BREAKING! Congress requests investigation into Hillary for PERJURY!!

*Yawn* Oh look the GOP-run Congress is having another hissy fit. What about next - toothpastegate? Wait, have they claimed that Hillary Clinton is really DB Cooper yet?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Indigo5

I'm not an ego-centered person. If you feel that I don't understand what Perjury is, that's fine. All I care about is that negative Hillary news continues to percolate and (hopefully) grow, as we near November.

Two things...

(A) Appreciate your honesty and having a political agenda is fine and expected in a democracy. I very much believe Chaffetz and the Congressional Investigative Committee believe the same thing.

(B) It is illegal for Congress to spend tax-payer dollars and resources on political campaign purposes...VERY Illegal. Whilst we claim we are concerned with strict legality of things...we might ponder that fact. Like or hate Hillary, they are spending over a 100 Million of tax-payer funds on "the clock" for political campaign purposes.

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: Indigo5
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.

This is about negative exposure to Hidlabeast. It's all part of the plan. The outcome doesn't matter.

Great...But that is the RNCs job...and Donald Trump's...spending tax-payer money for campaign purposes via hearings for political purposes is rightly illegal. You would feel the same if the tables were reversed and this was an "Investigation" of a GOP Presidential hopeful that lacked any legal foundation or prospects of indictment. You would rightly scream that it is illegal and immoral for the Dems in congress to treat your tax-payer funds as Dem campaign donations to conduct a negative PR campaign.

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.

a reply to: shooterbrody

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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!

Incorrect...Bill was never convicted of "Perjury"...And his "lie" was 1000% more prosecutable than Hillary's recollection of 3 out of 30k emails.

This is an insane waste of tax payer money by congress for political campaign purposes and clearly illegal...All BS aside Chaffetz has crossed into prosecutable territory himself...just wait and see.

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 or 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.

You left out the emails so secret the can not be released.
She did send those.
She said she did not.
She will have to square her quotes.

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.

a reply to: Indigo5

You're right. I was wrong...and I stand corrected. Bill Clinton was NOT convicted of Perjury.

a reply to: Gryphon66

One image that succinctly summarizes the insane hypocracy and moral bankruptcy of these hearings..




Rep. Jason Chaffetz's Business Card Lists His Gmail Address
abcnews.go.com...

Want to know how secure that email address is? It took me 10 seconds to confirm the redacted part... [email protected]

what do you think an actual hacker could do?

Can we investigate Chaffetz now?

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

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's amazing at how desparate the Right Wing has become.

They will never be able to get her on perjury.

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.

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.