[Eleutheria5]

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.

[xzins]

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?