Problem now is even if Benghazi was somehow a failure on her part..it's just going to look like they have an agenda if they continue to come after her for it. Unless they stumble upon an email where she flat out admits to it.
Even more hilarious is..it might of genuinely prevented her from getting into the white house if they kept their mouths shut.
I can just imagine the dirty looks McCarthy will be getting if she gets the nom, and especially if she ends up in the white house.
I almost imagine it would be like a baseball team full of 6 yr. old kids...where when they lose a game they blame one specific player and just ignore the fact it's a team effort.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
yea he was kind of a idiot admitting that.
The thing is, whether or not he admitted it, it was always true, and a lot of people realized it.
And along with the second congressperson to admit it, it really says a lot.
Surtur
Problem now is even if Benghazi was somehow a failure on her part..it's just going to look like they have an agenda if they continue to come after her for it. Unless they stumble upon an email where she flat out admits to it.
Ok, here's a thing: It was a failure. Benghazi was a failure of foresight on the part of her and others. A completely normal, mundane, failure.
It's just not an illegal failure.
It's something that the GOP should've scored some points on- because it was a real thing- then moved on, because it's not a silver bullet campaign sinker and in order to try and turn it into one, they needed to waste money and turn what should have been a serious matter into a farce.
Originally posted by Henry_Pym
At the risk of joining on the TI side, she did exactly what Petrais did and thus should be punished the same. If your ideology allows you to prioritize gender over national security or even shown competence at lower level positions so be it I can't change your mind but be consistent.
What Petraeus got in trouble for is a fair bit different. He directly sent classified information to a non-cleared person. Hillary did not do this - she forwarded the message in question to an aid- who actually is cleared for this! As the CIA is saying.
Note that there were no rules against having a private e-mail server at the time of either of them. That is not what the problem was. Also Hillary's server was not as unsecure- Petraeus was using a free unencrypted webmail account (and I don't know if even that bit was illegal, just noting).
If Petraeus had sent the same information he did to a major under his command, and not a civilian he was having an affair with, and did so from the same e-mail, then he would not have gotten into nearly as much trouble, probably just a major talking to about web security. From a private server, even less so. I doubt we'd even hear about it.
To put it another way, it's similar save for only one having a part which is illegal.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
They won't admit she did the same thing. So to them it's "different, thus innocent."
I'll toss that back at you- An official giving information to an aide with clearance over a private server is not the same as an official giving information to a civilian with no clearance over a few web e-mail account.
You won't admit it's different, you just want to pretend it's the same because you don't like Hillary.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I love the defense. You should be a lawyer.
I dunno, most cases aren't so easy. It turns out that "not doing the bit which is actually against the law," is a pretty easy defensive position even for a non-lawyer. I'm pretty sure you could too, given the slightest inkling. It's akin to, "Someone snuck up my driveway, went up to my car, checked to see if anyone was around, and then didn't steal it."
Sending classified information to non cleared people is a big deal. Sending information to cleared people is not so much.
The CIA went, "Shrug, not illegal, none of our people were threatened by it (and note it is the investigation that's releasing things here to begin with, not Hillary), we don't care."
It is impressive you can maintain your conviction of guilt in absence of a crime, but it remains unconvincing to others.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I love the defense. You should be a lawyer.
But after reading everything that was said..do you still think the situation is like Petrais?
Originally posted by Q99
Ok, here's a thing: It was a failure. Benghazi was a failure of foresight on the part of her and others. A completely normal, mundane, failure.It's just not an illegal failure.
Okay so then what type of consequences should she face?
