House Committee Chairmen Lay Out Case For Perjury Against Hillary Rodham Clinton To U.S. Attorney

Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, may have committed perjury in testimony before Congress, two separate U.S. House committee chairmen detailed late Monday.

In a letter from House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) to U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Channing Phillips, the two top House Republicans made their case that Clinton committed perjury.

Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote to Phillips:

On August 2, 2016, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik confirmed that you received the Committees’ request for an investigation regarding certain statements made by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her testimony before Congress and will ‘take appropriate action as necessary. To assist the investigation, this letter identifies several pieces of Secretary Clinton’s testimony that appear to implicate 18 U.S.C. §§1621 and 1001 the criminal statutes that prohibit perjury and false statements, respectively. The evidence collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) during its investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State appears to directly contradict several aspects of her sworn testimony, which are described in greater detail below.

Before detailing at least four specific instances in which Clinton allegedly committed perjury, the House Republicans explained the matter a bit further:

During a House Select Committee on Benghazi hearing on October 22, 2015, Secretary Clinton testified with respect to (1) whether she sent or received emails that were marked classified at the time; (2) whether her attorneys reviewed each of the emails on her personal email system; (3) whether there was one, or more servers that stored work-related emails during her time as Secretary of State; and (4) whether she provided all her work-related emails to the Department of State. Although there may be other aspects of Secretary Clinton’s sworn testimony that are at odds with the FBI’s findings, her testimony in those four areas bears specific scrutiny in light of the facts and evidence FBI Director James Comey described in his public statement on July 5, 2016 and in testimony before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 7, 2016.

The first of four main areas where Hillary Clinton allegedly perjured herself before the U.S. Congress was with her claim in sworn testimony that she never sent or received emails on her illicit home-brew email server—which was in violation of State Department guidelines, and according to FBI director James Comey “extremely careless.”

“With respect to whether she sent or received emails that were marked classified at the time, Secretary Clinton testified under oath to the Select Committee that she did not,” Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote to the U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C. “Specifically, during questioning by Rep. Jim Jordan, Secretary Clinton stated ‘there was nothing marked classified on my emails, either sent or received.’”

Chaffetz and Goodlatte further quoted from Clinton’s testimony by including this quote:

[M]any Americans have no idea how the classification process works.  And therefore I wanted to make it clear that there is a system within our government, certainly within the State Department . . . where material that is thought to be classified is marked such, so that people have the opportunity to know how they are supposed to be handling those materials . . . and that’s why it became clearer, I believe, to say that nothing was marked classified at the time I sent or received it.

The two House Committee chairmen detail in the letter to the U.S. Attorney for D.C. that Clinton, according to the FBI Director, was not telling the truth in that testimony before Congress:

The FBI, however, found several of Secretary Clinton’s emails did in fact contain markings that identified classified information therein. In Director Comey’s public statement on July 5, 2016, he said, ‘a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore the markings indicating the presence of classified information.’ When Director Comey testified on July 7, 2016, he specifically addressed this issue. Rep. Trey Gowdy asked, ‘Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified either sent or received.  Was it true?’ He said it was not. Director Comey also stated, ‘There was classified material emailed.’ Specifically, he stated that three documents on Secretary Clinton’s private server contained classified information clearly marked ‘Confidential.’ He further testified, ‘In the one involving ‘top secret’ information, Secretary Clinton not only received but also sent emails that talked about the same subject.’

The second claim on which Hillary Clinton appears to have been caught perjuring herself according to the two top House Republicans was with regard to her statements that her lawyers read all of her emails.

“With respect to whether her attorneys reviewed each of the emails on her personal email system, Secretary Clinton testified that her attorneys used search terms and reviewed every single email to identify any that were work-related and should therefore be returned to the Department of State,” Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote, before quoting directly from Clinton’s transcript from when she testified under oath:

Rep. Jordan:    But I’m asking how — I’m asking how it was done. Was

— did someone physically look at the 62,000 e-mails, or did you use search terms, date parameters? I want to know the specifics.

Mrs. Clinton:   They did all of that, and I did not look over their shoulders, because I thought it would be appropriate for them to conduct that search, and they did.

Rep. Jordan:    Will you provide this committee — or can you answer today, what were the search terms?

Mrs. Clinton:   The search terms were everything you could imagine that might be related to anything, but they also went through every single e-mail.


Rep. Jordan:    But I’m asking how — I’m asking how it was done. Was

— did someone physically look at the 62,000 e-mails, or did you use search terms, date parameters? I want to know the specifics.

Mrs. Clinton:   They did all of that, and I did not look over their shoulders, because I thought it would be appropriate for them to conduct that search, and they did.

Rep. Jordan:    Will you provide this committee — or can you answer today, what were the search terms?

Mrs. Clinton:   The search terms were everything you could imagine that might be related to anything, but they also went through every single e-mail.


The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.  It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

The third area where Hillary Clinton seems to have perjured herself according to the two House Committee chairmen is when she testified that she only used one server or device.

“With respect to whether there was one, or more servers that stored work-related emails during her time as Secretary of State, Secretary Clinton testified there was only one server,” Goodlatte and Chaffetz wrote to the D.C. U.S. Attorney, before pulling another transcript of congressional testimony:

Rep. Jordan: In March, you also said this: your server was physically located on your property, which is protected by the Secret Service. I’m having a hard time figuring this out, because this story’s been all over the place.  But — there was one server on your property in New York, and a second server hosted by a Colorado company in — housed in New Jersey. Is that right? There were two servers?

Mrs. Clinton:   No.

Rep. Jordan:    OK.

Mrs. Clinton:   There was a — there was a server…

Rep. Jordan:    Just one?

Mrs. Clinton: . . . that was already being used by my husband’s team. An existing system in our home that I used, and then later, again, my husband’s office decided that they wanted to change their arrangements, and that’s when they contracted with the company in Colorado.

Rep. Jordan:    And so there’s only one server? Is that what you’re telling me? And it’s the one server that the FBI has?

Mrs. Clinton: The FBI has the server that was used during the tenure of my State Department service.


Goodlatte and Chaffetz also wrote:

The FBI, however, found Secretary Clinton stored work-related emails on several servers. In Director Comey’s public statement, he said, ‘Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain.’ In Director Comey’s testimony on July 7, 2016, he stated that Secretary Clinton used several devices to send and receive work-related emails during her tenure as Secretary of State. He testified, ‘She used multiple devices during her four years as secretary of state.’

The fourth and final area where Clinton seems to have, according to Chaffetz and Goodlatte, perjured herself while under oath was during her claim that she provided all of her work-related emails to the Department of State.

“Finally, with respect to whether she provided all her work-related emails to the Department of State, Secretary Clinton testified to the Select Committee that she had,” Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote, before again pulling a transcript of Clinton’s testimony before Congress.

Mrs. Clinton: Well, Congressman, I have said repeatedly that I take responsibility for my use of personal e-mail. I’ve said it was a mistake. I’ve said that it was allowed, but it was not a good choice.  When I got to the department, we were faced with a global financial crisis, major troop decisions on Afghanistan, the imperative to rebuild our alliances in Europe and Asia, an ongoing war in Iraq, and so much else.  E-mail was not my primary means of communication, as I have said earlier. I did not have a computer on my desk. I’ve described how I did work: in meetings, secure and unsecured phone calls, reviewing many, many pages of materials every day, attending . . .

Rep. Jordan:    I — I — I appreciate (inaudible).

Mrs. Clinton: . . . a great deal of meetings, and I provided the department, which has been providing you, with all of my work-related e-mails, all that I had. Approximately 55,000 pages. And they are being publicly released.

Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote:

The FBI found, however, ‘several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014.’ In the course of its investigation, the FBI recovered ‘still others . . . from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.’ When Director Comey appeared before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 7, 2016, he confirmed that Secretary Clinton did not turn over all work-related emails to the FBI. He stated, ‘We found work-related emails, thousands, that were not returned.’



Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrapped their letter to the U.S. Attorney for D.C. by noting that the FBI’s findings prove Hillary Clinton was not telling the truth when she testified under oath before Congress.

“The four pieces of sworn testimony by Secretary Clinton described herein are incompatible with the FBI’s findings,” Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote.


http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/15/house-committee-chairmen-lay-case-perjury-hillary-rodham-clinton-u-s-attorney/

No perjury.....you folks are simply dense. Gee what happened to Roger Clemons and Michael Hayden......nothing......but keep spewing nonsense, it will not change the election results, or one person's vote....you see you really have to be stupid to not understand the threshold for perjury in Congress, and the nothing punishment for the same......another thread which announces to the world.....I am stupid.

I mean it would be like me posting that the White Sox are going to win the national league pennant. Some things need to be understood before posting, unless the only purpose is to create innuendo and unfounded legal remedies.

This will come to naught just as all the other persecutions of H. Clinton -- even when they're conducted by Republicans.

I'm sure nothing will come of it either... but there's no doubt whatsoever that she lied.

Why don't you leftists just admit that it doesn't matter? Trying to deny it is stupid. The transcript is clear.

The transcript is clear.

62k potential documents reviewed and as was disclosed on Bill Maher.......one document had the little C on it which was supposed to be classified......if that gives you clarity on Hillary Clinton's credibility, you really have no context or understanding how most of us conduct our lives........one more lynch mob which starts with the proposition that the Clintons did something wrong.......nothing after 25 years.......what is clear is your desperation. A women will be elected President.....Boo.

Oh... the gender card... yawn. Why did you bother with the diversion and denial?

You're perfectly comfortable with your dear leaders lying to you... we get it.

PkrBum wrote:I'm sure nothing will come of it either... but there's no doubt whatsoever that she lied.

Why don't you leftists just admit that it doesn't matter? Trying to deny it is stupid. The transcript is clear.

It doesn't matter to me. Just think if there had been email from the early 60's up until today, we'd want to hang them all.

She's been a liar her entire life. Time she got sent down the road like slick Willie

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/clinton-conspiracy-theories-kathleen-willey-chronicles

It's back. The anti-Clinton craziness of the 1990s. It was inevitable that the right-wing nuttiness of those days would return once Hillary Clinton officially acknowledged her presidential ambitions, but the mere prospect of the former first lady turned senator turned secretary of state seeking the White House has led to a premature—or perhaps preemptive—revival of the old Clinton tales from two decades ago. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a possible 2016 presidential candidate, kicked off the anti-Clinton nostalgia with a series of scolding references to Bill Clinton's affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Next GOP chairman Reince Priebus tweeted, "Remember all the #Clinton scandals...That’s not what America needs again." And the Republican party mounted a petition drive (to beef up its email list) that asserted "scandals and controversies follow the Clintons." Then Fox News upped the ante by booking Kathleen Willey, who has hinted (in a convoluted manner) that the Clintons were involved in the deaths of her husband and Vince Foster, a Clinton White House aide who committed suicide during the first year of Bill Clinton's presidency. Willey has also claimed that Bill Clinton groped her in the White House and suggested that the Clintons had her cats killed.

For those who lived through the conservative get-Clinton madness that culminated in Clinton's impeachment (and acquittal), this may seem like a bad acid flashback. Or a truly cheesy sequel. During the Clinton years, there were plenty of reasons to be critical of the first couple: Bill's calculating centrism, Hill's byzantine health care proposal that set back the cause of health care reform, Clinton campaign finance abuses, his workplace affair with Monica Lewinsky, scandalous pardons, and more. But conservative forces went far beyond the boundaries of reality in their ceaseless efforts to destroy the Clintons. During the 1992 campaign, some right-wingers whispered that Bill Clinton was a Manchurian candidate who had been brainwashed by the Russians when he was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford and took a student trip to Moscow. Others circulated fliers—this was before the internet hit big—claiming he had fathered the son of an African American prostitute. And there were claims that the Clintons were connected to a major drug-running operation that had been based in Arkansas and tied to a series of murders. Yes, murders. Dozens of murders.

As a draft-dodging, pot-smoking (sure, he inhaled), former long-hair McGovernik, Bill Clinton represented a side in the American political cultural civil war that had raged since the early 1960s, and many on the right could not accept that a citizen of that other America could become the leader of the land. Their disbelief and outrage led to insane outbursts of absurd accusations—and never-ending investigations (on and off Capitol Hill) that sought to uncover the darkest secrets of Bill and Hillary Clinton. This anti-Clinton crusade had two components: what might be called the official conspiracies that were probed by congressional gumshoes and independent counsels, and those that can be considered the outer-limits conspiracies. There was overlap (the Vince Foster suicide conspiracy, for example). But it all blurred into one long swirl that ended up discrediting much of the right and spurring an anti-anti-Clinton backlash that helped Bill Clinton become one of the most popular and successful former presidents and Hillary Clinton become a US senator.

So as once-dormant Clinton derangement syndrome reappears, it might be useful to sort out the swirl. Joe Conason, who cowrote with Arkansas journalist Gene Lyons The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton, offers a short breakdown of the official Clinton conspiracies:

Whitewater: Kenneth Starr spent roughly millions of dollars trying to find evidence of chicanery in a land deal that lost money for the Clintons—and his probe ended up demonstrating their innocence, like several earlier investigations. Having whispered to gullible journalists that he was about to indict Hillary in December 1996, Starr instead abruptly resigned as independent counsel in February 1997, knowing he had no case against her…

Travelgate: Feverish coverage of Hillary Clinton’s firing of several White House employees who handled press travel arrangements neglected some salient facts—such as the suspicious absence of accounting records for millions of dollars expended by the White House Travel Office, the Travel Office director's offer to plead guilty to embezzlement, and evidence that he had accepted lavish gifts from an air charter company. The First Lady and her staff didn't handle the controversy skillfully, but she had plenty of reason to suspect chicanery. And again, exhaustive investigation found no intentional wrongdoing by her.

Filegate: Sensational accusations that Hillary Clinton had ordered up FBI background files to target political opponents soon became a Republican and media obsession, with respectable figures warning that Filegate would be the Clintons' Watergate. "Where's the outrage?" cried Bob Dole, the 1996 Republican presidential nominee. Starr investigated the matter and found no evidence of wrongdoing. Finally, in 2010, a Reagan-appointed federal judge mockingly dismissed a civil lawsuit based on the allegations, saying "there's no there there."

As for the out-there conspiracies, perhaps the best representation of this genre was a documentary called The Clinton Chronicles. The 83-minute-long movie that was released in 1994 alleged that Bill Clinton had an extensive "criminal background" when he was elected president and that this "information" had been kept from voters. (That is, he had been elected on false pretenses.) The Bill Clinton of this movie was a sort of kingpin who had engaged in a multitude of corrupt activities while attorney general and governor in Arkansas; this included involvement in drug-money laundering. Of course, all this corruption continued in the White House. The film—overflowing with demonstrably false accusations—climaxed with the contention that Foster was murdered and that the White House mounted a cover-up to keep this a secret (and to keep a purportedly hidden relationship between Foster and Hillary under wraps). And it wasn't just Foster. The film noted that others with information about Clinton's crimes had died mysteriously. A plane crash. A suicide. People were afraid to tell the truth about the Clintons. The film concluded with this warning: "If any additional harm comes to anyone connected with this film or their families, the people of America will hold Bill Clinton personally responsible." An earlier version of the documentary, Circle of Power, had listed a number of suicides, accidental deaths, and unsolved murders and linked them to the Clintons.

What was most notable about both films was their No. 1 sponsor: Jerry Falwell, a television evangelist and head of the Moral Majority. In the 1990s, he was one of the most prominent leaders of the religious right. And on his weekly television show, he pitched these videos. A fellow who routinely hobnobbed with Republican presidents and politicians was explicitly endorsing the view that the current occupant of the White House was a maniacal and corrupt evildoer who had resorted to murder (on multiple occasions!) to obtain and preserve his power. And you could have proof of this, Falwell noted, for only $40 plus $3 for shipping.

Falwell was not alone. As Conason and Lyons noted in The Hunting of the President, other prominent conservatives were pushing the Clinton-as-killer meme (though no one called it a meme back then). The Council for National Policy, a secretive outfit that included the leadership of the conservative movement, ordered copies of the film for its members. GOP Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who while pursuing the Foster suicide theory had a watermelon shot in his backyard, invited the narrator of the film, an Arkansan named Larry Nichols, to meet with House Republicans. Nichols became a fixture on right-wing talk radio. William Dannemeyer, a former House GOPer who appears at the end of The Clinton Chronicles to raise money for further investigation, sent members of Congress a letter requesting they probe the mysterious deaths related to Clinton. The conservative editorialists at the Wall Street Journal half-defended the film. Criticizing the documentary for being loaded with unproven charges, they noted, "the Falwell tape and the controversy around it get at something important about the swirl of Arkansas rumors and the dilemma it presents a press that tries to be responsible." In other words, Clinton was no murderer, but there was value to presenting the overarching, rumors-fueled case that he was sleazy schemer.

How does being accused of murdering political foes (and friends) to cover up criminal deeds (and untoward affairs) compare to being accused of being a foreign-born secret Muslim and covert socialist with plans to destroy America? Political consumers of today who are too young to have experienced the visceral and extreme Clinton hatred of the 1990s might find it tough to imagine the excesses of that era, but they would recognize parallels with the anti-Obama hate machine. Then and now, Republicans in power whipped up investigations (Benghazi!) to satisfy their their angry and resentful base voters and knowingly associated with (and validated) those hurling even more outlandish accusations about a commander-in-chief much detested on the right. To an extent, the Clinton smearers paved the way for the Obama bashers, and some conservative agitators have dutifully served in both camps. Joseph Farah, a leading birther, was a champion of Foster conspiracy theories. In 2007, Fox News host Sean Hannity hosted a special episode on the "mysterious death" of Foster, hinting that the Clintons might have pulled off "a massive cover-up." Rush Limbaugh, too, has in the past suggested Hillary had Foster killed.

The number of false charges hurled in the 1990s at the Clintons could fill a book. (See Conason and Lyons'.) Like ordnance left over after a war, this ammunition remains ready to be used by conservatives who recoil at the thought of another Clinton in the White House. It doesn't matter that these bombs are duds. As Fox News showed this week, the Clinton antagonists of years ago and of today will reach for whatever ammo they can find to recreate the impression there was a swirl of Clinton corruption and push a politically useful mantra: Don't stop thinking about the past.

***********

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Tellthetruth wrote:She's been a liar her entire life. Time she got sent down the road like slick Willie

Her portrait is going to be hanging in a nice frame outside you squadron commander's office come January 20, 2017.

I think she'll need to fly Air Force One down to Hurlburt Field and call for a review of the troops stationed there. Ya'll can march by her reviewing stand and give your new CIC a sharp salute.

Even comey said her statements were lies. To chaffetz and gowdy

Tellthetruth wrote:Even comey said her statements were lies. To chaffetz and gowdy

We already know Gowdy is a posturing fool; here's a profile on Chaffetz:

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/06/jason_chaffetz_grandstanding_charlatan_what_you_need_to_know_about_the_gops_shameless_up_and_comer/


TUESDAY, OCT 6, 2015 01:02 PM CDT


Jason Chaffetz, grandstanding charlatan: What you need to know about the GOP’s shameless up-and-comer

The Planned Parenthood tormentor and Tea Party favorite tosses his hat in the Speaker's race ring. A primer

[...]


Chaffetz’s former boss Huntsman had this to say about his former chief of staff:

Follow
Jon Huntsman ✔ @JonHuntsman
.@GOPLeader McCarthy just got "Chaffetzed."Something I know a little something about. #selfpromoter #powerhungry
7:43 PM - 5 Oct 2015
260 260 Retweets 330 330 likes

[...]

**********

This tired tactic of supposed perjury against Hillary failed in Travelgate as most of America knows that the Republicans have no plan, no talented folks to execute the plan, because the special interests just want government destroyed. Part in Parcel of that attack on government is an attempt to neutralize those experienced and competent officials by a constant and never ending barrage of nonsense charges which deflect from the sad reality of the damage being done to America and who is responsible for the same.

No... she's much more that a liar... she's a fucking serial liar. She lies when the truth would've been easier.

If you like being lied to... she's your dear leader.

No, after a hundred million plus to prove she is a habitual liar, in each and every case the facts remain, folks are making up chit, and then starting over to create the next make up serial attack against Clinton since she advocated health care reform as first lady.......she is the Republicans worse nightmare.....an intelligent, tough woman who is going to seek compromise and real legislative goals for helping America.....not what the haters want.....they like you want to blow up government and make these tedious allegations that Hillary is not truthful..........you must think the American public is stupid.....President Clinton's popularity with Americans went through the roof after the fallacious attack dogs persisted, President Obama's numbers continue to soar as the attack dogs are shifting to Hillary, and Hillary is crushing the polls the more Americans realize the folks who cry wolf over and over again are not looking out for the herd, but trying to advance the wolf agenda.

2seaoat wrote:No, after a hundred million plus to prove she is a habitual liar, in each and every case the facts remain, folks are making up chit, and then starting over to create the next make up serial attack against Clinton since she advocated health care reform as first lady.......she is the Republicans worse nightmare.....an intelligent, tough woman who is going to seek compromise and real legislative goals for helping America.....not what the haters want.....they like you want to blow up government and make these tedious allegations that Hillary is not truthful..........you must think the American public is stupid.....President Clinton's popularity with Americans went through the roof after the fallacious attack dogs persisted, President Obama's numbers continue to soar as the attack dogs are shifting to Hillary, and Hillary is crushing the polls the more Americans realize the folks who cry wolf over and over again are not looking out for the herd, but trying to advance the wolf agenda.

Sorry guy, here is Comey saying her testimony to CONGRESS was full of lies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z8pnk2rvYo

In video.

Tellthetruth wrote:

2seaoat wrote:No, after  a hundred million plus to prove she is a habitual liar, in each and every case the facts remain, folks are making up chit, and then starting over to create the next make up serial attack against Clinton since she advocated health care reform as first lady.......she is the Republicans worse nightmare.....an intelligent, tough woman who is going to seek compromise and real legislative goals for helping America.....not what the haters want.....they like you want to blow up government and make these tedious allegations that Hillary is not truthful..........you must think the American public is stupid.....President Clinton's popularity with Americans went through the roof after the fallacious attack dogs persisted, President Obama's numbers continue to soar as the attack dogs are shifting to Hillary, and Hillary is crushing the polls the more Americans realize the folks who cry wolf over and over again are not looking out for the herd, but trying to advance the wolf agenda.

Sorry guy, here is Comey saying her testimony to CONGRESS was full of lies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z8pnk2rvYo

In video.

We saw Comey's announcement, which was out of the ordinary, to say the least. He's a Republican...we get it...he had to throw a bone to the attack dogs, lest they look like perfect fools...although Kevin McCarthy already spilled the beans on that one. Bottom line: NO CASE, NO CHARGES. Suck it up, losers.

Too funny.......the video edits out the FBI director's answers, and tries to create with six questions that Hillary was lying.....she was not......I listened to the congressman who was on tv who said the media is not covering the fact that the FBI director said that there was mislabeling by the senders of email concerning the requirement that a classified document requires the sender put the same in the header......the very emails she is suppose to be lying about were testified to be in non compliance of required headers....where is that header......and now for your folks who have no computer knowledge, when you have a private server, you back the same up with cloud or what are called mirror servers which capture data for back up, and there was that back up set up by her IT people which clearly the numbskulls here do not understand and expect her talking about the private server, to give a complete system design on backups.....she did not Lie.....the FBI director was not asked a follow up question as to the nature of those devices because the purpose of the questions was optics to frame her as a liar......sorry Pace.....keep beating that dead dog.....NO CRIMINAL wrongdoing.......and Americans with brains get it and the 35% Dixiecrats with no college and are afraid of powerful women and folks of color are not going to change their mind.....they have always hated Clinton, while college educated folks can see through this charade.....it is amusing and gets more amusing as we get closer to the election......the shrill cries of Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa she is a liar.....could not be more irrelevant.

“Why is it that the Department of Justice since 1917 has not used that gross negligence statute but charging it once in an espionage case?”

“That is the record of fairness.”

“You have to decide, do I treat this person against that record, and if I do, is that a fair thing to do ― even if you are not worried about the constitutionality of it. And in my judgment, no reasonable prosecutor would do that.”

“That would be celebrity hunting.”

“That would be treating this person differently than John Doe.”

“We did not find evidence sufficient to establish that she knew she was sending classified information, beyond a reasonable doubt, to meet the intent standard.” - James Comey

Kindly be S'ingTFU now.

2seaoat wrote:No perjury.....you folks are simply dense.  Gee what happened to Roger Clemons and Michael Hayden......nothing......but keep spewing nonsense, it will not change the election results, or one person's vote....you see you really have to be stupid to not understand the threshold for perjury in Congress, and the nothing punishment for the same......another thread which announces to the world.....I am stupid.

During a House investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private, unsecured email server during her tenure as secretary of State, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) ripped apart FBI Director James Comey Thursday morning for publicly stating there was a lack of sufficient evidence to prosecute the presumptive Democratic nominee.
During their exchange, Comey admitted that Clinton, despite her claims of innocence, shared classified information from multiple devices and failed to turn over all of her work-related emails after she was ordered to do so.
GOWDY: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received classified information over her private e-mail. Was that true?

COMEY: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent —

GOWDY: So it was not true?

COMEY: That’s what I said.

GOWDY: OK. Well, I’m looking for a little shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was not marked classified on her e-mails either sent or received, was that true?

COMEY: That’s not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.

GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said ‘I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail, there is no classified material.’ Was that true?

COMEY: There was classified material e-mail.

GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said she used just one device. Was that true?

COMEY: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of State.

GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said all work-related e-mails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?

COMEY: No. We found work-related e-mails, thousands that were not returned.

GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said neither she nor anyone else deleted work-related e-mails from her personal account. Was that true?

COMEY: That’s a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related e-mails in — on devices or slack space, whether they were deleted or whether when a server was changed out something happened to them. There’s no doubt that the work-related e-mails that were removed electronically from the — the e-mail system.

GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the e-mails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the e-mail content individually?

COMEY: No.

In a later exchange with Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) Comey said Clinton wasn’t sophisticated enough to understand what information was classified and what wasn’t.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/07/watch-rep-trey-gowdy-rip-apart-fbi-director-james-comey-about-hillary-clinton/

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/transcript-james-comey-clinton-email-225103