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: 4
120
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 10:10 PM
link   
It looks like HuffPost hasnt been informed of this news.
Its nowhere to be found on their 'Politics' page!
Lmao




posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
What a shock. Really though, the obvious reason to do this is is political. They do not care about perjury. They all lie daily.
How true!!! Star for you. Though I don't care for once were it's coming from. As long as she gets what she deserves I'm Golden😂



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa


Normally, I would agree with you. With Hillary however, it will take a real conviction on something (like Perjury) to stop her from being a Presidential candidate.


Democrats have accepted that Hillary is sickly, somewhat inept, and growing lazier as she ages. That doesn't matter to them. As long as Hillary can utter promises of free health insurance, free college, and forgiving existing student loan debts, all Democrats and a good chunk of Independents will vote for her.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Staroth
a reply to: xuenchen


Hillary is a master at the back peddle! I'm sure her and her camp have long cooked up her next statement (lie) to cover the other lie for the previous lie. heh


I cannot believe I did not think of this before (or perhaps I did?). Her perfect defense, blame it on the Mandela Effect!!! Of course, that was not HER making those statements, it was the alternate timeline HRC. She, the current HRC, would never knowingly lie under oath.

Mind = Blown

edit on 7/11/2016 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: six67seven
It looks like HuffPost hasnt been informed of this news.
Its nowhere to be found on their 'Politics' page!
Lmao


The staff is waiting for instructions from the DNC.

They don't want to be accused of being negligently careless.



edit on Jul-11-2016 by xuenchen because: waiting for email



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Arizonaguy

I don't want to take this thread off-track, so I'll just say that conventional wisdom regarding the states, on November 8th, may be totally wrong this election. A lot of things are out of kilter this time around.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I just read some other news releases on this impending investigation. Since the House has asked the Justice Department to open an investigation, can't the Justice Department just say "No!"?


Isn't Attorney General Loretta Lynch the one to say "Yes" or "No"? This is the lady whom Bill Clinton worked his magic on, during a 30 minute rendezvous on the tarmac. Oh well... this thread was exciting for a time. Thanx to the OP.


edit on 7/11/2016 by carewemust because: Hillary: Too Big For Prosecution?



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

from the site you provided.

hillary v trump

trump lies a helluva lot more with only 2% true v clintons 23%.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Trolls just getting slayed left and right. Tis a beautiful thing.

Stay vigilant guys...the media is hitting a crescendo in its divisive propaganda.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
a reply to: burntheships

from the site you provided.

hillary v trump

trump lies a helluva lot more with only 2% true v clintons 23%.


Under oath? That is key here....and the actual topic of the thread.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Hillary lied? Oh my gosh. I thought that lies were just the way she breathes.

Does congress expect her not to lie to them? Maybe we should consider putting less gullible people on that committee.
edit on 11-7-2016 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: stinkelbaum

As Krakatoa clarified, it is about Perjury.

Definition:

noun: perjury; plural noun: perjuries

The offense of willfully telling an untruth in a court
after having taken an oath or affirmation.

synonyms: lying under oath, giving false evidence/testimony,
making false statements, willful falsehood

"she was found guilty of perjury"
*


edit on 11-7-2016 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Just a note...not sure anybody on this thread understands the legal definition of perjury...I am certain Chaffetz does, and is painfully aware of how inane his request is..which just means he is abandoning a charade of objectivity and this is pure campaigning via congressional inquiry at this point...a really frightening precedent for everyone.
edit on 11-7-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: stinkelbaum

As Krakatoa clarified, it is about Perjury.

Definition:

noun: perjury; plural noun: perjuries

The offense of willfully telling an untruth in a court
after having taken an oath or affirmation.

synonyms: lying under oath, giving false evidence/testimony,
making false statements, willful falsehood

"she was found guilty of perjury"
*



Yes and we will see another case of latching onto a single word to be defined. Instead of the word "is" being questioned, the word by this Clinton will be "willful". She could say my statements were not willfully made falsely. At the time, I was under the impression my statements were actually true. As for her claiming not to use "more than one device", what constitutes a "device" in this context? And, what is meant by "at the same time" as well? Did she use more than one "device" simultaneously? Her answer could be truthfully no I'll bet. And, it covers her not being willfully making a false statement while under oath. She might have thought that it meant at the exact same time....and not the true meaning of while she was SoS and in the course of her duties in that role.

Hokey Crap !!

I am now thinking like a Clinton!!

Puppies, puppies, think of cute puppies.....happy place... !!!



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 10:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
Just a note...not sure anybody on this thread understands the legal definition of perjury...


That can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In this case we are talking about this...





(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.


www.law.cornell.edu...



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
Just a note...not sure anybody on this thread understands the legal definition of perjury...



This article describes how President Bill Clinton was Impeached for PERJURY.
en.wikipedia.org...
Seems pretty straight-forward...No?



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: xuenchen

I just read some other news releases on this impending investigation. Since the House has asked the Justice Department to open an investigation, can't the Justice Department just say "No!"?


Isn't Attorney General Loretta Lynch the one to say "Yes" or "No"? This is the lady whom Bill Clinton worked his magic on, during a 30 minute rendezvous on the tarmac. Oh well... this thread was exciting for a time. Thanx to the OP.



Sure they can say no.

And that would be more damning than an "acquittal" later.

Watch for this one to get a special prosecutor.

Lynch is already mud since the Bill debacle.




posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: stinkelbaum

LOL

Deflection #9




posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Arizonaguy



Correct...in order for it to be "perjury" it must be proven "willfull" and "material"..


And the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

With "material" it means that a witness can lie about when they were born, or any number of things...if it is not relevant to the outcome of the investigation, it is not perjury.

As far as "willfull"...the prosecution must prove that the witness INTENTIONALLY lied in order to MATERIALLY mislead the outcome of an investigation.

Put another way...They must prove that Hillary Clinton had total, full and accurate recall of 3 classified emails from years ago at the time she answered the question. They must also prove that she understood the (c) denotation to mean classified..and Comey himself said it was not clear that any of the email correspondents recognized that denotation.

Think about that..proving she perfectly remembered 3 out of 30,000 plus emails...when she answered the question..proving it.

Honestly, I'd be shocked if Comey and the FBI even took up the investigation...can they tell Chaffetz to go eff off? Cuz if so I expect that to be the courteous response...and that has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the law.


"Perjury" convictions in Congressional hearings have an even higher standard of proof than regular court hearings and are exceedingly rare.

This is nonsense from a legal perspective.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


The weeks leading up to November 8th aren't many in number. How long to appoint a Special Prosecutor? Can we get Hillary's GUILTY or INNOCENT determination before the election? I'd feel more confident if Congress had a way to do this without having to work with Obama's Department of Justice.



new topics

top topics



 
120
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join