Breaking Update: House Judiciary Referral for Hillary Clinton Perjury Charges

I think she is passed the "short circuit " and on to a blown breaker now or some other unacceptable excuse.

a reply to: rollanotherone


With all due respect RollAnotherOne, you haven't been properly briefed on just how deep the quicksand is, that's coming up around Hillary's pantsuit. The woman is sinking faster and faster. She may not even be on the November 8th Presidential ballot.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: rollanotherone


With all due respect RollAnotherOne, you haven't been properly briefed on just how deep the quicksand is, that's coming up around Hillary's pantsuit. The woman is sinking faster and faster. She may not even be on the November 8th Presidential ballot.

Trust me, I want that more than you realize, but Jesus, her husband has been in this same situation with lying and covering up those lies. He dodged impeachment. And now his wife is up for the highest office on the planet, do you honestly think he's going to let something "silly" like lying to get between him and office interns? It's just disgusting. If you or I were to do 1/100th of the things the Clintons do, we'd be before a firing squad in some 3rd world black site, no trial, no jury, just execution.
I honestly hope you're correct, but this family is beyond the reach of the law. And IF she does go down? We'll have Chelsea to deal with in a few years.

originally posted by: AreUKiddingMe
a reply to: burntheships

I hate to be a downer, but D.C. Attorney Channing D. Phillips is a Democrat and was nominated by Obama. So does anyone really expect anything to come of this?

So was Charles Grassley, the Senate Judiciary Chair who started this
whole entire probe to begin with.

Also, a note of thanks and tip of the hat to member
Vortiki for posting this thread :
President Obama Legalized Propaganda

And thanks to jadedANDcynical for finding the thread

As much as I hate to say it, I don't think Hillary will get investigated, I don't believe she will get in any trouble, and I also don't think that it will even brought up after the elections. The only reason I think this is for this reason: If she was going to get into trouble, it would of been done WAY before she got the Democratic slot for the elections. They have got the best chance they can get with her as their candidate, and they have gone too far to loose it by uncovering everything at this point. At this point, it wouldn't surprise me if they eventually just deny that any of it ever even happened. That is what I would put my money on.

originally posted by: ware2010
a reply to: burntheships
damn I am having a hard time keeping up with these Hillary Clinton post.. guess I should browse the internet looking for her next move, so I can post pointless threads too

I hope nobody expects Hillary to get in ANY sort of trouble, let alone her being investigated. Democrats have already invested too much time and money into her for anything to be done about all the foul stuff she has done. Bet they don't even comment about it at all, and we all know we won't hear any questions about it on the major tv news networks. They will act like it never happened, and they have idea what anyone is talking about, but hey, that's just my opinion. That's what I would put my money on at least.

originally posted by: ware2010
a reply to: burntheships
damn I am having a hard time keeping up with these Hillary Clinton post.. guess I should browse the internet looking for her next move, so I can post pointless threads too

I hope nobody expects Hillary to get in ANY sort of trouble, let alone her being investigated. Democrats have already invested too much time and money into her for anything to be done about all the foul stuff she has done. Bet they don't even comment about it at all, and we all know we won't hear any questions about it on the major tv news networks. They will act like it never happened, and they have idea what anyone is talking about, but hey, that's just my opinion. That's what I would put my money on at least.

a reply to: Bubba1020

Perhaps God might be merciful yet another time toward our Republic.

. . . and deal with her in some emphatically, dramatic, vivid God-way.

It all may be framed as, "it would be bad for America to remove the only candidate who could stop Trump".

Reality check, as hard as it is to imagine her getting nixxed, remember how deep into the doo-doo Bill Clinton was. iirc, there was a motion to impeach...?

originally posted by: FlyingFox
It all may be framed as, "it would be bad for America to remove the only candidate who could stop Trump".

Reality check, as hard as it is to imagine her getting nixxed, remember how deep into the doo-doo Bill Clinton was. iirc, there was a motion to impeach...?

FACT: Bill Clinton was impeached - And then tried in the Senate - He won the trial and therefore was allowed to stay in office.

FACT; Bill Clinton was only the second President in the histrory of the United States to be impeached.

Impeachment of Bill Clinton

"The Impeachment of Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, was initiated by the House of Representatives on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, on December 19, 1998. The charges stemmed from his extramarital affair with former White House Intern Monica Lewinsky and his testimony about the affair during a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him by Paula Jones. He was subsequently acquitted of these charges by the Senate on February 12, 1999.[1] Two other impeachment articles – a second perjury charge and a charge of abuse of power – failed in the House.

"Independent Counsel Ken Starr turned over documentation to the House Judiciary Committee. The Chief Prosecutor, David Schippers, and his team reviewed the material and determined there was sufficient evidence to impeach the president. As a result, four charges were considered by the full House of Representatives; two passed, making Clinton the second United States President to be impeached after Andrew Johnson, and only the third for whom the House had considered such proceedings (Richard Nixon's presidency is the only one to be ended in the wake of the impeachment process).......

Quoted source:
en.wikipedia.org...

Hey look if Bill Clinton can get away with disgracing the United States why can't his wife

You don't really think anyone would suggest trying the Clintons under the RICO statues would they

RICO: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

"The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually commit the crime personally........"
Quote source:
en.wikipedia.org...


NO, the only one in danger in this election is Donald Trump - But he is lucky the 'New World Order' that owns the press
and the media and probably could rig the elections if they wanted to, have already decided that Hillary is the anointed as
their representative - so Donald Trump is safe - Unless he...... ?????

But that is another reason they are scared of Trump - they can't predict and control him

a reply to: carewemust

If you listen to right wing sites, which includes ATS, you would think she's sinking, they've been claiming she's going to be charged "in a little bit" for over a year. It's not going to happen, and her lead on Trump is increasing. There's less to charge here than there was handling classified material, all she needs to say is there were tens of thousands of emails and it's unrealistic to have her remember the contents of each. No charge.

This site should be cited as a case study on denial.

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
This site should be cited as a case study on denial.

So should the people who think Clinton did nothing wrong / didn't break the law.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: burntheships

I want to believe this will be a genuine investigation. But there's no more wind in my sails.

Hillary will claim she didn't intend to lie and that will be that.

A lie, by definition is told with intent. A falsehood is a non-truth told due to ignorance or mis-information.
Hillary is a liar.

Despite all the damning evidence of wrongdoing, in so many areas, Hillary will never see the inside of a jail cell.
Too many people, both domestic and foreign, have given her money for favours post election... I'm sorry, I meant "donated to the Clinton Foundation" - almost made it sound like sound a money laundering operation there!

These criminals operate globally using the MAD doctrine. If they try to prosecute one, they will all fall, and that is the understanding among them. Of course, a tragic accident befalling someone stepping too far out of line always helps focus everyone again too!

originally posted by: Tardacus
This may be what sinks clinton, lying to congress. if she does get elected how co-operative do you think congress will be with the person who lied to them? hillary might be laughing now but congress will get the last laugh if she is elected.

How many Democrats can they get elected?

a reply to: burntheships

Since the FBI is responsible for investigating and prosecuting perjury in congressional hearings.

And since Chaffetz has already sent a referral for a perjury investigation to the FBI a month ago and nothing has come of it.

I am pretty sure that this letter is simply for public consumption and political purposes, complete with Youtube video included.

It has no utility beyond political campaign purposes.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: burntheships

Since the FBI is responsible for investigating and prosecuting perjury in congressional hearings.

The FBI, not the DOJ.

The FBI referred The Clinton Foundation for Investigation,
the DOJ declined. So it goes...Bill and Loretta on a plane.

And if it is valuable, it is because Clinton lied to Congress,
under oath. Which is perjury....

The day has come when all those who support her can say,
"so what, she perjured her self. She will escape prosecution"

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: burntheships

Since the FBI is responsible for investigating and prosecuting perjury in congressional hearings.

And if it is valuable, it is because Clinton lied to Congress,
under oath. Which is perjury....

The day has come when all those who support her can say,
"so what, she perjured her self. She will escape prosecution"

Perjury requires proving intent to deceive. That burden of proof around intent is on the prosecution.

You have posted things here on ATS which were not factually correct. I never accused you of "lying" because I did not believe there was "intent".

I do not support Hillary Clinton. I do support an honest assessment of facts.

There is no viable perjury case to be made here. Not even remotely.

The GOP in congress understand that as well.

That means they are conducting a political campaign at the tax-payers expense rather than do their actual jobs.

Those that are fiercely opposed to Hillary Clinton willfully over-look that ethical and potentially legal breech of misuse of taxpayer dollars and time for political purposes. I approach it more objectively and would not tolerate political campaigning at the tax-payer's expense regardless of party.

It is a horrific ethical precedent to set for a future congress....and yes it is illegal..

originally posted by: Indigo5

Perjury requires proving intent to deceive. That burden of proof around intent is on the prosecution.

She lied, that shows intent. I have no doubt the FBI files will
only serve to back that up.

You have posted things here on ATS which were not factually correct. I never accused you of "lying" because I did not believe there was "intent".

Please, trying to make this personal?

This is an internet forum, not a Congressional Investigation,
I'm not under oath...if you really want to go there and try
and make a comparison, its ludicrous. I'll let it go because
I know your statement is hyperbole. I'll say I endeavor to
only post things I know to be true, or that I can prove to be true.

I do not support Hillary Clinton. I do support an honest assessment of facts.

So you say, but you know she lied, she has been caught in many
lies, yet you never hit on that. But you'll point to a presumptive
outcome to justify dismissing it all as a right wing conspiracy?!