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.

 

BREAKING! Congress requests investigation into Hillary for PERJURY!!

page: 10
120
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

They don't have to prove anything to open an investigation.




posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: shooterbrody

It's ALL on Clinton...She blatantly lied UNDER OATH to Congress!


Who hasn't?

Now all that has to be proven is perjury, which has happened six times since about 1940.

Another waste of taxpayer dollars on a political snipe hunt.


One of those times was her husband!


Wrong (again.)

Bill Clinton was never convicted of perjury. Do you need a link to prove your mistake? Or do you want to look it up on your own?


Too bad we didn't get that 'Mea Culpa' Forum


Heh. Truth. You've got me there.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

They don't have to prove anything to open an investigation.


That's pretty obvious.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

I don't think Hillary will even be forced to testify about it. That said, there is more than enough evidence from Comeys statement and from Hillarys own mouth to justify an investigation.


Not really.

This is going to be another failure. They would have to prove she intended to lie.

Good luck with that.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

I don't think Hillary will even be forced to testify about it. That said, there is more than enough evidence from Comeys statement and from Hillarys own mouth to justify an investigation.


Not really.

This is going to be another failure. They would have to prove she intended to lie.

Good luck with that.

Is there NO evidence she lied?



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

I don't think Hillary will even be forced to testify about it. That said, there is more than enough evidence from Comeys statement and from Hillarys own mouth to justify an investigation.


Not really.

This is going to be another failure. They would have to prove she intended to lie.

Good luck with that.

Is there NO evidence she lied?


That is not the right question that needs to be asked. What you need to ask yourself is if she intended to lie in order to deceive.

The FBI couldn't find any proof of intent to charge her. Do you think this new investigation will find something the FBI could not?

It's a joke.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66




Another waste of taxpayer dollars on a political snipe hunt.


Not if Hillary testifies in front of congress again. She will have the opportunity to clarify her record.


She doesn't need to clear her record. We all know what the facts of the matter are.

I don't want to see more government waste and misuse of Constitutional power directed at a ridiculous doomed-to-fail pure partisan effort.


Facts?
Comey said she sent and recieved classified info.
Hillary said she did not.
Comey said she did not provide all work emails.
Hillary said she did.



Further facts...
Comey said that the classified material was not "properly" marked and only contained the (c) denotation and it was not clear that Clinton or others understood that denotation to mean classified.

Comey said he had no reason to believe that Clinton intentionally lied at any point during her interviews with the FBI.

Comey said there was no indication that the emails that were not directly provided to the FBI were intentionally deleted or held back and that the "slack" they were found in could have easily been due to device crashes or server transitions...aka..emails regularly lost due to standard technical issues.

Again...Not defending Hillary...but those are Comeys actual, under oath, statements...reality matters.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

They don't have to prove anything to open an investigation.


When did we decide we shouldn't investigate and punish blatant wrongdoing from our high officials because it costs money?



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

I don't think Hillary will even be forced to testify about it. That said, there is more than enough evidence from Comeys statement and from Hillarys own mouth to justify an investigation.


Not really.

This is going to be another failure. They would have to prove she intended to lie.

Good luck with that.

Is there NO evidence she lied?


That is not the right question that needs to be asked. What you need to ask yourself is if she intended to lie in order to deceive.

The FBI couldn't find any proof of intent to charge her. Do you think this new investigation will find something the FBI could not?

It's a joke.


Also a joke...and supremely ironic...is the fact she wasn't put 'under oath' when she testified to the FBI.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

I don't think Hillary will even be forced to testify about it. That said, there is more than enough evidence from Comeys statement and from Hillarys own mouth to justify an investigation.


Not really.

This is going to be another failure. They would have to prove she intended to lie.

Good luck with that.

Is there NO evidence she lied?


That is not the right question that needs to be asked. What you need to ask yourself is if she intended to lie in order to deceive.

The FBI couldn't find any proof of intent to charge her. Do you think this new investigation will find something the FBI could not?

It's a joke.

So Is there NO evidence she lied?
If there is it justifies and investigation.
The FBI was not asked to find proof she lied.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
It's amazing at how desparate the Right Wing has become.

They will never be able to get her on perjury.


But I bet they get 10 or 15 million votes away from her.




posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

They don't have to prove anything to open an investigation.


When did we decide we shouldn't investigate and punish blatant wrongdoing from our high officials because it costs money?


The GOP representatives that are calling for this investigation know it will be a flop. They understand the law and know it will be extremely hard to stick her with a perjury charge.

They are putting-on this spectacle to satisfy their Right Wing nut constituents. It's a dog and pony show.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66




Another waste of taxpayer dollars on a political snipe hunt.


Not if Hillary testifies in front of congress again. She will have the opportunity to clarify her record.


She doesn't need to clear her record. We all know what the facts of the matter are.

I don't want to see more government waste and misuse of Constitutional power directed at a ridiculous doomed-to-fail pure partisan effort.


Facts?
Comey said she sent and recieved classified info.
Hillary said she did not.
Comey said she did not provide all work emails.
Hillary said she did.



Further facts...
Comey said that the classified material was not "properly" marked and only contained the (c) denotation and it was not clear that Clinton or others understood that denotation to mean classified.

Comey said he had no reason to believe that Clinton intentionally lied at any point during her interviews with the FBI.

Comey said there was no indication that the emails that were not directly provided to the FBI were intentionally deleted or held back and that the "slack" they were found in could have easily been due to device crashes or server transitions...aka..emails regularly lost due to standard technical issues.

Again...Not defending Hillary...but those are Comeys actual, under oath, statements...reality matters.

Comey also stated Hillary SHOULD have been able to discern the nature of the info she was dealing with as she was SOS.
The not properly marked argument flies out the window when looked upon in that light.
Comey also did not have indication that Hillarys team had clearance to handle the info she provided them.

When asked if she lied to congress what did Comey reply?



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

I don't think Hillary will even be forced to testify about it. That said, there is more than enough evidence from Comeys statement and from Hillarys own mouth to justify an investigation.


Not really.

This is going to be another failure. They would have to prove she intended to lie.

Good luck with that.

Is there NO evidence she lied?


That is not the right question that needs to be asked. What you need to ask yourself is if she intended to lie in order to deceive.

The FBI couldn't find any proof of intent to charge her. Do you think this new investigation will find something the FBI could not?

It's a joke.

So Is there NO evidence she lied?
If there is it justifies and investigation.
The FBI was not asked to find proof she lied.


Don't tell me you are really having that hard of a time understanding this.

You have to find evidence or proof that she intentionally lied for the sake of deceiving.

Again, good luck. There is a reason perjury charges are rare.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

They don't have to prove anything to open an investigation.


When did we decide we shouldn't investigate and punish blatant wrongdoing from our high officials because it costs money?


The GOP representatives that are calling for this investigation know it will be a flop. They understand the law and know it will be extremely hard to stick her with a perjury charge.

They are putting-on this spectacle to satisfy their Right Wing nut constituents. It's a dog and pony show.


But you've admitted she lied...and told the same lie under oath to congress and the American people.
We should just let that go...ignore it for everyone?...or just for Hillary Clinton?



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

They don't have to prove anything to open an investigation.


When did we decide we shouldn't investigate and punish blatant wrongdoing from our high officials because it costs money?


The GOP representatives that are calling for this investigation know it will be a flop. They understand the law and know it will be extremely hard to stick her with a perjury charge.

They are putting-on this spectacle to satisfy their Right Wing nut constituents. It's a dog and pony show.


But you've admitted she lied...and told the same lie under oath to congress and the American people.
We should just let that go...ignore it for everyone?...or just for Hillary Clinton?


There is a difference between not telling the truth and purposefully lying.

One is a mistake that no one gives a # about. The other requires proof of intent.

Do you understand that?
edit on 12-7-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert
It's amazing at how desparate the Right Wing has become.

They will never be able to get her on perjury.


But I bet they get 10 or 15 million votes away from her.





Don't bet much.

Historically, abuse of the Congressional investigative powers typically sends a Clinton's popularity through the roof!



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

I don't think Hillary will even be forced to testify about it. That said, there is more than enough evidence from Comeys statement and from Hillarys own mouth to justify an investigation.


Not really.

This is going to be another failure. They would have to prove she intended to lie.

Good luck with that.

Is there NO evidence she lied?


Technically no...Did she say things that were "not factually correct"...sure..But if you mean "lie" involving intent and are asking if their is "no evidence" she "lied"...no.

Someone can testify that a red Honda was not parked in front of their house a month ago...When in reality there was.

Maybe they clearly remember it and are "lieing"...Maybe they believe they have full recall and never saw it. Maybe they confused it in their memory as blue Honda.

You need to prove that the person precisely KNEW, beyond all reasonable doubt, that a Red Honda was parked in front of their house a month ago and willfully chose to lie and say they did not see it.

Actually that might be an easier case to prove than 3 out of 30k+ emails over several years.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Oh please ... for goodness sakes drop the act.

It's us. We know the score here.

This isn't about any righteous concern that politicians are truthful or not. Because if anyone knows they're not, it's ATS.

We are intimately familiar with just HOW dishonest all governments are to their people, and that dishonesty absolutely DWARFS anything Clinton has done in regard to this email jazz ... and all of you acting all Polly-Anna about it know that as well.

Why not just be frank and admit that it's pure politics?



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

They don't have to prove anything to open an investigation.


When did we decide we shouldn't investigate and punish blatant wrongdoing from our high officials because it costs money?


The GOP representatives that are calling for this investigation know it will be a flop. They understand the law and know it will be extremely hard to stick her with a perjury charge.

They are putting-on this spectacle to satisfy their Right Wing nut constituents. It's a dog and pony show.


But you've admitted she lied...



Hmmm...Hate to do this to you, but...

Were you lying just on the last page when you said Bill Clinton was convicted of perjury?

I assume you were just wrong about what you believed when you said it....but I'd have to read your thoughts in order to prove you were lying.

The "perjury" investigation is an absolute campaign PR effort with the bill going to Taxpayers (Dems and GOP alike)...and politics aside...that's illegal and immoral.



new topics

top topics



 
120
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join