It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
But Hardin, who worked as a prosecutor for 15 years before opening his private practice in Houston, said the Justice Department rarely moves to charge people with perjury before Congress, and they’re unlikely to make a decision one way or the other before the election.
Even if they did bring her to trial, the defense is likely pretty straightforward: she believed what she was saying at the time, even if it turned out to be inaccurate.
The fact that Clemens was even charged with perjury – lawmakers said he lied when he told a panel in 2008 that he’d never used steroids or human growth hormone – makes his case an outlier.
According to a widely cited 2007 study by P.J. Meitl in the Quinnipiac Law Review, only six people had been convicted of perjury to Congress going back to the 1940s – and two of them were related to the Watergate scandal, another from Iran-Contra.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t
So its ok to charge a baseball player for lying to congress about a drug test but not the SOS for lying about classified info?
That is quite a reach.
2008????hmm wasn't that a democratic majority house?
Congress investigates baseball and that is an efficient use of tax dollars, but investigating possible mishandling of classified info is a waste of money.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert
You call it a failure before an investigation even begins?
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert
No it is clearly an investigation to find out if she lied to congress.
If congress can investigate a baseball player why not a sos?
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: shooterbrody
All irrelevant. None of that changes the fact that Congress won't be charging Hillary with perjury. You can bitch and moan about it all day. Talk about Democratic congresses and baseball, but it's all irrelevant. You can't argue around the fact that proving intent in a perjury case is near impossible.