LIVE: FBI Director testifies before House Oversight Committee at 10am est. Live feed

a reply to: GreatWay

This, again, is FAR different than Benghazi.

Not really. You may be stuck on the perjury aspect, but that would be damn near impossible to prove that she intentionally lied to cover her ass, like Bill did.

So this may be just like Benghazi...fishing for guilt where it cannot be found.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I will say it one more time.
Go back and look.
Show me where I told the other poster that I will teach my children that politicians don't lie.
Do it.
A link to my actual post.... not what someone would have you think.
Link

geez people, please???

This is a serious issue, and this thread is devolving into bickering (again).

Can't we discuss this important issue as adults?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Gryphon66

Regardless, Gowdy made a solid point about using false exculpatory statements, made to the public, to prove intent and consciousness of guilt. It was a point that Comey acknowledged and conceded. It would be difficult for Comey to ignore such evidence if Congress refers a perjury investigation.

I have little faith that anyone in government actually wants to prove criminal activity in government, but I do not believe that perjury would be impossible to prosecute -- if the DOJ was actually willing. But, no, they probably aren't.

It's not perjury if someone made a mistake.

But if her public false statements -- which are voluminous as Gowdy pointed out -- are open to using to prove intent, then she would have to claim to have made mistake after mistake after mistake. Reasonable doubt flies out the window under the weight of all those false statements.

It's easy to sweep our hands rhetorically and say "see, she lied." I wouldn't even disagree with that, except in degree and relevance. Of course, she lied.

But Mr. Gowdy knows all too well, political rhetoric does not play in an actual investigation or judicial proceeding.

Hand waving is not going to get the job done. Director Comey knows (and so does Mr. Gowdy) that a proby lawyer from a mail-order diploma mill could get Clinton off on what evidence actually exists.

a reply to: BlueAjah

I agree Comey did seem to misstate that during the second question regarding the Clinton Foundation. If they are investigating, more people other than Hillary is under their scope!

a reply to: xuenchen

He doesn't give two rats arses because he is an exiting president, so whatever he say and it could be lying out of his butt is for the benefit of the party.

As they have not other candidate really.

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: Gryphon66

By saying that Killary's poll numbers will skyrocket, after she's been caught LYING in a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY, you are implying that the American people are retarded, and will vote for that criminal nevertheless?

I refuse to accept that.

Not at all. I am stating a well-known fact. Politicians lie. All of the politicians you saw on that stage today LIE. Every politician you've ever known lies.

The American people know that. And they don't tend to like snipe hunts.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Occurs they will, do you expect not different, as long as the people been polled is all Hilary blind followers, she is going to look like a movie star.
but in reality she is a lemon, sour, old lemon.

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: CynConcepts

Yep, I got the impression that Comey might have been suggesting that they request an investigation of the perjury.

I agree, he sure repeated enough times that he had a narrow investigation and almost had to beg them to understand what needed to be done before he could pursue other more felonious avenues. I think he seemed frustrated in trying to get them to realize that a slap on the wrist for this email case was nothing...but hey...over here if we follow protocol of law is a more prudent justice.

Hell, even Capone was I prisoner due to tax evasion since there was not any direct evidence of any of his other crimes. Comey will find a way to ensure justice, why else be so unprecedently transparent. It is all there, just per policy, he needs the request to follow up on it.

I felt the exact same way... I cant recall a time where the FBI did anything like this (not saying it didnt happen I just cant recall) the more I rewatch it the more the only thing that makes sense is to whiff on the soft hit to go for the home run.

Watching the narrative change from (C)linton being innocent to all politicians lie is fascinating.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Gryphon66

I will say it one more time.
Go back and look.
Show me where I told the other poster that I will teach my children that politicians don't lie.
Do it.
A link to my actual post.... not what someone would have you think.
Link

You stated that you teach your children not to lie. Good parent.

You brought that statement into this political mud-wrestle. Distasteful, but that makes the statement fair game.

You're implying that Hillary Clinton is exceptional for telling lies, misrepresenting the truth, or god forbid, telling the truth to the best of her memory, and further, you're suggesting that the bastages up there on the stage today or Donald J. Trump aren't just as deceitful OR WORSE than anything Clinton has done.

So come down off the high-horse.

a reply to: Gryphon66

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think a good prosecutor could prove intent to perjure, now that I know her public false statements would have to be answered for, too.

I just don't think she could convince a jury they were all mistakes. Even you concede she's lied.

BUT, I will also concede that a defense attorney could get an acquittal, too -- but I do think s/he'd have to be a good one.

ETA: But, again, I don't think anyone in government really wants to see Hillary charged with anything. They like to keep their bubble intact.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Gryphon66

Occurs they will, do you expect not different, as long as the people been polled is all Hilary blind followers, she is going to look like a movie star.

but in reality she is a lemon, sour, old lemon.

May I just make a humorous comment and say you sound like you're doing a Yoda impression? LOL

Keep telling yourself that most of America believes exactly the way you do, Marg ... it worked out well in 2012, din't it?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Now it's not the topic if someone lied or not.

Killary BROKE MULTIPLE LAWS! SHE BROKE LAWS. Do I need to spell it for you?

By definition, that makes her a criminal. Deal with it

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: IAMTAT

Yep, Comey was sweating and looking taken aback during that line of questioning.

One thing we have seen from this is that the FBI did NOT fully investigate this. They took a very narrow approach, and ignored all of the other laws that were broken in the process of the use of this server and in the things that happened during the investigation.

exactly what I was thinking,they don`t even have a record of the interview they had with clinton. They did such a half ass investigation (either on purpose or by incompetence) that he probably is telling the truth that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute the case. What he isn`t saying is that no prosecutor could get a conviction based on the half ass investigation that we did.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Gryphon66

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think a good prosecutor could prove intent to perjure, now that I know her public false statements would have to be answered for, too.

I just don't think she could convince a jury they were all mistakes. Even you concede she's lied.

BUT, I will also concede that a defense attorney could get an acquittal, too -- but I do think s/he'd have to be a good one.

I concede she's lied. I concede Trey Gowdy has lied. Barack Obama, George W. Bush, George HW Bush, any politician anywhere. I concede Trump has lied.

The reason Clinton's perjury would be pursued is not to change anything, make anything better, redress grievances, or recover losses or damages ... the ONLY reason Clinton would be pursued on this is political.

I hope you can admit that.

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: Indigo5

You think someone couldnt prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she didn't know about thousands of emails not turned over?

Sure ..they could just cite the conclusion of FBI Director Comey after a 20M dollar investigation involving thousands of agents. ...He said in very plain terms that the emails they discovered not initially turned over were in "slack" or parts of caches that showed no evidence of intentional deletion, evasiveness or obstruction of justice. He said the emails could have been dumped there during server transitions or device failures (crashes).

That was the FBI's conclusion and they looked pretty hard with thousands of agents..

I think that is "reasonable doubt" and then some..

And again...that is not a political assessment...that's just the way this cookie crumbles.

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: Gryphon66

Now it's not the topic if someone lied or not.

Killary BROKE MULTIPLE LAWS! SHE BROKE LAWS. Do I need to spell it for you?

By definition, that makes her a criminal. Deal with it

Have I told you that you can't call her a criminal?

Everyone in that room today is a criminal, some with worse crimes than anything Clinton has done.

What's your point?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I implied no such thing.
My position.... lying is bad.
I do not condone anyone doing it.... even if they are my favorite politician.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Gryphon66

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think a good prosecutor could prove intent to perjure, now that I know her public false statements would have to be answered for, too.

I just don't think she could convince a jury they were all mistakes. Even you concede she's lied.

BUT, I will also concede that a defense attorney could get an acquittal, too -- but I do think s/he'd have to be a good one.

I concede she's lied. I concede Trey Gowdy has lied. Barack Obama, George W. Bush, George HW Bush, any politician anywhere. I concede Trump has lied.

The reason Clinton's perjury would be pursued is not to change anything, make anything better, redress grievances, or recover losses or damages ... the ONLY reason Clinton would be pursued on this is political.

I hope you can admit that.

It's not political for me in the way that I think you are using the term. I can admit that I am grateful to have at least one party on the side of addressing corruption in government.

I wish it was two though.

And I wish Bush & Co. were held responsible for a number of criminal acts, btw, long before now. But for purely political reasons, that just didn't happen.