BBC: After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll

[MDM4AU 337]

"However you read the motives, the state department and apparently the White House did get the CIA to change its story..."

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22483768

[cptau 169]

Oops.... Their coverup story got them through the election, but their story is falling apart.

Clinton took that State Dept job to stay in the government but not in the Senate where she would have to act like she supported Obama's domestic policies. Ironically Obama's foreign policy has caused her major problems.

The Secretary of State job is not what it use to be and I think Clinton took the job mostly for show anyway. The Sec of State however is responsible for security of US embassies in foreign counties, she's stuck.

Obama will also have to eventually explain where he was and what he did the night of the attack. I still look for Leon Panetta to be blamed by those still in office.

[Weegle777 78]

Time to impeach.

[AUGradinTX 0]

Is anyone surprised by this? It was obvious the White House was lying to the American people about what really happened. It amazes me that so many people defended the Larry, Curly, and Moe show that took place after the attack.

'We the people' no longer matter.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

They stepped in it with this one. This is something they should've taken on the chin, but didn't for the election. It could blow up on them worse this way. But hey, they won the election right...

[cptau 169]

I was and still am disgusted with this show that was put on in front of the 4 flag draped coffins.

http://uneditedpolitics.com/president-obama-speech-at-ceremony-for-benghazi-victims-91412/

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Can we impeach and imprison those guilty?

[AURaptor 1,137]

Can we impeach and imprison those guilty?

In a world which made sense, we would. But not this world. Elijah Cummings showed that, no matter what, Obama is blameless, for anything he does. It was among the most pathetic and gutless shows of partisanship I'd ever seen, not worthy of any free nation. If anything, he should be removed from office for showing a complete inability to perform basic duties of his office.

[japantiger 4,077]

Is anyone surprised by this? It was obvious the White House was lying to the American people about what really happened. It amazes me that so many people defended the Larry, Curly, and Moe show that took place after the attack.

'We the people' no longer matter.

The only people surprised now are Jay Carney, Hillary, the Prez and the rest of this cast of clowns that have, even, the liberal press asking tough questions now. What is shocking is that it took this long. And I still cannot believe that Hillary didn't get "pilloried" when she threw up her hands and asked "what difference does it make". If she doesn't understand the foreign policy or national security implications coming out of thse two very different proposed "causes" of the deaths in Benghazi, then she lacks the intellectual horsepower to do the job. This was such a softball for the panel that was questioning her, I can't believe they let that go. She should have been embarrassed and run out of office at that point for making that type of statement. Just shows she was being questioned by clowns as well. This Prez and his whole administration do not respect the people. They think they can say or do anything and we will believe it. They believe their own BS. Of course, that is true of their mindless constituency who just want the $$ to keep flowing to them...but not to any thinking person. And as for this new IRS revelation, someone must go to jail for this. Targeting political enemies is what you do in Russia, Venezuela, etc., not the US.

[AUIH1 1,515]

Time to impeach.

This will never happen. Obama could have publix sex with a live goat and dead human, use food stamps to pay for the sex at the same time giving all our nuclear codes to the Chinese, Middle Eastern terrorists and there would be no way he would be impeached. The dumasses/lazy/freeloaders in the country re-elected him and we will have to live with such stupidity.

wde

[TexasTiger 13,556]

Just curious-- Will all those that think this is an impeachable offense please concisely and dispassionately state the high crime and/or misdemeanor that you believe warrants impeachment?

[ToomersRevenge 284]

The closest thing I can think of would be lying to congress, which I'd assume falls under perjury. I don't know if that falls under the category.

[autigeremt 6,970]

dereliction of duty

1. Willful neglect, as of duty or principle.

2.

a. The act of abandoning; abandonment.

b. A state of abandonment or neglect.

I'm sure the Commander in Chief is exempt, but this is what he and others did.

[DKW 86 7,726]

Just curious-- Will all those that think this is an impeachable offense please concisely and dispassionately state the high crime and/or misdemeanor that you believe warrants impeachment?

Ask Richard Milhouse Nixon...

[TexasTiger 13,556]

Just curious-- Will all those that think this is an impeachable offense please concisely and dispassionately state the high crime and/or misdemeanor that you believe warrants impeachment?

Ask Richard Milhouse Nixon...

So you don't know.

[bigbird 60,701]

Actus reus, by definition, means that there must be an action or physical movement. However, an act doesn't necessarily have to be a physical action, but can also be an omission or the act of possessing something. An omission, or failure to act, may constitute a criminal act if there is a duty to act.

Our consulates are sovereign US soil, just as if they were in your own backyard. If Americans are being attacked, it is his duty to act!

That said, to be found guilty of a crime, both mens rea(intent) and actus rea(action) are normally required. In this case, I believe you can prove actus rea, but not mens rea.

[WarEagle10 77]

Actus reus, by definition, means that there must be an action or physical movement. However, an act doesn't necessarily have to be a physical action, but can also be an omission or the act of possessing something. An omission, or failure to act, may constitute a criminal act if there is a duty to act.

Our consulates are sovereign US soil, just as if they were in your own backyard. If Americans are being attacked, it is his duty to act!

That said, to be found guilty of a crime, both mens rea(intent) and actus rea(action) are normally required. In this case, I believe you can prove actus rea, but not mens rea.

Who are you? More importantly, what have you done to/with Bird?

[bigbird 60,701]

I'm not just a pretty face. Just ask Golf.

[WarEagle10 77]

Obviously. Connecting the dots, I have discovered you either work in law.....or have spent a lot of time needing a lawyer.

You know the law. You know the x's and o's of D. You know who Golf is. You have lived a charmed life good sir.

[bigbird 60,701]

let's just say, I'm an outstanding American

[WarEagle10 77]

[augolf1716 21,646]

oh my God bird, WE10 and a4e has posted in PT today for the first time. The end is near especially with WE10 and a4e posting for the first time.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

Actus reus, by definition, means that there must be an action or physical movement. However, an act doesn't necessarily have to be a physical action, but can also be an omission or the act of possessing something. An omission, or failure to act, may constitute a criminal act if there is a duty to act.

Our consulates are sovereign US soil, just as if they were in your own backyard. If Americans are being attacked, it is his duty to act!

Can you cite the legal duty you're asserting was violated?

That said, to be found guilty of a crime, both mens rea(intent) and actus rea(action) are normally required. In this case, I believe you can prove actus rea, but not mens rea.

[cptau 169]

Just curious-- Will all those that think this is an impeachable offense please concisely and dispassionately state the high crime and/or misdemeanor that you believe warrants impeachment?

An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the US House of Representatives considers it to be. In the case of Benghazi they could go as broad as failure to protect and defend against foreign enemies. The most discussed one for the last 4 years is failure to enforce federal immigration laws. The next is appointment of federal officials to postions without the advice and consent of the US Senate. Submitting a budget to Congress by a specific date is another. There are many others they could use even including littering or spitting on the public street, if that happened. The only constitutional control on impeachment is what the majority of US House members present for the vote want to do.

Getting the conviction of an impeached president by the US Senate is the hard part. A super majority vote in the Senate is needed for a conviction removing the President from office.

Two Presidents have been impeached. One for failure to uphold a law passed by Congress and the other for perjury. Neither were convicted.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Just curious-- Will all those that think this is an impeachable offense please concisely and dispassionately state the high crime and/or misdemeanor that you believe warrants impeachment?

An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the US House of Representatives considers it to be. In the case of Benghazi they could go as broad as failure to protect and defend against foreign enemies. The most discussed one for the last 4 years is failure to enforce federal immigration laws. The next is appointment of federal officials to postions without the advice and consent of the US Senate. Submitting a budget to Congress by a specific date is another. There are many others they could use even including littering or spitting on the public street, if that happened. The only constitutional control on impeachment is what the majority of US House members present for the vote want to do.

Getting the conviction of an impeached president by the US Senate is the hard part. A super majority vote in the Senate is needed for a conviction removing the President from office.

Two Presidents have been impeached. One for failure to uphold a law passed by Congress and the other for perjury. Neither were convicted.

And both deserved impeachment. The current president deserves it too, but it's not going to happen. They will protect the man and the party at all costs.