Posted on 12/13/2015 4:30:13 PM PST by jazusamo
When Republican members of Congress learned in November 2011 that the Obama administration was contemplating a swap -- Taliban terrorists for captured ArmySgt. Bowe Bergdahl -- they wrote to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of their fears.
Mrs. Clinton wrote back that they had nothing to worry about. The White House would follow the law requiring a 30-day heads-up.
"I want to make clear that any transfer from Guantanamo will be undertaken after consultation with Congress and pursuant to all legal requirements for transfers, including those spelled out in the FY2012 [National] Defense Authorization Act," she said of the law signed by President Obama that December requiring that he notify Congress ahead of time.
Fewer than three years later, Mr. Obama freed five hard-line Taliban commanders from the prison at Guantanamo Bay. As the five left Cuba, U.S. specials forces troops rendezvoused with the Taliban on May 31, 2014, at a remote location in Afghanistan to pick up Sgt. Bergdahl. The Army would later charge him with desertion.
The White House neither consulted with Congress nor gave proper notification for the "illegal transfer."
Those are the conclusions in a new report by the House Armed Services Committee, issued over the dissent of panel Democrats. The role of Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic Party presidential front-runner, is described in the report's detailed chronology, gleaned from secret testimony from some of the players and classified documents.
The Clinton letter remains secret to this day. The committee could only disclose the sentence that ended up in a nonclassified letter from then-Sen. Saxby Chambliss, who led the intelligence committee and is one of those who sounded the alarm on any swap back in 2011.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Hillary lied? I’m shocked, SHOCKED I tell ya!!!
um....you basically ended this thread.
Amen, even the more conservative media can’t bring themselves to call them liars.
Enough with the covering of liberal asses with innumerable euphemisms for lying and perjury.
So I guess that self-proclaimed liberal “fact-checker”, in an earlier post here, didn’t chalk this lie up as another Clinton lie. Clinton didn’t lie, she only “misled” Congress. All liberals are lying kooks. I guess misleading Congress is better than taking the Fifth Amendment if you plan on running for president.
The the NYT’s find her the least dishonest politician! How can this be?
...depends on what the definition of ‘lie’ is.
Yep, isn’t that a hoot.
the democrat media worked to elect Obama with all his faults and numerous questions and they will work to elect Hillary the same way. they are not sharks if the person in question is a democrat but they are like sharks if someone happens to be Trump or any other Republican.
“”I want to make clear””
Isn’t it amazing that this is one of Hillary and obozo’s favorite lines and they’ve yet to make anything clear except their lies. They appear and muddy everything they touch!
Whomever the republican nominee is, they had better put together a string of Hillary’s top ten or fifteen most egregious, demonstrable lies, and just hit her with them in rapid succession every time she opens her fetid mouth, all campaign long.
Have some guy show up in a chicken outfit holding a sign demanding she come clean on each lie at each of her rallies.
Otherwise if we wait around for the MSM to air them fairly, we’ll all just die disappointed.
FYI, when a lawyer, a court, or a law, says "including such-and-such" that means LIMITED TO whatever is SPECIFICALLY LISTED in such and such.
In the legal world , this is not a lie.
So if you read Hillary's statement straight, not knowing this, it sounds like she's referring to every possible legal requirement, and of all of those, ALSO the ones in the FY2012 [National] Defense Authorization Act.
No.
What she's doing is DEFINING "all legal requirements for transfers" AS ONLY those spelled out in the FY2012 [National] Defense Authorization Act.
Big, big difference.
If everyone in the US understood this one, single legal terminology trick, and nothing else, the entire corrupt government at every level would collapse. It's that powerful, that misunderstood, and that constantly used.
I agree...There sure isn’t a shortage of proof out there of her lies, she even denies lying when there’s videos of her lying.
I.E. She wouldn’t have been so specific without reason.
But our top story, since we won't be talking about this anymore, is that Trump said something, and said something else, and then his words were reported under misleading headlines.
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.