Congressmen ask U.S. Attorney’s Office to investigate Clinton for perjury

[jpn]

Two Republican congressmen on Monday formally requested that the U.S. Attorney for the District investigate whether Hillary Clinton committed perjury when she testified before a congressional committee about her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

The letter from U.S. Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) asserts that evidence collected by the FBI during its investigation involving Clinton’s email practices “appears to directly contradict several aspects of her sworn testimony” and asks federal authorities to “investigate and determine whether to prosecute Secretary Clinton for violating statutes that prohibit perjury and false statements to Congress, or any other relevant statutes.” It is addressed to U.S. Attorney Channing D. Phillips and copied to FBI Director James B. Comey and U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Of particular interest might be a statement Clinton made to the House Select Committee on Benghazi in October 2015 that “there was nothing marked classified on my emails, either sent or received.” Comey has said that investigators found three such emails with the notation “(C)” — meaning confidential — contained within the text.

But the FBI director has also said it was possible Clinton “didn’t understand what a ‘C’ meant when she saw it in the body of an email like that.” And a State Department spokesman has said two documents might have been incorrectly marked as classified — though it is not clear whether he and the FBI are referring to the same materials.

Here's what it boils down to:

Out of 30,000+ emails, the FBI found a grand total of three that were marked "Confidential."

That's it. That's all.

And then consider this:

Confidential is the lowest grade of classification. It's all but meaningless.
FBI Director James Comey testified that all three emails failed to include the normal headers for classified information. Any experienced person reading them would have noticed that and probably missed the fact that a single classification mark was embedded somewhere in the text.
The State Department says two of the three emails were wrongly marked anyway—which Hillary Clinton and her staff probably knew.

So it boils down to, at most, there is the possibility that out of four years worth of emails, Clinton might—maybe—have failed to notice a proper classification mark on one of them. On one of the emails that didn't include the proper header to warn readers that classified information was somewhere in the body of the email.

That's it. That's all.

So what's with the "perjury" nonsense? It's all part of the smear Hillary franchise that's been in full gear for 25 years.
Can't really touch her on substance? Then smear her name.
Can't honestly run on a vastly unpopular tax-cuts-for-the-rich and slash-benefits-for-the-middle-class platform? Then smear your opponent.

That's all it's about.

 

[clownboy]

Why does it matter to you? I'll leave it to others to show with proof how wrong you are and how little you understand of what we already know of Hillary's attempts to cover her ass. But really, you won't listen to any of it. This issue has been posted upon for months. All the data has been posted. You are so far in the bag for Hillary that you'll bend over backwards to excuse anything she did or does in the future.

Makes this thread an exercise in futility.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I don't think anything will come of the perjury charge. They would have to prove she knew about those three documents at the time she testified before Congress. No, if anything is going to come back to bite her it will be issues with the Clinton Foundation.

 

[Chillfolks]

If you don't want to get charged with perjury then you should not lie. If you would rather lie and then get caught don't gripe about perjury charges.

If the evidence shows that Clinton lied, then she should face the repercussions of those lies.

My personal opinion is that enough evidence can be produced to show that Clinton was willfully and intentionally misleading in her statements others may disagree.

 

[Sherman123]

If you don't want to get charged with perjury then you should not lie. If you would rather lie and then get caught don't gripe about perjury charges.

If the evidence shows that Clinton lied, then she should face the repercussions of those lies.

My personal opinion is that enough evidence can be produced to show that Clinton was willfully and intentionally misleading in her statements others may disagree.

Perjury charges are far more complex than that. Both statutorily and according to federal guidelines for prosecution. This probably wont be investigated considering the ground already covered and the minuscule nature of the assertion and she certainly wont be charged with anything. Opponents of Clinton lost their much hoped for 'FBI Primary' and they wont get a second bite at their fantasy.

 

[FieldTheorist]

I don't think anything will come of the perjury charge. They would have to prove she knew about those three documents at the time she testified before Congress. No, if anything is going to come back to bite her it will be issues with the Clinton Foundation.

Those aren't coming. If they existed --and I believe that it's likely that they did-- they were destroyed long ago.

 

[jpn]

I just wonder what Donald Trump is hiding with his refusal to produce his tax returns?

The fact that he paid no tax at all?
The fact that he gave nothing at all to charity, "baby Christian" that he is?

 

[jpn]

You are so far in the bag for Hillary that you'll bend over backwards to excuse anything she did or does in the future.

Love the name you chose. It fits so well.

Yes, I support Hillary.

I trust her to support a woman's right to choose. Unlike Republicans.
I trust her to support science. Unlike climate-change-denying Republicans.
I trust her to not explode the deficit by slashing taxes on the already rich, unlike Republicans.
I trust her to not slash middle-class benefits, unlike Republicans who want to raise the Social Security age and privatize Medicare. And Social Security.
I trust her not to undermine Obamacare, which has granted 20 million Americans live-giving health care. Unlike Republicans.
I trust her not to start a gratuitous trade war where everyone loses. Unlike Trump.
I trust her not to scapegoat immigrants, gays, other minorities, and women. Unlike Republicans.

Yeah. I support Hillary.
Who do you support?

Why?

 

[azgreg]

I just wonder what Donald Trump is hiding with his refusal to produce his tax returns?

The fact that he paid no tax at all?
The fact that he gave nothing at all to charity, "baby Christian" that he is?

Are you derailing your own thread?

 

[Blue_State]

I just wonder what Donald Trump is hiding with his refusal to produce his tax returns?

The fact that he paid no tax at all?
The fact that he gave nothing at all to charity, "baby Christian" that he is?

That is called deflection.

 

[Paperview]

The (c) confidential markings (not properly marked) were found to be in error.


For the record.

 

[Fenton]

The (c) confidential markings (not properly marked) were found to be in error.


For the record.

Lol.....Sure, Hillary knew at the time the marks would be retroactively determined as being made in error, so she ignored them and sent them on

 

[jpn]

That is called deflection.

Except there was nothing to deflect.

 

[clownboy]

I just wonder what Donald Trump is hiding with his refusal to produce his tax returns?

The fact that he paid no tax at all?
The fact that he gave nothing at all to charity, "baby Christian" that he is?

Ahh, and there it is. Your blind support of Clinton fails to move the crowd so you go on to attack her opponent. Transparent.

 

[Casper]

Here's what it boils down to:

Out of 30,000+ emails, the FBI found a grand total of three that were marked "Confidential."

That's it. That's all.

And then consider this:

Confidential is the lowest grade of classification. It's all but meaningless.
FBI Director James Comey testified that all three emails failed to include the normal headers for classified information. Any experienced person reading them would have noticed that and probably missed the fact that a single classification mark was embedded somewhere in the text.
The State Department says two of the three emails were wrongly marked anyway—which Hillary Clinton and her staff probably knew.

So it boils down to, at most, there is the possibility that out of four years worth of emails, Clinton might—maybe—have failed to notice a proper classification mark on one of them. On one of the emails that didn't include the proper header to warn readers that classified information was somewhere in the body of the email.

That's it. That's all.

So what's with the "perjury" nonsense? It's all part of the smear Hillary franchise that's been in full gear for 25 years.
Can't really touch her on substance? Then smear her name.
Can't honestly run on a vastly unpopular tax-cuts-for-the-rich and slash-benefits-for-the-middle-class platform? Then smear your opponent.

That's all it's about.

It is called Desperation, they know Trump will lose the election unless they can somehow get Hillary out of the race, pathetic.

 

[justabubba]

prediction: this inquiry will be as successful for the initiating republicans as was benghazi

 

[apdst]

Here's what it boils down to:

Out of 30,000+ emails, the FBI found a grand total of three that were marked "Confidential."

That's it. That's all.

And then consider this:

Confidential is the lowest grade of classification. It's all but meaningless.
FBI Director James Comey testified that all three emails failed to include the normal headers for classified information. Any experienced person reading them would have noticed that and probably missed the fact that a single classification mark was embedded somewhere in the text.
The State Department says two of the three emails were wrongly marked anyway—which Hillary Clinton and her staff probably knew.

So it boils down to, at most, there is the possibility that out of four years worth of emails, Clinton might—maybe—have failed to notice a proper classification mark on one of them. On one of the emails that didn't include the proper header to warn readers that classified information was somewhere in the body of the email.

That's it. That's all.

So what's with the "perjury" nonsense? It's all part of the smear Hillary franchise that's been in full gear for 25 years.
Can't really touch her on substance? Then smear her name.
Can't honestly run on a vastly unpopular tax-cuts-for-the-rich and slash-benefits-for-the-middle-class platform? Then smear your opponent.

That's all it's about.

The FBI discovered 110 classified emails on Clinton's server. Some were top secret. She lied, under oath, when she said there were no classified emails sent, or received in her illegal server.

 

[apdst]

The (c) confidential markings (not properly marked) were found to be in error.


For the record.

Link?

 

[disneydude]

Here's what it boils down to:

Out of 30,000+ emails, the FBI found a grand total of three that were marked "Confidential."

That's it. That's all.

And then consider this:

Confidential is the lowest grade of classification. It's all but meaningless.
FBI Director James Comey testified that all three emails failed to include the normal headers for classified information. Any experienced person reading them would have noticed that and probably missed the fact that a single classification mark was embedded somewhere in the text.
The State Department says two of the three emails were wrongly marked anyway—which Hillary Clinton and her staff probably knew.

So it boils down to, at most, there is the possibility that out of four years worth of emails, Clinton might—maybe—have failed to notice a proper classification mark on one of them. On one of the emails that didn't include the proper header to warn readers that classified information was somewhere in the body of the email.

That's it. That's all.

So what's with the "perjury" nonsense? It's all part of the smear Hillary franchise that's been in full gear for 25 years.
Can't really touch her on substance? Then smear her name.
Can't honestly run on a vastly unpopular tax-cuts-for-the-rich and slash-benefits-for-the-middle-class platform? Then smear your opponent.

That's all it's about.

Good God! Are the Republicans REALLY so desperate that they are going on another blowjob hunt. Seriously....these fools never stop.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

prediction: this inquiry will be as successful for the initiating republicans as was benghazi

Did Hillary lie under oath?

 

[Mason66]

Here's what it boils down to:

Out of 30,000+ emails, the FBI found a grand total of three that were marked "Confidential."

That's it. That's all.

And then consider this:

Confidential is the lowest grade of classification. It's all but meaningless.
FBI Director James Comey testified that all three emails failed to include the normal headers for classified information. Any experienced person reading them would have noticed that and probably missed the fact that a single classification mark was embedded somewhere in the text.
The State Department says two of the three emails were wrongly marked anyway—which Hillary Clinton and her staff probably knew.

So it boils down to, at most, there is the possibility that out of four years worth of emails, Clinton might—maybe—have failed to notice a proper classification mark on one of them. On one of the emails that didn't include the proper header to warn readers that classified information was somewhere in the body of the email.

That's it. That's all.

So what's with the "perjury" nonsense? It's all part of the smear Hillary franchise that's been in full gear for 25 years.
Can't really touch her on substance? Then smear her name.
Can't honestly run on a vastly unpopular tax-cuts-for-the-rich and slash-benefits-for-the-middle-class platform? Then smear your opponent.

That's all it's about.

Don't give her a pass on the fact that she is the one that should have marked the confidential or classified emails as such.

The marking doesn't make them classified or confidential, the content does.

 

[Mason66]

I don't think anything will come of the perjury charge. They would have to prove she knew about those three documents at the time she testified before Congress. No, if anything is going to come back to bite her it will be issues with the Clinton Foundation.

It is much more than 3 documents.

Go back and listen to Comey say how many emails contained classified or confidential information at the time she sent them.

 

[Mason66]

I just wonder what Donald Trump is hiding with his refusal to produce his tax returns?

The fact that he paid no tax at all?
The fact that he gave nothing at all to charity, "baby Christian" that he is?

When did he refuse to produce his tax returns?

 

[Mason66]

Good God! Are the Republicans REALLY so desperate that they are going on another blowjob hunt. Seriously....these fools never stop.

Comey testified under oath there were classified emails on her server, Hillary said there weren't.

Who are you going to believe? It can't be both.

 

[Mason66]

Did Hillary lie under oath?

Only in front of Congress. Does that count?