- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
- Messages
- 15,635
- Reaction score
- 16,565
- Location
- Pacific NW
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
The (c) confidential markings (not properly marked) were found to be in error.
For the record.
That is called deflection.
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?
It is called Desperation, they know Trump will lose the election unless they can somehow get Hillary out of the race, pathetic.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.
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 (c) confidential markings (not properly marked) were found to be in error.
For the record.
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.
prediction: this inquiry will be as successful for the initiating republicans as was benghazi
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.
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.
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?
Good God! Are the Republicans REALLY so desperate that they are going on another blowjob hunt. Seriously....these fools never stop.
Μολὼν λαβέ;1066075163 said:Did Hillary lie under oath?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?