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: 13
120
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


What does that have to do with this topic? I know you love me man...


but focuss grasshopper....focus..... we are talking about congress formally requesting that the FBI look into whether Hillary Clinton lied under oath...

I assume since it was formally requested, the FBI will have to investigate. I would also assume that it would be an extremely short investigation.

Please to not try and tell me I am unfit to discuss this topic when I was only wrong about 1 thing... you my friend are wrong about every Hillary defense you have tossed out. and You have tossed out some whoppers.


Done discussing this topic... have a great ATS day!!


edit on R462016-07-12T16:46:25-05:00k467Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R482016-07-12T16:48:12-05:00k487Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



Please to not try and tell me I am unfit to discuss this topic when I was only wrong about 1 thing... you my friend are wrong about every Hillary defense you have tossed out. and You have tossed out some whoppers.


I was correct on damn near everything I stated.

I know you have a hard time coming to terms with that, but your refusal to accept reality is none of my concern.

You were wrong on much of what you claimed. Add to that fact your horrible attitude and arrogance, you have presented yourself as someone who's opinion is not worthy of consideration.

Perhaps you should learn to be a bit more respectful in your communications and you can earn a bit more respect from those you interact with.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: olbe66

Call me a fool in November if she doesn't,but she will. And then who will be the fool?



We'll all be the fool's if Hillary gets in, be they Democrats, Republicans, Green party, and all the little people that don't understand they are getting fleeced by an Oligarchy.

Oh well, time to get back to playing my video game, right after I check facebook for likes, and twitter my thoughts about dancing with the stars and my favorite sports person. /sarcasm
edit on 12-7-2016 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


I kept looking through the Director of the FBI's report, and no where did I see it says her server was legal, other SoS's did the exact same thing, some of the emails were classified because she sent them while she was acting as a representative of the Clinton foundation and not as SoS, the Top Secret email that was only a forwarded New York Times article, yada yada yada.

I still can not find any of that stuff your were blabbing about for the last year. I did see there were emails that were classified when on her server, and that she was extremely careless in the handling of classified information which is just she was grossly negligent in the handling of classified information in a nice way without pressing charges.

So once again,...we are back to waiting to see what the FBI has to say.

As for being wrong, a majority of Amercan citizens do not agree with the decision not to recommend indictment...as least if I am going to err... I would rather be with the majority and not the minority.

edit on R312016-07-12T17:31:37-05:00k317Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



As for being wrong, a majority of Amercan citizens do not agree with the decision not to recommend indictment...as least if I am going to err... I would rather be with the majority and not the minority.


Completely ridiculous.

That makes no logical sense.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Over 50% of Americans disagree with the FBI's decision to not prosecute. Over 70% believe she lied about the whole thing.

Looking like a smooth walk to the Oval Office... it won't be Hillary though.

So back on topic...

You believe that lying under oath is not perjury unless there is proof of intent to deceive?
edit on R592016-07-12T17:59:52-05:00k597Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

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.

Who to believe?


It all goes back to intent again.

They would have to prove that she lied with the intent to deceive.


Of course!!!!

Because people don't lie with the intent to deceive.

Brillant!!!!



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



Over 50% of Americans disagree with the FBI's decision to not prosecute. Over 70% believe she lied about the whole thing.


When it comes to the law, polls and public opinion do not matter.



You believe that lying under oath is not perjury unless there is proof of intent to deceive?


Exactly. Unless you can prove she intentionally lied, and did not respond with an answer she thought to be true but turned-out to be false, you cannot convict someone of perjury.

Perjury requires intent.


The common-law crime of perjury is now governed by both state and federal laws. In addition, the Model Penal Code, which has been adopted in some form by many states and promulgated by the Commission on Uniform State Laws, also sets forth the following basic elements for the crime of perjury: (1) a false statement is made under oath or equivalent affirmation during a judicial proceeding; (2) the statement must be material or relevant to the proceeding; and (3) the witness must have the Specific Intent to deceive.


legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: introvert

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.

Who to believe?


It all goes back to intent again.

They would have to prove that she lied with the intent to deceive.


Of course!!!!

Because people don't lie with the intent to deceive.

Brillant!!!!


Can you prove that?

Did she purposefully lie, or did she answer with a response that she thought was true, but just happened to be false after other facts were uncovered?



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I tell ya, the perfectly orchestrated response for the Clinton's should now be to blame it on the Mandela Effect. After all, her statement WAS true when she said it. But, that was in the alternate timeline. She has obviously been transferred to a timeline that it was not true.

Curses you ripples and eddies in the time-space continuum!



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Without having to read through 13 pages, is this true or not and what does this mean going forward?



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Seems to me that the intent to deceive started when she opted to go with a personal private email server rather than a government email account.

Everything after that falls under the reasons why the server was originally set up... we now know that her convenience so she could use one device was a pure lie.

If they determine that she chose her server to avoid government oversight, which is exactly what she did, then it appears intent begins with her conscious choice to house her emails at her private residence.


edit on R552016-07-12T18:55:30-05:00k557Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R032016-07-12T19:03:14-05:00k037Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



If they determine that she chose her server to avoid government oversight, which is exactly what she did


Prove that.

Please.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


No proof needed....... it is obvious.

I suppose you require a specific link to Hillary Clinton saying somewhere saying she did it to avoid the FOIA... you won't find that link... but the evidence is abundant.

None the less.... she made the conscious decision to house her emails on a private email server in her residence... no one forced her to do that... she wanted it done that way.

Now she has to own it... I know that you side with the Hillary campaign on the position that "the email server issue has been fully resolved, but it hasn't been.. it is just getting warmed up.


edit on R022016-07-12T19:02:45-05:00k027Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



No proof needed....... it is obvious.


If it is obvious...there is proof.



I suppose you require a specific link to Hillary Clinton saying somewhere saying she did it to avoid the FOIA... you won't find that link... but the evidence is abundant.


Show me the evidence.



Now she has to own it... I know that you side with the Hillary campaign on the position that "the email server issue has been fully resolved, but it hasn't been.. it is just getting warmed up.


Kind of like your popcorn machine for indictment-recommendation day...right?

Epic fail!



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Had she not so blatantly lied, congress could not have had evidence to point to a perjury investigation.

This is on Hillary as much as it is on the house.



You are conflating "lying" with "Not True" with "Perjury"...

Congress can claim she lied...and maybe she did "lie"...Lie infers knowing intent....vs. just not recalling 3 of 30k+ emails.

Perjury requires PROVING that she had full recall of those 3 of 30,000 plus emails at the exact time she said there were no classified material sent and the burden of proof is on the prosecution. It also requires proving she recognized the (c) denotation to mean classified...and Comey himself said the three emails had “portion markings” on them indicating that they were classified, but they were NOT PROPERLY MARKED AND THEREFORE COULD HAVE BEEN MISSED BY CLINTON.

In short...and all politics aside...Chaffetz has jumped the shark...and it is CLEARLY ILLEGAL..to use congressional hearings and tax-payer money to engage in campaign activity...aka..a Negative PR campaign against a Presidential Hopeful.



Pretty funny talking about illegalities. lol!

Seems like hillary doesn't even read the stuff, doesn't it?

Oh, didn't her lawyers read, delete and scrub her emails and servers?

Did they have the clearance and authority to do that?

And to the perjury charges, she lied her ass off for a year or more, that's intent to deceive.







edit on 7 12 2016 by burgerbuddy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

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.

Who to believe?


It all goes back to intent again.

They would have to prove that she lied with the intent to deceive.


lol!! Seriously?

She lied about all of it! For over a year!

She was busted by Comey on TV or did you not see that?

She had intent when she set up her 1st server. lol!

Hillary shows a pattern of behavior that points to deception.




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

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: introvert

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.

Who to believe?


It all goes back to intent again.

They would have to prove that she lied with the intent to deceive.


Of course!!!!

Because people don't lie with the intent to deceive.

Brillant!!!!


Can you prove that?

Did she purposefully lie, or did she answer with a response that she thought was true, but just happened to be false after other facts were uncovered?


Prove that ?

Seriously ?

From Webster

Definition of lie
lied lying play ˈlī-iŋ
intransitive verb
1
: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2
: to create a false or misleading impression



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 02:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: introvert


No proof needed....... it is obvious.

I suppose you require a specific link to Hillary Clinton saying somewhere saying she did it to avoid the FOIA... you won't find that link... but the evidence is abundant.

None the less.... she made the conscious decision to house her emails on a private email server in her residence... no one forced her to do that... she wanted it done that way.

Now she has to own it... I know that you side with the Hillary campaign on the position that "the email server issue has been fully resolved, but it hasn't been.. it is just getting warmed up.



Post some evidence then instead of just saying "its obvious". You clearly have no idea.



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 02:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: M5xaz

Prove that ?

Seriously ?

From Webster

Definition of lie
lied lying play ˈlī-iŋ
intransitive verb
1
: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2
: to create a false or misleading impression


I think the word your missing is "purposefully". Introvert is saying that its not enough to find out a statement given by Hilary turns out to be factually incorrect, you need the initial statement to have been "purposefully" deceiving of the truth.

In other words, you need proof that Hilary knew she was telling a lie at the time of the statement, not that something she said turned out to be not true.

There is a big difference that is going over a lot of people's heads.




top topics



 
120
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join