Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which she clearly did. Either that or you are saying that she is so incompetent and brain damaged she is not able to discern her own words.
No, I'm saying she has a life of being a politician/lawyer, living with Slick Willie, careful how she words things. Perjury is actually one of the hardest crimes to prosecute and the example in Breitbart wouldn't work. The crime Comey didn't indict her for would be easier.
No, I'm saying she has a life of being a politician/lawyer, living with Slick Willie, careful how she words things. Perjury is actually one of the hardest crimes to prosecute and the example in Breitbart wouldn't work. The crime Comey didn't indict her for would be easier.
Which she clearly did. Either that or you are saying that she is so incompetent and brain damaged she is not able to discern her own words.
Again. We will eventually see what she told the FBI. That should put it to bed. If it is the same basic story she has told Congress and the public there is no basis for saying she was lying. If different that will show and Trump can have a field day with the differences.
Again. We will eventually see what she told the FBI. That should put it to bed. If it is the same basic story she has told Congress and the public there is no basis for her lying. If different that will show and Trump can have a field day with the differences.
Of course she lied to the American people, but that isn't perjury.
FBI interviews aren't conducted under oath, so that isn't perjury (and I don't know what she told them anyway).
She was under oath in front of the Bengazi hearings, so if there is perjurous testimony there, then there it is.
Now back to the topic:
I wondered why Comey made the decision he made from the position he occupies, when it clearly was a decision that Main Justice should have made. Then I figured it out.
As FBI director, his obligation is to gather all the evidence and give it to Justice so they can make the decision whether to pursue a prosecution. But he not only gathered the evidence that showed she met each and every element of the offense, he also went ahead and made Justice's decision for them. At first I thought it was because he used to be the Criminal AAG at Justice and used to make those decisions all the time.
And really, it was the right decision. Clinton did the bad thing, but the likelihood of a successful prosecution was nil. First, the case would have to be both indicted and tried in one of two heavily democratic districts. Second, Clinton hired those who helped her do the bad thing as her personal lawyers, thus insuring they could never testify against her. Third, if the government loses the case, they have to pay the defendant's legal bills. One of the things you have to consider when evaluating a case for prosecution is whether you will win. If not, don't prosecute. Happens every day.
Then I realized that Justice would never 'out' Clinton's behavior the way Comey - and only he - could. So he made a public statement that made it crystal clear that she violated the law, met the mens re called for in the statute, but that he could not encourage Justice to pursue a prosecution it was bound to lose.
So now voters go to the poll to vote for a president. If they vote for Clinton, they do so knowing what kind of person they are voting for: one who was extremely careless with the security of the US.
Again. We will eventually see what she told the FBI. That should put it to bed. If it is the same basic story she has told Congress and the public there is no basis for saying she was lying. If different that will show and Trump can have a field day with the differences.
Weren't you the same guy arguing a couple of months ago that she never sent classified email? We know for a fact she sent classified email. We know she tried to hide emails. It's not open for debate. Now you are arguing "yeah, but she didn't commit perjury."
She flat-out lied to the American public and she jeopardized national security. You support that?
Last edited by TrapperJohn; 07-06-2016 at 05:37 PM..
Of course she lied to the American people, but that isn't perjury.
FBI interviews aren't conducted under oath, so that isn't perjury (and I don't know what she told them anyway).
OMG, yes they are.
Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and Jake Sullivan, have been put on notice by the FBI that they should prepare to testify under oath as to their involvement in the handling of classified national security secrets on the Democratic front-runner’s private email server.
She was under oath in front of the Bengazi hearings, so if there is perjurous testimony there, then there it is.
Which is what I've been discussing BUT what I am alluding to reaches far beyond Hillary. Was it a coincidence that the Benghazi hearings ended just before we get this information? No, I do not believe it was.
Gowdy wanted no part in actually holding Hillary accountable for anything.
I wonder how much taxpayer money will be wasted on this debacle. If you vote for the Republicans be prepared for another war and a tax increase. They aren't the best with money despite their claims.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
