“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.
“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.