Espionage Or Treason? You Decide.

[Flanders]

Everybody in the world who has been following the attack in Benghazi know about the coverup, they know every lie, they know why the lies were told and who told them. A great time line by Deroy Murdock begins with this:

People died. Hillary lied.

Obama lied, too.

They lied early.

They lied often.

They lied deliberately.

They lied about the slaughter of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, at the hands of al-Qaeda-tied terrorists.

They lied, but not to protect vital national secrets or flummox America’s enemies.

They lied to get reelected.

And they lied directly, knowingly, and repeatedly to the American people.

Hillary Clinton and Obama’s Lies on Benghazi — Too Many to Count, but Let’s Try
by Deroy Murdock

October 29, 2015 2:00 PM

Hillary Clinton & Obama -- Benghazi Lies Pile Up | National Review Online​

I’ve read and heard talking heads say that criminal charges resulting from Clinton’s e-mail espionage (I prefer treason) hinges on three things:

1. The FBI’s investigation.

2. AG Loretta Lynch will only proceed to trial if the FBI’s evidence is enough to GUARANTEE A CONVICTION.

3. The president.

I cannot see Clinton walking away clean no matter how it plays out.

1. She loses if she is charged and tried whether or not she is convicted.

2. She loses if she is not charged and tried because a vast majority of American voters will believe the fix was in. In Short: Another big shot skating will destroy Clinton as much as a trial.

Clinton loses a third way if Trey Gowdy’s Select Committee identifies who gave the stand down order. Whether or not she gave the order —— she knows who did. As secretary of state she was responsible for the deaths of Americans who were abandoned while there was still time to save their lives. She had a chance to say she insisted on sending help. She did not say that. Instead, she evaded the issue when she finally testified. Even if she now claims she tried to send help but was overruled by the commander in chief she is complicit in the murders after the fact.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sigh.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

No small matter the history of people lying to Congress and Congress itself being allowed to as per Article 1 section 6 think it is (made a thread about it a few months ago.)

Bottom line is nothing ever happens because someone lied. We don't take perjury seriously anymore.

 

[Flanders]

We don't take perjury seriously anymore.

To Delta4Embassey: I agree when it is a big shot who does it. It should be a serious crime in every instance when fools fail to exercise their Fifth Amendment Right. I am pretty sure Clinton’s lawyers will not let her testify at a possible trial so she will not get caught in yet another lie.

Incidentally, what will the FBI do with this:

A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure” of classified information.

XXXXX​

“I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation,” the agreement states.

Clinton received at least two emails while secretary of state on her personal email server since marked “TS/SCI”—top secret/sensitive compartmented information—according to the U.S. intelligence community’s inspector general.

Clinton Signed NDA Laying Out Criminal Penalties for Mishandling of Classified Info
Dem presidential candidate and top aides signed NDAs warning against ‘negligent handling’ of classified information

Clinton Signed NDA Laying Out Criminal Penalties for Mishandling of Classified Info - Washington Free Beacon​

Should the Select Committee call her back to explain e-mails related to the now-known SCI you can bet that she will cop to the Fifth if she shows up at all.

Parenthetically, it was shame on Congress when Lois Lerner was allowed to plead the Fifth AFTER SHE MADE AN OPENING STATEMENT. Let’s hope Hillary Clinton and her lawyers are warned not to try and pull that one.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

We don't take perjury seriously anymore.

To Delta4Embassey: I agree when it is a big shot who does it. It should be a serious crime in every instance when fools fail to exercise their Fifth Amendment Right. I am pretty sure Clinton’s lawyers will not let her testify at a possible trial so she will not get caught in yet another lie.

Incidentally, what will the FBI do with this:

A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure” of classified information.

XXXXX​

“I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation,” the agreement states.

Clinton received at least two emails while secretary of state on her personal email server since marked “TS/SCI”—top secret/sensitive compartmented information—according to the U.S. intelligence community’s inspector general.

Clinton Signed NDA Laying Out Criminal Penalties for Mishandling of Classified Info
Dem presidential candidate and top aides signed NDAs warning against ‘negligent handling’ of classified information

Clinton Signed NDA Laying Out Criminal Penalties for Mishandling of Classified Info - Washington Free Beacon​

Should the Select Committee call her back to explain e-mails related to the now-known SCI you can bet that she will cop to the Fifth if she shows up at all.

Parenthetically, it was shame on Congress when Lois Lerner was allowed to plead the Fifth AFTER SHE MADE AN OPENING STATEMENT. Let’s hope Hillary Clinton and her lawyers are warned not to try and pull that one.

Think Clinton's kicking any legal accountability down the road. Gonna have to handle that eventually, but if she becomes President not for 4 or 8 years.

I imagine a kind of insider's club in politics where no matter how much opposition hates people they wont sabotage a candidacy run for President due to some mutual agreement no to since it could be done to them with their people.

They'll bitch about moan about it, but not push in any real way for criminal investigation. Mutual admiration society sorta thing.

 

[Flanders]

Think Clinton's kicking any legal accountability down the road. Gonna have to handle that eventually,

To Delta4Embassey: Avoiding accountability is no longer in her hands.

but if she becomes President not for 4 or 8 years.

To Delta4Embassey: Her bid in 2008 was the only time she faced serious competition and she lost to a nobody. All of her legal problems, the lies, the gargantuan distrust a majority feel for her, combined with a Republican opponent who will challenge her on everything she stands for indicates she is going to lose. Can you honestly see anybody other than hardcore liberals voting for her?

Frankly, Democrats would be crazy to nominate her even though I always hoped she would get the nomination.

 

[Flanders]

​

If it weren't for the steep slant of the dominant media, the revelation of Clinton's nondisclosure agreement would signal a perfect storm forming to doom her presidential candidacy.

Hillary Clinton's Secrets Contract Should Damn Her Candidacy
11/06/2015 06:43 PM ET

Hillary Clinton's Secrets Contract Should Damn Her Candidacy​

Hillary Clinton is the most unlikable wannabe in the history of presidential candidates, yet she is brushing away her crimes and corruption as though voters across the board simply adore her. She has no choice but to give her surrogate something to work with. Lovable will not sell, but she might pull-off likable with a lot of help from the media:

Hillary Clinton is not a great debater by any stretch of the imagination. She is a born actress, and that is how she should be judged. Put her in perspective this way:

A few Hollywood stars can be the most degenerate, vicious, meanspirited human beings on the planet, but the public only sees them as the characters they play. Even those actors who play villains are admired because everybody knows they are really nice people playing reprehensible characters. They are never seen off-camera.

The Media Tabernacle Choir | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum​

 

[Flanders]

1. She loses if she is charged and tried whether or not she is convicted.

2. She loses if she is not charged and tried because a vast majority of American voters will believe the fix was in. In Short: Another big shot skating will destroy Clinton as much as a trial.

Clinton loses a third way if Trey Gowdy’s Select Committee identifies who gave the stand down order.

Clinton loses a fourth way:

http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/hillary-nad-huma-e1375139427642.jpg

The Daily Caller has exclusively confirmed that a top aide to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed — but failed to honor — an official “separation agreement,” which required her to surrender all work-related documents when she left office.

That aide, Huma Abedin, maintained control of emails she sent and received through a personal email account hosted on Clinton’s private email server for nearly two-and-a-half years after she left the agency in Feb. 2013.

In signing the form — called the OF-109 — but failing to turn over State Department records, Abedin may have opened herself up to criminal charges.

EXCLUSIVE: Top Hillary Aide Signed, Failed To Comply With State Dept ‘Separation Agreement’
Chuck Ross
1:55 PM 11/13/2015

EXCLUSIVE: Top Hillary Aide Signed, Failed To Comply With State Dept ‘Separation Agreement’​

 

[Spinster]

Rationalization isn't helpful in this instance. Won't matter one iota. You'll see, she'll skate. Hillary is invincible. She and her husband are pros at killing. Oh, and at lying, too.

 

[Flanders]

Rationalization isn't helpful in this instance. Won't matter one iota. You'll see, she'll skate. Hillary is invincible. She and her husband are pros at killing. Oh, and at lying, too.

To Spinster: You are on the right side of the issue; nevertheless, hope springs eternal.

Clinton does have one thing going for her that will be hard to beat —— even for the FBI. The entire rotten New World Order structure has a lot of time, money, and influence invested in the Clintons. This thread might interest you:

I have to admit that I never thought Taqiyya the Liar was in the running for the top UN job. I knew the Clintons had their eye on the Secretary General’s job for a long time. The Clinton dream has long been President Hillary Clinton and Secretary General Bill Clinton saving the world together. Barack Taqiyya and the Clintons after the same job triggers a monumental struggle in the dark corners of the New World Order; a struggle the public will never hear about until it is too late.

President Hillary Clinton’s Choice: Bill or Barack | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum​

 

[JakeStarkey]

 

[Flanders]

I have to admit that I never thought Taqiyya the Liar was in the running for the top UN job.

It’s worse than I thought:

Aside from imposing martial law and ‘postponing’ 2016 elections, there is no third term in the cards for the high-handed president, whose seven-year-long obsession is to fundamentally transform America. Thus, Obama covets, and even lusts for the job held by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, whose term expires in early 2017.

XXXXX​

Not so fast, National Post. Exactly WHO is going to prevent Obama from making the world more unstable than he’s already made it over at the world’s over-funded largest bureaucracy?

Obama’s own Congress hasn’t been able to prevent him from tanking the United States into 3rd World status; from providing endless verbal cover for the scourge of Islamic terrorism, or from handing nuclear power over to Iran.

How would Obama “be prevented from doing much further harm” when, like Obama, near 30 percent of the UN membership hold Islamist sympathies?

Nightmare scenario: Obama UN head, Clinton 45th president
By Judi McLeod
November 17, 2015

Nightmare scenario: Obama UN head, Clinton 45th president​

There is one hope. Any member on the five Permanent Security Council can veto a candidate nominated by the General Assembly. Will the next president do it? A Democrat won’t, but it is a good question to ask all of the Republican wannabes.

 

[shadow355]

How about people at your work site ........ Like mine , with covert cameras on the top of their hard hats, and maintainance outages scheduled with excessive amounts of overtime...... Just so I can be covertly video taped and audio recorded.

Covert video equipment on mobile equipment to record me - and how I do my job. Especially after I have been " drugged " and am a " Zombie " = I cannot think straight, poor muscle coordination , hindered memory, and I stutter or repeat when I talk.

+

I walk one way, or drive one way..... When I mean to go another direction. And me suffering frequently from short term memory loss.

Drug me, then video tape me covertly to discredit me - embarrass me - attack my credibility.

My microwave dinners I purchase for my lunch at work , and other foods....... " Drugged" .


Shadow 355

 

[Spinster]

Think Clinton's kicking any legal accountability down the road. Gonna have to handle that eventually,

To Delta4Embassey: Avoiding accountability is no longer in her hands.

but if she becomes President not for 4 or 8 years.

To Delta4Embassey: Her bid in 2008 was the only time she faced serious competition and she lost to a nobody. All of her legal problems, the lies, the gargantuan distrust a majority feel for her, combined with a Republican opponent who will challenge her on everything she stands for indicates she is going to lose. Can you honestly see anybody other than hardcore liberals voting for her.

Oh yes, the stupid ignorant idiots who show up at the polls. Unfortunately, this group has become the majority. They are ill informed, illiterate, have little interest in current events, and consist of a high percentage of immigrants. Considering the past two elections, we're doomed. How'd he manage to get elected at all, let alone twice.

 

[Flanders]

At long last: WHO GAVE THE ORDER TO STAND DOWN? is coming to the fore.

American military forces were available for a rescue operation not long after the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, came under attack by terrorists Sept. 11, 2012, according to an email to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s closest aides.
​

I’d sure like to know what was redacted:

“After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include a [REDACTED].

XXXXX​

The first assault on the U.S. facility’s main compound began at approximately 9:40 pm Libya time, which was 3:40 p.m. EDT in Washington, DC. The second attack on a related CIA annex 1.2 miles away began three hours later, at about 12 am local time the following morning or 6 p.m. EST.

XXXXX​

Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told the Senate Armed Forces Committee in 2013 that “time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.”

Judicial Watch points to congressional testimony by Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission for the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Libya, who says the four Americans might have been saved “if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.”

New Clinton Email Shows Pentagon Had Forces Ready To Respond To Benghazi Attack
Mark Tapscott
4:21 PM 12/08/2015

New Clinton Email Shows Pentagon Had Forces Ready To Respond To Benghazi Attack​

If Hillary Clinton is not circling the drain now, she soon will be.

Clinton loses a third way if Trey Gowdy’s Select Committee identifies who gave the stand down order. Whether or not she gave the order —— she knows who did. As secretary of state she was responsible for the deaths of Americans who were abandoned while there was still time to save their lives. She had a chance to say she insisted on sending help. She did not say that. Instead, she evaded the issue when she finally testified. Even if she now claims she tried to send help but was overruled by the commander in chief she is complicit in the murders after the fact.

 

[Flanders]

I’ve read and heard talking heads say that criminal charges resulting from Clinton’s e-mail espionage (I prefer treason) hinges on three things:

​

Espionage ain’t off the table yet:

The FBI probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email at the State Department has reportedly turned to possible violations of public corruption laws, with investigators specifically looking at the “possible intersection” of Clinton Foundation donations and State Department business.

Report: FBI Clinton Email Probe Focusing on Public Corruption Laws
BY: Morgan Chalfant
January 11, 2016 10:52 am

Report: FBI Clinton Email Probe Focusing on Public Corruption Laws​

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gut feelings convict nobody.

Let's see an indictment.

 

[Flanders]

Let's see an indictment.

To JakeStarkey: It is getting there:

This is why the intelligence source in the Fox News report said, "The bureau [FBI] does not waive its primacy in espionage cases."

The FBI appears to have moved from a criminal investigation into an espionage investigation.​

January 28, 2016
Hillary's email scandal now potentially a matter of high treason
By John Smith

Blog: Hillary's email scandal now potentially a matter of high treason​

 

[JakeStarkey]

Flanders, your comment is idiotic. You are more likely, I believe, to commit treason than HRC. She may be guilty of administrative incompetence and malfeasance, not treason, you boob.

 

[Flanders]

Flanders, your comment is idiotic. You are more likely, I believe, to commit treason than HRC.

To JakeStarkey: Even for a halfwit you are reaching on this one. You lacked the reading comprehension skill required to interpret four words based on a reputable American Thinker article.

She may be guilty of administrative incompetence and malfeasance, not treason, you boob.

To JakeStarkey: You have to be as dumb as dishwater to believe incompetence or malfeasance excuses her crimes. You are dumber than dishwater if she is only incompetent:

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/81_17463220160128044510.jpg