byronglimish wrote:
The Murderess..aka.hillarygate let out top secret emails like a total buffoon...she didn't have the integrity and trustworthiness to be Secretary of State or President ...she hasn't ever cared about allowing good people to die in Libya..the collusion delusion is a Clinton Crime Network Cover-up..
I'm pretty sure you can't supply anything relevant to where Hillary was responsible for those deaths. I'm pretty sure that in the first place I never saw where the Secretary of State has any responsibility for the actions that take place at an embassy. There are CIA people, Marines, and other security entities involved in the places where a difference could be made. When the CIA outpost was asked to send men to help, they originally refused because the CO wouldn't leave his post under manned. Now had Democrats been in charge of Congress they could have been easily blamed for refusing to fund the $380 million that was requested to increase embassy security. But seeing as how that doesn't play well that republicans were the ones that refused that funding it didn't get much outrage from the right. Oh, and by the way, this wasn't the first time embassy officials have died from clearer negligence than this. Bush told a month ahead of a car bombing at an embassy that something was up. He neglected to do anything, and almost 200 people died when the event intelligence had been talking about actually happened. The president was exonerated of responsibility even though he had been advised to take actions he had neglected to do. Obama never would have gotten away with that considering what the GOP tried to make out of Hillary's non responsibility. My guess is that there is no way byron can explain why this was Hillary's responsibility in any way. I have a lot of hard right hunting and fishing friends, and it does nothing but piss people off when they make statements like this and then are asked to provide details about what they are talking about.
Meanwhile we have a Russia investigation that people should want to know what went on. We let Benghazi go on for years when no evidence could be found, Benghazi led to the email scandal as far as classified information. Have you caught how many people in this current admin are using the same exact kind of private server? Kushner can't get his Top Secret security clearance, yet he gets the most sensitive types of information? Nunes pressures the FBI into getting sensitive classified documents related to the DOJ/FBI's investigation and runs them right to the white house, which is a violation of security because the intelligence committee has an obligation to keep that information secret from those being investigated.
And the Nunes memo (two versions). How would that have played if dems wrote an irrelevant memo, got approval to send it over to the president for approval or redaction of the parts that were classified, and the top dems forged a modified document that went to the president, one that nobody had seen or authorized. I'm pretty sure that democrat would be prosecuted for fraud in a manner that reflected sabotage. There is so much about this that is not okay, but changing that document and submitting a modified version??? Daayum
Hillary and Benghazi/email scandals are over with, let's worry about what's going on currently, because that crap has nothing to do with the things we need to pay attention to now. It's a bit embarrassing to still be talking about Benghazi and email servers when we have a bigger scandal, and Trump people doing the same email server things that Hillary did.
So her's a question, and this shouldn't be that hard to answer. If Kushner, Ivanka, Gowdy, Nunes, or any other top level official were found to be doing the same exact misuse of private email servers to relay sensitive information that Hillary did, should they be prosecuted and put in jail, or because Hillary got away with it so should they? My point here is that anything you think was a crime when the other side does it needs to be prosecuted to the degree that you think it should whether someone got away with it or not. When you start using an equivalency system it's subject to false equivalency. Perhaps the evidence of wrongdoing would be much more clear in one case than the other, which would explain one being prosecuted and the other not. When you start letting a side get away with something because the other side's person did, you are in effect saying it doesn't matter anymore if someone breaks the law.
Franken was forced to resign, yet Farenthold did far worse and there's no heat on him to resign. In fact he used taxpayer funds to settle out.
I tend to stick to facts that can be easily supported, facts that people should know already. I am of the opinion that debates where people are allowed to discuss facts should never be cause for anger. In a debate there should be no problem intelligently supporting a position. If a person can't they need to take a real hard look at the facts that support their beliefs, if they can't actually find any maybe they should question their sources?