According to Webster: “con·se·quence,” (context) Something that logically or naturally follows from an action.
In an interview with ABC New’s is Diane Sawyer Monday night, Hillary had the audacity to articulate that Benghazi was (the very reason) that she should run in 2016.
As a voting age citizen and a Vietnam veteran, I wholeheartedly disagree. (In my considered opinion), Hillary should start running today, any direction will do, north, east, south or west, “it doesn’t matter” as long as she keeps going until she crosses one of our borders or finds herself beyond the three-mile limit in the Atlantic or the Pacific.
Granted, Americans are murdered every day, some in the commission of a criminal act and others by a loved one or a drunk behind the wheel of an automobile. Hillary was indeed correct when she expounded that dead is dead, albeit wrong when she followed with; “what does it matter?”
One would think that an individual who had completed law school and pass the bar would have a better understanding of the law?
In America, (at least the way it’s supposed to be), there are “consequences” for (murder), we seek out those responsible and prosecute them.
Question: Has anyone in America ever been prosecuted and convicted of “murder” when they didn’t actually kill anyone?
On January 25, 1971, Charles Milles Manson was convicted of conspiracy to murder and sentenced to death, which was later reduced to life in prison.
In 1971, Vincent T. Bugliosi Junior convinced a jury that an individual could be held responsible for the act of murder, if that individual held the power to make others do his bidding.
On September 11, 2012, Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State for the United States of America in the Barack Obama administration and did indeed hold the (authority and power) of “life and death” over the four Americans who were brutally slain at the hands of Islamic terrorists in Libya.
Charlie Manson never pulled a trigger in the execution of a human being, and neither did Hillary Clinton…
Why was Charlie held responsible, ..and Hillary isn’t?
According to Webster: “re·spon·si·bil·i·ty,” n. Something for which one is responsible; a duty, an obligation, or a burden.
Do “Liberals” champion equality or not?
Alluding again to my God-given “common sense,” I suppose it would depend on whether you’re a convict or a candidate?
Truth leads to understanding, I’ll be back…