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: 11
120
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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?


Courtrooms across the country...and at all levels of justice seem to take Perjury quite seriously. Are those examples politics...or an integral part of the American Justice system?

Should politicians be held to a different standard than us little people in courts across the country...simply because the opposite party claims "politics"?




posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Going to stick with the innocent wide-eye approach eh? Disappointing.

Should we hold officials guilty of obvious illegal acts resulting in the deaths of thousands?

Perhaps ask George Bush? Dick Cheney? Don Rumsfeld?

I find your concerns hollow overall in regard to Hillary Clinton.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5


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.



Right. Apparently, Hillary deleted all the emails that were properly classified, but missed a few, because they were improperly classified, and contained (C) classification marks only in the body of the text itself. One would have to have "re-read" all the 30,000 emails to find those, rather than the easier task of just looking at the "subject" line to determine if the email was classified. That's why she got caught. Because they can't prove that the properly classified emails were there, since they have all been deleted, they are hanging on to those 3 emails with the (C) mark, and pounding her on these three.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Thats not what I meant, I said, they play you and all those people that starred you by having never ending investigations. That way average citizens withhold judgment.

Its only too obvious, as soon as one investigation ends, they start another. See?

Endless litigation, like 'good' lawyers do.

Edit: They do the same thing when they table a bill or tie it up in committee forever.
edit on 12-7-2016 by intrptr because: Edit:



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: IAMTAT

Going to stick with the innocent wide-eye approach eh? Disappointing.

Should we hold officials guilty of obvious illegal acts resulting in the deaths of thousands?

Perhaps ask George Bush? Dick Cheney? Don Rumsfeld?

I find your concerns hollow overall in regard to Hillary Clinton.


And I'm disappointed you couldn't answer my question with an actual answer.

All Politicians Lie...Agreed...But we shouldn't let 'em off the hook simply because they're politicians...and that to investigate and prosecute them will be met with a claim of "it's pure politics" from either side.

That argument wouldn't work for you or me in any court in the land...because the prosecutor happened to be from the 'other' political party.

Double standards may exist...but it doesn't make them right.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

When you or I are before Congress for perjury ... let me know.

This is political theatre, IAMTAT. You know it. I know it.

The only goal here is to GET CLINTON at any cost.

The cost is going to be the 3.5% or so of confidence that the American people have left in this Congress to tend to the People's business.

Just a quick answer here: What significant legislation that will aid Americans has been passed in the last two sessions? Anything? What about the promises the Republican caucus made to the American people? Are those broken promises of any concern?

Pfft. Give me a break.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Indigo5


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.



Right. Apparently, Hillary deleted all the emails that were properly classified, but missed a few, because they were improperly classified, and contained (C) classification marks only in the body of the text itself.


This is inaccurate. It appears you are just saying things? Not being partisan..but whilst discussing facts, we should not invent them?



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

There have been plenty of broken promises from congress and the administration...but, 'no biggie'...they're politicians and it's 'just pure politics'...they ALL break promises (just like they all lie)...so just ignore it.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: angus1745

That post of yours was one of the most insulting dribbles I have ever read. I can't believe the huge mount of insults you placed on everyone involved trying to put two and two together. Clinton is the devious one and evil; in case that's too hard for you to put together. And yes, the system does matter. The fight for honesty, a real word with a real meaning, continues.

You have insulted every person on this post by your remarks. These are the people who really do and not just for political motives. Sorry if you live in that kind of truth.

I believe the absolute majority of posters care deeply that our country be lead by the most honest and dignified person willing to do the job. and I don't believe that is naive. We all know the pitfalls and discouragement of the present system.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Gryphon66

There have been plenty of broken promises from congress and the administration...but, 'no biggie'...they're politicians and it's 'just pure politics'...they ALL break promises (just like they all lie)...so just ignore it.


So your argument is that Clinton's alleged failings (emails, perjury, Benghazi! etc. etc.) have been ignored???

That's so absurd on its face ... there's nothing left to say.

Republicans need to start worrying about the dumpster fire in their own backyard ... Clinton is not going to be "put away" and none of this is going to change even one voter's mind at this point.

Time to stop trying to remove Clinton from the race and start trying to get your ... candidate ... elected.

Or is that prospect just too soul-crushing to even consider, LOL?



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

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.



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


He said that he had not been tasked with nor requested by congress to make that determination.

When asked if she lied to the FBI..



Hillary Clinton did not lie to FBI investigators during their probe into her use of a private server as secretary of state, FBI Director James Comey testified Thursday.

"We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI," Comey told House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) during one of the hearing's opening exchanges.

www.politico.com...



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: IAMTAT

Going to stick with the innocent wide-eye approach eh? Disappointing.

Should we hold officials guilty of obvious illegal acts resulting in the deaths of thousands?

Perhaps ask George Bush? Dick Cheney? Don Rumsfeld?

I find your concerns hollow overall in regard to Hillary Clinton.


The trick is to find better leaders going forward, not end up with the status quo, or worse. Willful partisan blindness and ignorance helps no one, but the elite.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Perjury, huh?

I've said it before. Charging Hillary with Perjury is like charging serial killers for running a stop sign on the way to their crimes.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: IAMTAT

Going to stick with the innocent wide-eye approach eh? Disappointing.

Should we hold officials guilty of obvious illegal acts resulting in the deaths of thousands?

Perhaps ask George Bush? Dick Cheney? Don Rumsfeld?

I find your concerns hollow overall in regard to Hillary Clinton.


And I'm disappointed you couldn't answer my question with an actual answer.



I think I am waiting on an answer of my own?

A couple pages back when you said Bill Clinton was convicted of perjury...were you "lying" ...or just miss-remembered?

And how would a prosecutor prove under burden of proof that you were lying?

in reality world..

Clinton unlikely to face perjury charges in email scandal


“It will be a shark with no teeth,” said Rusty Hardin, the lawyer who successfully defended the pitcher Roger Clemens when he was charged with lying to Congress about doping in 2010. “Perjury is a very, very difficult crime to prosecute.”

“They get referrals all the time,” said Hardin, reached as he watched the Comey testimony on television from his vacation in Florida. “Every time a congressman gets bent out of shape about something, they try to refer it.”

www.politico.com...



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5




He said that he had not been tasked with nor requested by congress to make that determination.

So isn't that what congress is doing?



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Indigo5




He said that he had not been tasked with nor requested by congress to make that determination.

So isn't that what congress is doing?


And?....Are you just catching up on the news or do you have a point?...Literal question, not intended snark.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: IAMTAT

Going to stick with the innocent wide-eye approach eh? Disappointing.

Should we hold officials guilty of obvious illegal acts resulting in the deaths of thousands?

Perhaps ask George Bush? Dick Cheney? Don Rumsfeld?

I find your concerns hollow overall in regard to Hillary Clinton.


And I'm disappointed you couldn't answer my question with an actual answer.



I think I am waiting on an answer of my own?

A couple pages back when you said Bill Clinton was convicted of perjury...were you "lying" ...or just miss-remembered?

And how would a prosecutor prove under burden of proof that you were lying?

in reality world..

Clinton unlikely to face perjury charges in email scandal


“It will be a shark with no teeth,” said Rusty Hardin, the lawyer who successfully defended the pitcher Roger Clemens when he was charged with lying to Congress about doping in 2010. “Perjury is a very, very difficult crime to prosecute.”

“They get referrals all the time,” said Hardin, reached as he watched the Comey testimony on television from his vacation in Florida. “Every time a congressman gets bent out of shape about something, they try to refer it.”

www.politico.com...


So sorry...I should've informed you earlier...

When I realized you were trying to analogize moral and legal equivalence between a poster making an admittedly incorrect statement in on ATS...and the former Secretary of State blatantly lying 'under oath' to congress and the American people about jeopardizing national security and the safety of extremely classified intelligence secrets....I ceased taking you seriously.

Sincere apologies.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: IAMTAT

Going to stick with the innocent wide-eye approach eh? Disappointing.

Should we hold officials guilty of obvious illegal acts resulting in the deaths of thousands?

Perhaps ask George Bush? Dick Cheney? Don Rumsfeld?

I find your concerns hollow overall in regard to Hillary Clinton.


And I'm disappointed you couldn't answer my question with an actual answer.



I think I am waiting on an answer of my own?

A couple pages back when you said Bill Clinton was convicted of perjury...were you "lying" ...or just miss-remembered?

And how would a prosecutor prove under burden of proof that you were lying?

in reality world..

Clinton unlikely to face perjury charges in email scandal


“It will be a shark with no teeth,” said Rusty Hardin, the lawyer who successfully defended the pitcher Roger Clemens when he was charged with lying to Congress about doping in 2010. “Perjury is a very, very difficult crime to prosecute.”

“They get referrals all the time,” said Hardin, reached as he watched the Comey testimony on television from his vacation in Florida. “Every time a congressman gets bent out of shape about something, they try to refer it.”

www.politico.com...


So sorry...I should've informed you earlier...

...
I ceased taking you seriously.




I appreciate the heads up. It's a reminder that I should join the majority of the country in that same growing sentiment toward the GOP and it's rhetorical minions.

I need to discipline myself not search for intellectual integrity amongst those who see objective thought as the enemy.

In other news...

GOP operatives dread Trump convention
‘This ship can sink without me as a passenger,’

www.politico.com...



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: IAMTAT

Going to stick with the innocent wide-eye approach eh? Disappointing.

Should we hold officials guilty of obvious illegal acts resulting in the deaths of thousands?

Perhaps ask George Bush? Dick Cheney? Don Rumsfeld?

I find your concerns hollow overall in regard to Hillary Clinton.


And I'm disappointed you couldn't answer my question with an actual answer.



I think I am waiting on an answer of my own?

A couple pages back when you said Bill Clinton was convicted of perjury...were you "lying" ...or just miss-remembered?

And how would a prosecutor prove under burden of proof that you were lying?

in reality world..

Clinton unlikely to face perjury charges in email scandal


“It will be a shark with no teeth,” said Rusty Hardin, the lawyer who successfully defended the pitcher Roger Clemens when he was charged with lying to Congress about doping in 2010. “Perjury is a very, very difficult crime to prosecute.”

“They get referrals all the time,” said Hardin, reached as he watched the Comey testimony on television from his vacation in Florida. “Every time a congressman gets bent out of shape about something, they try to refer it.”

www.politico.com...


So sorry...I should've informed you earlier...

When I realized you were trying to analogize moral and legal equivalence


And by the way...This is literally the entire premise of every one of your posts...Equating factually inaccurate statements with "perjury"...

Your claim that Bill Clinton was convicted of perjury...WAS factually untrue..lets choose to assign moral value...YOU LIED...



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I hope this doesn't lead to another 'lone gunman'... (not) funny how these things tend to go hand in hand... Investigation heats up, then voila, a distraction for the masses... Maybe my conspiracy mind has read too many ATS pages over the years, but i seem to see a trend..

And one other comment, it's so nice seeing the oversight committee continuing to stay on her.. I know the democratic party likes to act like the republicans are harassing this poor lady, but we all know it's 100% justified..




top topics



 
120
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join