COL Ted Mc - No Sir not at all, my contention is that she is either dishonest in that she knew that attack was NOT based upon the video, per the intel that she had received OR that she is an idiot to think that a video was responsible and she ignored the intel that she as Sec of State had.

SSG Roger Ayscue - Staff; To a great extent I agree with you.

On the other hand, since "the best intelligence available" indicated that there was NOT going to be an attack on the Consulate, AND that the State Department people on the ground DECLINED an offer of increased security personnel, AND that all the evidence to date indicates that Ms. Clinton took the appropriate steps for a Secretary of States to take (and took them in a timely manner), it's pretty hard to extend "blamed the wrong thing for the attack" to "knew all about the attack, did nothing to warn the State Department staff on the ground, failed to provide any additional security, and did nothing whatsoever about the attack once it happened" the way many people would like to.

COL Ted Mc - What I object to is the perpetration of the lie.

SSG Roger Ayscue - Staff; I can go along with that.

Now what I want to see is the evidence that proves that Ms. Clinton willingly and knowingly spoke words that she was confident were false.

If there had been any evidence to support that contention than at least ONE of the four investigations would have found it.

Speaking words that you believe to be (at least) "factually correct", at the time you speak them IS called "being wrong" or "being misleading" BUT IT IS NOT called "lying".

I suppose, so long as everyone has that feel good sensation!

LTC David Brown - Colonel; Are you saying that you are IN FAVOR of having the "Rules of Evidence" apply to trials, or that you ARE NOT IN FAVOR of having the "Rules of Evidence" apply to trials, or that you are sort of ambivalent about it but don't really think that the "Rules of Evidence" should be applied to the trials of people who aren't Americans when the crimes that they are alleged to have committed had Americans as victims but should always apply to the trials of people who ARE Americans ESPECIALLY when the so-called "victims" of those so-called "crimes" are not Americans?

I think military tribunals for terrorists as was originally planed is the way to go. I would imagine it would be difficulty to maintain a chain of custody for documents. If we nab a terrorist at a terrorist command facility over seas intelligence will want to lot at documents, home land security, and prosecutors. Then probable cause. You get some Intel from a covert source and raid the place Will a judge understand the unique circumstances or rule lack of probable cause? Then you have maranda rights. Some guy is babes in the middle of a fire fight does he have a confession ruled inadmissible because some grunt was to busy staying alive and completing a mission to say " You have the right...." Oh, I bet getting a lawyer would be snap simple. The case above that I posted. Over 600 people were killed in those bombings yet the best we could get was a conspiracy charge?