WWHD

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Not sure where you are getting your info. The US Justice Department signed off on the use of waterboarding. That necessarily means it's not a crime. They said it was within the law, and they are the authority on that. When the lawyers for the Justice Dept tell you that something is legal, that means it's legal.

Hilary is being investigated for possibly breaking the law.

Apples and oranges.

People are free to decide whether or not to hold Trump or Hilary accountable for his support of waterboarding, or her belief that the rules don't apply to her.

Jim you just said what spence has been saying about the email thing ( if at the time it wasn't illegal how can it be Illegal now ) that seem to be your stance on the topic ... but currently it is not legal for the CIA or the Military .. to waterboard


Executive Order 13491, issued by Barack Obama on January 22, 2009 (two days after Obama's inauguration) revoked Executive Order 13440 of July 20, 2007. It restricted the CIA and other Executive Agencies to proceed with interrogations "strictly in accord with the principles, processes, conditions, and limitations [Army Field Manual 2 22.3] prescribes".[9] Persons associated with the U.S. government were advised that they could rely on the manual, but could not rely upon "any interpretation of the law governing interrogation -- including interpretations of Federal criminal laws, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3,


you mean this guy

http://lawnewz.com/video/bush-doj-la...s-federal-law/

Waterboarding is illegal, says US justice department official

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Jim you just said what spence has been saying about the email thing ( if at the time it wasn't illegal how can it be Illegal now ) that seem to be your stance on the topic ... but currently it is not legal for the CIA or the Military .. to waterboard


Executive Order 13491, issued by Barack Obama on January 22, 2009 (two days after Obama's inauguration) revoked Executive Order 13440 of July 20, 2007. It restricted the CIA and other Executive Agencies to proceed with interrogations "strictly in accord with the principles, processes, conditions, and limitations [Army Field Manual 2 22.3] prescribes".[9] Persons associated with the U.S. government were advised that they could rely on the manual, but could not rely upon "any interpretation of the law governing interrogation -- including interpretations of Federal criminal laws, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3,


you mean this guy

http://lawnewz.com/video/bush-doj-la...s-federal-law/

Waterboarding is illegal, says US justice department official

The U.S. justice dept signed off on what bush did. Trump hasn't done anything yet. Hilary has. If it was as simple as saying that what she did was legal at the time, why is obamas justice dept investigating?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The U.S. justice dept signed off on what bush did. Trump hasn't done anything yet. Hilary has. If it was as simple as saying that what she did was legal at the time, why is obamas justice dept investigating?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump hasn't done anything yet. Hilary has.

So much for innocent until proven guilty .. and thats the issue your all ready convinced like Benghazi reguardless of the evidence presented

but you'll trust the DOJ with Waterboardering approval but anything less than hang her from the DOJ ion email and its Fixed

the new defense of the 21 or so Benghazi hearing and investigations is

Well we found out about the email server ..

thats like investigating someone for for murder and not getting a conviction but finding out they are stealing cable and hold that up as a success spending millions of dollars for a cable crime that may or may not be a punishable under the law

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

thats like investigating someone for for murder and not getting a conviction but finding out they are stealing cable and hold that up as a success spending millions of dollars for a cable crime that may or may not be a punishable under the law

No, it is not like stealing cable. The email issue and the security implications are actually worse than what may or may not have happened at Benghazi

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

No, it is not like stealing cable. The email issue and the security implications are actually worse than what may or may not have happened at Benghazi

there are no security implications the deed and any damage is already done and the policy has been changed and we know what did happen in Benghazi and what didn't happen .. or do we need another investigation

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

I will wait for the outcome of the investigation on the emails and accept the findings
will others ?

we'll have to wait and see .. but if past history is any indicator I dont hold out much hope

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

there are no security implications the deed and any damage is already done and the policy has been changed and we know what did happen in Benghazi and what didn't happen .. or do we need another investigation

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

I will wait for the outcome of the investigation on the emails and accept the findings
will others ?

we'll have to wait and see .. but if past history is any indicator I dont hold out much hope

On the emails, we need to see if she broke the law. Spence would be completely satisfied with her saying that she didn't do anything wrong, but there was enough evidence there for the FBI (who works for a Democrat) to launch an investigation. Is no laws were broken, let's say that and move on.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

there are no security implications the deed and any damage is already done and the policy has been changed and we know what did happen in Benghazi and what didn't happen .. or do we need another investigation

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

I will wait for the outcome of the investigation on the emails and accept the findings
will others ?

we'll have to wait and see .. but if past history is any indicator I dont hold out much hope

I love how all the Hillary fans hang their hats on it not being illegal (yet)..

Was it careless - yes
Was it irresponsible -yes
Was it self serving - yes
Was it illegal - TBD

Just the qualities I want in the next president.....a self-serving, careless, irresponsible person who likes to work the loopholes.....

What she did was wrong.....period. She bypassed safeguards for her own convenience.Doesn't matter what the FBI finds.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I love how all the Hillary fans hang their hats on it not being illegal (yet)..

Well, to be fair to Hillary I haven't seen any evidence of illegal behavior on her part.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I love how all the Hillary fans hang their hats on it not being illegal (yet)..

Was it careless - yes
Was it irresponsible -yes
Was it self serving - yes
Was it illegal - TBD

Just the qualities I want in the next president.....a self-serving, careless, irresponsible person who likes to work the loopholes.....

What she did was wrong.....period. She bypassed safeguards for her own convenience.Doesn't matter what the FBI finds.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, it's amazing how not doing something "illegal" qualifies Hillary for President even though what she did was "wrong." Of course, when other past Presidents who were not of Hillary's political persuasions did wrong but not illegal stuff, that was sufficient to make them incompetent, unqualified, stupid, bad, and not worthy of the office.

But, we have to understand Progressive's use of Orwellian Newspeak. When applied to a Progressive, doing wrong is not wrong doing.