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.
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
originally posted by: Indigo5
You do realize that there is nothing she needs to be Pardoned for? And as has been made clear a perjury investigation is an absolute lost cause with near zero chance of any indictment and near impossible to prove. People have said MUCH more "untrue" things to congress than a 3/30,000 email recollection and not got indicted. It would be like prosecuting someone for inaccurately recalling what they ate for breakfast on Dec 4th 2010.
Not necessarily. That's why I found Gowdy's questioning so interesting. He discussed using 'false exculpatory statements' to prove intent.
originally posted by: marg6043
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: butcherguy
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: butcherguy
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: butcherguy
The agency probably owns it because their asset (read spy) gathered the intelligence.
There was only one email with Human Intelligence and that originated from a Private Intelligence Service run by Blumenthal...so that's not it.
The point is that the IG can't even tell the chairman of the committee which agency it is.... let alone what the info is.... it is that secret.
In a public hearing? That seems normal.
Again, missing the point. . The IG can't even tell Congress, behind closed doors..... and Hillary was sharing it with people that had no clearance.
Anyway, you know how many humint emails there were.... what about the 22 that can't be released in any form.... what do you know about them???
originally posted by: neo96
originally posted by: Jonjonj
Watching the narrative change from (C)linton being innocent to all politicians lie is fascinating.
Funny I think.
'ALL politicians lie' is an admission that CLinton LIED.
For which the CRIME of perjury exists that is a FELONY.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: neo96
Do you really want to put Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders in the White House that badly Neo?
Is it worth it, assuming that Clinton was actually found guilty of anything (and she wouldn't be)?
Think hard.
originally posted by: introvert
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.
originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Gryphon66
Hillary did nothing wrong because everyone else lies.
Everyone else doesn't lie to Congress.
Everyone else isn't running for POTUS.
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.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: butcherguy
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.
I don't condone anyone lying either, for the record, and you have my apology for bringing your kids into this mess, even though you did it first. I am sorry.
What offends my sense of right-and-wrong is that you and others who agree with you are pretending that your zeal to pursue Clinton for "lying" is related to anything else but your political agenda. You (and others) are participating in this faux morality play here ... when the only fact that is quite obvious is that you all "hate" Hillary Clinton and you would support anything, anytime for any reason to GET her ... you dont' care about jurisprudence, or what is morally right, or any of the rest of the virtues you lot are trying to pretend to.
You're a bunch of damned hypocrites ... THAT'S my issue here.