To the lawyers here. Did she commit perjury?

[VITE1]

She swore , under penalty of perjury, that ALL Emails related to her work were turned over. She lied.

Why is she still walking the streets when the FBI has uncovered nearly 15,000 emails she did not turn over that were work related?




FBI found nearly 15,000 new Hillary Clinton emails - Washington Times


Excerpt

The Obama administration acknowledged Monday that the FBI found at least 14,900 more email messages former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton never turned over to the government, and officials are facing intense pressure to release them ahead of November’s election.


A federal judge ordered the State Department to speed up the process, and the Republican National Committee said the administration should strive to release an initial set of the secret emails within a month, or when the first states conduct early voting

.

[boracayjohnny]

Of course. The thing is, though, she has too many hookups/black mail/IOUs/etc to ever be prosecuted. Prosecute her and I'll gladly be wrong.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by boracayjohnny

Of course. The thing is, though, she has too many hookups/black mail/IOUs/etc to ever be prosecuted. Prosecute her and I'll gladly be wrong.

[GentleBen]

Also, keep in mind that the Washington "Powers That Be" want to keep their jobs if at all possible.

For instance, FBI Director James Comey was appointed Director in September 2013. This position has a maximum of 10 years due to term limits imposed by Congress and he wants to be able to serve all of it - otherwise why the mealy-mouthed response on Ms. Clinton's e-mail servers?

And while the current Attorney General, Ms. Loretta Lynch, will not be retained unless Mr. & Mrs. Clinton are elected she also would like to remain in that unfortunate situation.

[Olustee bus]

I say she could not be charged and here is why. First, it must be proved that she had intent to lie under oath. A federal judge will rule that she did not intend to lie under oath as she did not intend to be called upon to testify. Because she did not intend to testify, she had no intent to lie under oath.

[Shrike6]

" ... That were or potentially were Federal records..."
Lawyers always leave themselves a back door.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Olustee bus

I say she could not be charged and here is why. First, it must be proved that she had intent to lie under oath. A federal judge will rule that she did not intend to lie under oath as she did not intend to be called upon to testify. Because she did not intend to testify, she had no intent to lie under oath.

The "Oh, I had no intent" defense. Apparently that only works for politicians. Like Teddy and Hillary.

[Cybercowboy]

Huma did not have an account, she had many accounts. So many that one of the people seeking favors complained about the confusion of trying to figure out which one of her many different email addresses on Clinton's server were for what sort of rent-seeking.

The mere fact that Hillary even had used her own server to host emails with government business broke State Department rules. When confidential and classified information was uploaded to that server by pasting it in from government secure servers to unsecure email clients, that broke federal law, feloniously.

[Cybercowboy]

And then there is this:

NEW YORK – Judicial Watch’s release this week of 725 pages of State Department emails involving Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin demonstrates the Obama administration considers a large percentage of the emails sent through Clinton’s private server too sensitive for Congress or the American public to read.

Of the 725 pages, more than 250 pages were 100 percent redacted, many with “PAGE DENIED” stamped in bold.

Judicial Watch said the new cache includes previously unreleased email exchanges in which former Abedin “provided influential Clinton Foundation donors special, expedited access to the secretary of state.”

Judicial Watch added that in many instances, the preferential treatment provided to donors was at the specific request of Clinton Foundation executive Douglas Band.

Now more than ever, Bill and Hill are “Partners in Crime.” Jerome Corsi reveals “The Clintons’ scheme to monetize the White House for personal profit.”

“The Abedin emails reveal that the longtime Clinton aide apparently served as a conduit between Clinton Foundation donors and Hillary Clinton while Clinton served as secretary of state. In more than a dozen email exchanges, Abedin provided expedited, direct access to Clinton for donors who had contributed from $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation,” Judicial Watch said in a statement announcing the release.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

“In many instances, Clinton Foundation top executive Doug Band, who worked with the Foundation throughout Hillary Clinton’s tenure at State, coordinated closely with Abedin.”

100 percent redaction

Previous releases of Clinton emails have forced the Obama administration to admit highly sensitive State Department information was transmitted over Clinton’s private email server.

On July 7, Charles McCullough, the inspector general of the intelligence community for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, in testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, admitted his office did not have the security clearances required to read the emails transmitted over Clinton’s private email server that Congress was demanding to see.

If only Nixon got this treatment. Congress could have been totally left in the dark, he would have never been impeached, etc.

[lspencer534]

Originally Posted by Olustee bus

I say she could not be charged and here is why. First, it must be proved that she had intent to lie under oath. A federal judge will rule that she did not intend to lie under oath as she did not intend to be called upon to testify. Because she did not intend to testify, she had no intent to lie under oath.

Let me make it clear at the outset that I do not practice criminal law and, therefore, I'm no an expert on it. I do know that the definition of perjury that you are using (intent to lie under oath) was changed in 1970 to merely having knowledge that the testimony is false.

The only defense I know of is the retraction defense: If, during the proceeding in which the false statement was made, the person admits to the falsity of the statement before it is evident that the falsity has been or will be exposed, and as long as the falsity does not affect the proceeding substantially, prosecution will be barred.

[Cybercowboy]

Originally Posted by Olustee bus

I say she could not be charged and here is why. First, it must be proved that she had intent to lie under oath. A federal judge will rule that she did not intend to lie under oath as she did not intend to be called upon to testify. Because she did not intend to testify, she had no intent to lie under oath.

Then how does that square with this?

Long story short, she used special software designed to delete the emails, hide the fact they were ever there, and then make absolutely sure they can't be recovered from that deleted and hidden state.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Cybercowboy

And then there is this:



If only Nixon got this treatment. Congress could have been totally left in the dark, he would have never been impeached, etc.

When Nixon TRIED to use the IRS to go after political enemies his Hard core conservative support turned on him en mass.

When the Obama administration has been caught and admitted to using the IRS and other federal agencies to go after political enemies and then stonewalled the investigation the left say "Elections have consequences".

Party over country.

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

Did she commit perjury?

HOO CARES?

She's exempt from all the things the little people like you and are held accountable for. And the media? Yeah, there's been plenty of media bias in the past but nothing even approaching the shit that's going on now with Trump. The court of public opinion doesn't matter one damn bit about this email situation. They're too busy derailing Trump's campaign.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Thomas

HOO CARES?

She's exempt from all the things the little people like you and are held accountable for. And the media? Yeah, there's been plenty of media bias in the past but nothing even approaching the shit that's going on now with Trump. The court of public opinion doesn't matter one damn bit about this email situation. They're too busy derailing Trump's campaign.

But you'd still do her , right?

[mrvette]

Know what if totally funny to ME??? the fact that I could wipe any hard drive so clean not no one can recover shit....gimme a hour or less.....


HOW?? easy....hold a strong permanent magnet next to the spinning disc, and wipe it in/out along the circumference....

OR put it on an old reel-reel tape bulk eraser, used to wipe out audio tapes from generations ago.....I still have mine....it's 110 vold powered, and you can hear the buzz from across the road, and the drives/tapes/what EVER will be wiped totally clean in about one spin through.....so remove the drive from the computer, and wipe it......done.....

I know damn well I correct, and think it's funny that it is somehow some such deep dark secret that these modern computer guys dunno how to do that......

[Bill]

Originally Posted by mrvette

Know what if totally funny to ME??? the fact that I could wipe any hard drive so clean not no one can recover shit....gimme a hour or less.....


HOW?? easy....hold a strong permanent magnet next to the spinning disc, and wipe it in/out along the circumference....

OR put it on an old reel-reel tape bulk eraser, used to wipe out audio tapes from generations ago.....I still have mine....it's 110 vold powered, and you can hear the buzz from across the road, and the drives/tapes/what EVER will be wiped totally clean in about one spin through.....so remove the drive from the computer, and wipe it......done.....

I know damn well I correct, and think it's funny that it is somehow some such deep dark secret that these modern computer guys dunno how to do that......

I could do that in under two minutes with a blender and a half gallon of water. I'm not guaranteeing the hard drive could be reused, though.

[snide]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

I could do that in under two minutes with a blender and a half gallon of water. I'm not guaranteeing the hard drive could be reused, though.

Will It Blend? | Presented by Blendtec

[MrPeabody]

"On information and belief" is a loophole you could sail an aircraft carrier through.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by VITE1

She swore , under penalty of perjury, that ALL Emails related to her work were turned over. She lied.

.

Read point #1 again. Weasel, weasel, weasel.... I believe that all.... weasel, weasel, weasel.
Nothing more than "I know I'm lying, so I'll merely say that to the best of my knowledge they were all turned over" That entire statement is pointless and worth less than the paper upon which it's written.

[ApexOversteer]

Originally Posted by Thomas

HOO CARES?

She's exempt from all the things the little people like you and are held accountable for. And the media? Yeah, there's been plenty of media bias in the past but nothing even approaching the shit that's going on now with Trump. The court of public opinion doesn't matter one damn bit about this email situation. They're too busy derailing Trump's campaign.

They don't get it. They're still laboring under the delusion that there is an election coming in November.

Its an INSTALLATION, people, not an election.

Hitler was elected fair and square, Hillary has to cheat.