BREAKING! Congress requests investigation into Hillary for PERJURY!!

a reply to: Krakatoa

If her false public statements are investigated/weighed in the process, they could be used to prove intent to perjure and consciousness of guilt. I base that on Gowdy's and Comey's statements during the Oversight hearing, last week.

Her security advisers should surely see repercussions.

How the hell can this woman(?) and her corrupt team ever take office?! (Dont answer that!)

Honestly though, the is the news I was waiting for. Now, will justice prevail??

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: xuenchen

So, does the FBI investigate on behalf of the U.S. District Attorney's office?

Good question.

But the USDA might only need to look at and listen to the videos of all her hearings.

Those are things she can't just delete anymore.

a reply to: xuenchen

Last week FBI Director James Comey mentioned he was aware that Hillary made some testimonies that now conflict with the FBI investigation findings.

Why not.

After all Martha Stewart was convicted, when she lied to the FBI on inside trade information.

Why would Hillary be any different? She is not above the laws of our land as she would love to believe.

a reply to: xuenchen

Question: If she is found guilty and loses her power and position, will the engagements where she is paid six figure "speaking fees" dry up?

And if so, does that prove they really were just disguised bribes the whole time?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Krakatoa

If her false public statements are investigated/weighed in the process, they could be used to prove intent to perjure and consciousness of guilt. I base that on Gowdy's and Comey's statements during the Oversight hearing, last week.

I also watched those statements as well. Her claims of incompetence in the email server issue got her off scott-free, did it not? However, the only item I can see them grasping onto is the FACT that Hillary Clinton assigned lawyers WITHOUT CLEARANCE to search through her emails searching for SENSITIVE information. That act cannot be attributed to lack of knowledge of handling sensitive information. Ignorance of any contract you have SIGNED (as she did to have that clearance as part of her job as SoS) is no basis in a legal defense. There is also someone on her staff that marked one of those documents as confidential/sensitive and proceeded to forward it off via an unprotected system. That person, I expect to be charged, found guilty and either fined or jailed.

a reply to: BO XIAN


Ummm...

SSSSSSSSSaaaayyyyyyy...it isn't...SSSSSSSSSooooooooo...


YouSir

a reply to: xuenchen

And that's why she wasn't recorded during the last "investigation"

Dodging raindrops, and I'll bet my lunch she gets away with it, becomes president pantsuit, and marches us straight into war.
Probably civil war, if nothing else.

Isnt it better you grew up instead of trying to find someone who told a lie?

How do you think the rest of the world sees you, in the lands of dreams?
Just grow up.. Everyone lies...

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: xuenchen

Question: If she is found guilty and loses her power and position, will the engagements where she is paid six figure "speaking fees" dry up?

And if so, does that prove they really were just disguised bribes the whole time?

Disguised bribes absolutely.

Maybe she can get permission for live streamed "think and do" sessions from prison.

She could then become a commentator and contributor for CNN.

Always a first time for everything.

a reply to: tikbalang

So, according to you, lying UNDER OATH in court s OK, because a lot of people do it? What a defeatist and enabling statement.

Wow, just....no words.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I am speaking solely about proving intent to perjure -- NOT intent to illegally mishandle classified information.

Her numerous false public statements are evidence of intent to perjure and consciousness of guilt.

Gowdy called Comey out on proving intent to illegally mishandle classified information using her false public statements. I've taken that same legal concept and applied it to a possible perjury prosecution.

originally posted by: tikbalang
Isnt it better you grew up instead of trying to find someone who told a lie?

How do you think the rest of the world sees you, in the lands of dreams?
Just grow up.. Everyone lies...

Think twice before voting for Hillary if you support her.

Perjury runs in the Clinton family. Prediction, nothing will happen. The worst case scenario, she'll get a slap on the wrist.

originally posted by: tikbalang
Isnt it better you grew up instead of trying to find someone who told a lie?

How do you think the rest of the world sees you, in the lands of dreams?
Just grow up.. Everyone lies...

If Hillary lied to Congress under oath, then there is no way she can be trusted to abide by the Presidential Oath of Office. I feel that same way whether it is Bush & Co. lying to Congress or Bill Clinton lying to Congress...or anyone vying to be POTUS.

Where are all the usual "correct the record" suspects?

Really looking forward to how they explain this away.

a reply to: xuenchen

I can't hold my breath until November Zombie Day, but good
thread anyway. Dutifully bumped with the hope it gets more
traction in the media than a St. Louis suburb.

As a known career politician and habitual (minimally) liar I
believe she is overqualified to be the President. Even the
people who would, and will likely vote for her don't deserve her.
I'm saying that on behalf of the other half who are acquainted
with a closetful bigger thn Eva Peron's shoe collection.

originally posted by: abe froman
Where are all the usual "correct the record" suspects?

Really looking forward to how they explain this away.

They'll say that she will claim to have been mistaken and pretend like there is no evidence of guilt to support a convinction.

But there is evidence in her public false exculpatory statements -- and a lot of them, too.


ETA: Hillary would have to claim that she was mistaken about each and every false statement she made to the public. At some point, reasonable doubt flies out the window.

a reply to: xuenchen