BREAKING! Congress requests investigation into Hillary for PERJURY!!

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Indigo5
Just a note...not sure anybody on this thread understands the legal definition of perjury...

This article describes how President Bill Clinton was Impeached for PERJURY.
en.wikipedia.org...
Seems pretty straight-forward...No?

Please read history...President Bill Clinton bald-faced lied under oath.."I never had sex with that girl"...and STILL was NEVER convicted of perjury.

Sure...he was impeached...but anyone can impeach, it's a political move, not legal...it failed...he was never removed from office.

No ...I do not think you understand the definition of perjury.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Indigo5
Just a note...not sure anybody on this thread understands the legal definition of perjury...

This article describes how President Bill Clinton was Impeached for PERJURY.
en.wikipedia.org...
Seems pretty straight-forward...No?

Please read history...President Bill Clinton bald-faced lied under oath.."I never had sex with that girl"...and STILL was NEVER convicted of perjury.

Sure...he was impeached...but anyone can impeach, it's a political move, not legal...it failed...he was never removed from office.

No ...I do not think you understand the definition of perjury.

That was due to the redefinition of "sex" to not include a blowjob. Viola! He didn't lie.

a reply to: Indigo5
Except that we haven't seen the evidence. We only know that Congress alleges she intentionally misled Congress. Without that evidence, it's just speculation

originally posted by: reldra
What a shock. Really though, the obvious reason to do this is is political. They do not care about perjury. They all lie daily.

Correct. It is a calculated move, and an effort to remind voters Hillary is untrustworthy.

It's brilliant.

folks, this is all special effects to mask the last Clinton and lynch meeting.

this is all fluff to make whoever is gullible enough in the general public to think they are trying to actually looking to levy punishment on Clinton.

if something was to happen to Clinton, it would have long ago. not at this point. her ghouls and cronies and connections up top already gave her the clear.
this is just for show so she can come out looking triumphant in case Donald does get ostracized by his party even more and allow her to win.

This is more of an attempt to undermine the credibility of the FBI itself rather than any 'cover up' by, or for that matter attack on, the house of Clinton.

The ins and outs and the facts of the case are clear but I saw nothing but hostility and some of the most convaluted arguments I have ever seen when I watched Comey being questioned the other day.

Every time there was somebody being long winded, or using their hands all the time when they talk, or asking the same question someone else had already asked five different ways.. They always have an (R) somewhere in among their long winded title at the bottom of the screen.

Even the speaker of the house and moderator of the whole thing seemed to be joining in with this schoolyard mentality.

There was one who stuck in my mind. looked exactly like the monster from the original Star Trek tv series. The really scary faced one that I always hid my face from when it came on. In the end titles. Yes that one. He's real folks, and he's a (R) and he asked some of the most retarded questions.

I felt insane after watching this #.

At the bottom line is this. It's irrelevant if it's Clinton or Trump or Obama, NOBODY is above the FBI

They are one of the solid cornerstones of this country. One of the constants we can take comfort in. They operate as an a-political stand alone agency.

Now we have these (R) idiots questioning their every decision in one particular case. Over and over and #ing over again...

I struggle to think of a more infantile and contrived witch hunt in recent memory and what a waste of our tax money. Who gives these muppets licence to call these unprecedented asshole hearings where an endless parade of pricks get to mouth off at the head of one of the government agencies because they don't like one of their decisions??

I basically watched three hours of the director of the FBI being accused by Republicans of accepting bribes from Clinton. That's all it was. It was brutal, it was childish, it was repetitive.

Eye opener to see the kind of inbred half-wits that people have voted into positions of power in this country.

# me

a reply to: Indigo5

I'm not an ego-centered person. If you feel that I don't understand what Perjury is, that's fine. All I care about is that negative Hillary news continues to percolate and (hopefully) grow, as we near November. I'm counting on our GOP House and Donald Trump's investigators to come through for the American people, by derailing Hillary's campaign.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: Arizonaguy



Correct...in order for it to be "perjury" it must be proven "willfull" and "material"..


And the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

With "material" it means that a witness can lie about when they were born, or any number of things...if it is not relevant to the outcome of the investigation, it is not perjury.

As far as "willfull"...the prosecution must prove that the witness INTENTIONALLY lied in order to MATERIALLY mislead the outcome of an investigation.

Put another way...They must prove that Hillary Clinton had total, full and accurate recall of 3 classified emails from years ago at the time she answered the question. They must also prove that she understood the (c) denotation to mean classified..and Comey himself said it was not clear that any of the email correspondents recognized that denotation.

Think about that..proving she perfectly remembered 3 out of 30,000 plus emails...when she answered the question..proving it.

Honestly, I'd be shocked if Comey and the FBI even took up the investigation...can they tell Chaffetz to go eff off? Cuz if so I expect that to be the courteous response...and that has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the law.


"Perjury" convictions in Congressional hearings have an even higher standard of proof than regular court hearings and are exceedingly rare.

This is nonsense from a legal perspective.

This is about negative exposure to Hidlabeast. It's all part of the plan. The outcome doesn't matter.

originally posted by: angus1745
This is more of an attempt to undermine the credibility of the FBI itself rather than any 'cover up' by, or for that matter attack on, the house of Clinton.

The ins and outs and the facts of the case are clear but I saw nothing but hostility and some of the most convaluted arguments I have ever seen when I watched Comey being questioned the other day.

Every time there was somebody being long winded, or using their hands all the time when they talk, or asking the same question someone else had already asked five different ways.. They always have an (R) somewhere in among their long winded title at the bottom of the screen.

Even the speaker of the house and moderator of the whole thing seemed to be joining in with this schoolyard mentality.

There was one who stuck in my mind. looked exactly like the monster from the original Star Trek tv series. The really scary faced one that I always hid my face from when it came on. In the end titles. Yes that one. He's real folks, and he's a (R) and he asked some of the most retarded questions.

I felt insane after watching this #.

At the bottom line is this. It's irrelevant if it's Clinton or Trump or Obama, NOBODY is above the FBI

They are one of the solid cornerstones of this country. One of the constants we can take comfort in. They operate as an a-political stand alone agency.

Now we have these (R) idiots questioning their every decision in one particular case. Over and over and #ing over again...

I struggle to think of a more infantile and contrived witch hunt in recent memory and what a waste of our tax money. Who gives these muppets licence to call these unprecedented asshole hearings where an endless parade of pricks get to mouth off at the head of one of the government agencies because they don't like one of their decisions??

I basically watched three hours of the director of the FBI being accused by Republicans of accepting bribes from Clinton. That's all it was. It was brutal, it was childish, it was repetitive.

Eye opener to see the kind of inbred half-wits that people have voted into positions of power in this country.

# me

Personally, I think it's a little ignorant to call the FBI apolitical. I mean, they're appointed. Doesn't get much worse than that.

a reply to: reldra

Then maybe, just maybe, it's time something was done about that? Maybe?

a reply to: seagull
ooh ooh...I know the answer to this!!! We can replace them with people that don't lie! Let me know when you find one.

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: seagull
ooh ooh...I know the answer to this!!! We can replace them with people that don't lie! Let me know when you find one.

Under oath?

originally posted by: tikbalang
Just grow up.. Everyone lies...

No Sir. Everyone does not lie.

a reply to: xuenchen

Nice find! Pretty impressive journalism from a dude named "soopermexican." I thought that was funny.

Every time I see something like this I get all kinds of hope, and then I am let down in an overly dramatic fashion.

There will be a lot of dimwits still claiming she has done nothing wrong and this is just a Republican witch hunt.

a reply to: Arizonaguy

Despite your attempted sarcasm...

You've unwittingly stumbled upon the answer. Put 'em in office, they lie, or otherwise screw up, remove them, and replace them...eventually the smart ones will figure it out.

Now then, let the hunt begin, it is an election year afterall.

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: Indigo5
Except that we haven't seen the evidence. We only know that Congress alleges she intentionally misled Congress. Without that evidence, it's just speculation

Uhmmm the evidence is her testimony, under oath, to the Benghazi commission.

Lie #1 - I never sent nor received classified information.
Lie #2 - I turned over all work related emails.

While the video does not show the Benghazi clips, she is stating exactly what she said during that hearing while under oath.


Also Republicans have sent Comey a new letter wanting an explanation on several issues he raised during his appearance in front of congress. One of those questions is why a member of the military was charged under 793 F and was convicted by gross negligence. That prosecution occurred in the 1980's.

originally posted by: openyourmind1262
If they could find her guilty & introduce her to Martha Stewarts old cell mates........I'd be the happiest person on the planet. Really I would.

I'd personally prefer she be introduced to a "private" cell with Bertha, Belinda and their well used broom. It would be nice to see Hillary receiving exactly what she wants give the citizens of our country. Too bad she'd probably enjoy it.

originally posted by: xuenchen

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.

Hahahaha! Not fit for human consumption.

Only for GMO fertilizer.



Maybe that's what Comey was shooting for.

Get people riled up with the email thing so they (congress) demand other investigations that is more of a slam dunk?

He said they were charged with just finding out about emails?

I am confused, probably because I like to think people do their jobs when they are cashing checks, from the people that pay them, the taxpayers!

Isn't it time ordinary people thought that they are subject to the law why shouldn't Hilary Clinton be also?

We all know that there is something very wrong with the way the law is only aimed at the ordinary and often powerless whilst the rich get away with murder literally as well as all their other crimes? Of course the law should be the same against her after all, no thing is too big to fail whether its a bank or a person.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

What Comey did appears like retribution for Lynch's decision not to indict, and I firmly believe it was her decision and that decision was made before she announced that Comey would make the call.

He laid out a criminal prosecution on live tv of Clinton. He said she was essentially stupid. He then said no prosecution. He then goes before Congress within a few days to answer questions and in turn destroys her competence. He opens the door on prosecution of perjury. The reasons he gave not to prosecute have been debunked. I think the public corruption investigation involving her and the Clinton foundation is the big one that they are trying to keep quiet before the election.

It's almost as if Comey kicked the rotten mess hard enough to cause it to start falling. If he cant get Clinton because of political blockades by Lynch and Obama, then we go back to the threats made about releasing info. Its almost as if he released "just enough" to piss of the electorate who are now demanding more and more answers which in turn raises more and more questions about her other activity.

For instance why is no one asking why, during Clinton's entire tenure as Sec State, was their no inspector general in place for the State Department? Speaking of intent I think that's something that needs too be looked at. No IG was in place until Kerry took over.

Why?