the greatest admiration for Eisenhower and Reagan, and in some respects even liked Bush Sr., though mostly not.


99 posted on 01/03/2014 6:26:50 AM PST by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.So the translation of this little "addendum" of yours is that "Faili)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

The more you talk, the less sense you make.


100 posted on 01/03/2014 6:30:54 AM PST by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-107 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson