‘Hillary killed my son’ (Sean Smith's Mother Responds to NYT Article on Benghazi)

Yo say it’s not murder, it might be treason, and it is indefensible - an amazing combination that is utterly dependent upon a presumption of absolute indemnification under any cirumstances by the sole criteria of government employment. You deny the combat scenario yet invoke combat justification. You admit a deliberately homicidal decision, yet deny murder. You misrepresent civil government indemnification as absolute, and then misapply it to a federal executive refusing massive support to save endangered lives of her own staff, for which she has personal responsibility, and towards which she repeatedly denied preliminary protections. And then you cite your “experience” as a paralegal to disdain any liabilities towards criminal activities merely because they are invoked passively, while blithely dismissing thresholds of aggravated non-action and clear evidence of knowing effect from non-action.

Your position is a mockery of law and justice, and it denies real-world, real courtroom, real caselaw denials of government claims of absolute indemnification. You also mock combat responsibilities and liabilities for acts and results of acts, as if none exist. And you especially deny, and even reverse, the extended responsibilites of a cabinet official who acts with knowing disregard and homicidal intent aginst the clear interests of the United States, and against the personal representative of the country, under desperate emergency conditions.

You also deny the uniform applicability and construction of corporate law, while claiming expertise in jurisdictional matters that clearly apply across interrelated codes, yet blather on about physical irrelevencies such as seagoing vessels.

Other than caustic sniping and word games, your position in this matter is anethema to justice and indefensible. You dance around the difference between homicide and murder without even bothering to claim justification for the killing, delighting in you legal parsing of the difference between actually being able to bring Hillary before a court, and simply knowing she carried out deliberate, unjustified, indefensible homicide.

Well enjoy your word games. The rest of humanity sees this as the atrocity it really is. Hitler murdered millions without violating the German laws of the time - to you, that means none of those killings were murder, either. They were just deliberate, knowing, indefensible homicides - but not murder. After all, murder is breaking the law, and the Nazis broke no law. So according to you, unless someone can drag Hillary before a court, the same thing applies to her.

Go away. You revolt me.

“You also deny the uniform applicability and construction of corporate law, while claiming expertise in jurisdictional matters that clearly apply across interrelated codes, yet blather on about physical irrelevencies such as seagoing vessels.”

If corporate law is somehow applicable to Benghazi, please explain how or shut up. Cite me chapter and verse of the law to which you refer, and tie it in. As far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t. No corporations involved.

“Other than caustic sniping and word games,”

You are caustic. At word games, you are remarkably inept.

” your position in this matter is anethema to justice and indefensible. You dance around the difference between homicide and murder without even bothering to claim justification for the killing, delighting in you legal parsing of the difference between actually being able to bring Hillary before a court, and simply knowing she carried out deliberate, unjustified, indefensible homicide.”

OK. You simply know that she did it. I simply know that saying stuff like that when she can’t be brought to court is a form of jerking off. It’s not pretty to watch, either.

“Well enjoy your word games. The rest of humanity sees this as the atrocity it really is. Hitler murdered millions without violating the German laws of the time - to you, that means none of those killings were murder, either.”

OK. Here’s a word game. Name that source. “’tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.” Who said it?

” They were just deliberate, knowing, indefensible homicides - but not murder. After all, murder is breaking the law, and the Nazis broke no law.”

Actually, they did. There was a German judge in the final days of the Reich who was actively working to shut the final solution down. They kept it secret for a reason, because it did violate German law. Also, there was international law, especially the Geneva Convention, which absolutely forbid the mass murder of civilians. Also, there’s the fact that most of the attrocities committed did not occur on German soil, but in occupied Poland, Czechoslovakia, Russia... where it was against the law. Finally, you have just done what the Left does all the time, bring the Holocaust into an unrelated subject for rhetorical overkill.

” So according to you, unless someone can drag Hillary before a court, the same thing applies to her.”

The Germans were dragged before a court. Quite a few of the big boys were hanged.

“Go away. You revolt me.”

Sorry. You just convinced me to keep this conversation going. I may revolt you, but you amuse me. Want me to go away? Just stop removing all doubt that you are a fool. Anything you can say I can rebut, just for fun. Read tales of Brer Rabbit, specifically Tar Baby.

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.