Softpanorama

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Contents Bulletin Scripting in shell and Perl Network troubleshooting History Humor

Perjury Investigation of Hillary Clinton

News US Presidential Elections of 2016 Recommended Links Hillary "Warmonger" Clinton Female Sociopaths Clinton Cash: Hillary Clinton links to foreign donors and financial industry Nulandgate
Perjury Investigation of Hillary Clinton Shadow IT Data Stealing Trojans Email snooping Beyond your cable modem - How not to do DOCSIS networks NIST Guidelines on Electronic Mail Security (dated February 2007) NIST guidelines for the Selection, Configuration, and Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) Implementations
Strategies of Defending Microsoft Windows against Malware Principle of Least Privilege Architectural Issues of Intrusion Detection Infrastructure in Large Enterprises Network Security Integrity Checkers DNS Spoofing Remote Syslog
Port Scanners Nmap Slightly Skeptical View on NIDS and Network-level Intrusion Prevention Honeypots and Other Deception-based Security Tools Introduction to Role-based Access Control Politically Incorrect Humor Etc

Legal analysts said that while it appeared unlikely that FBI. will find enough evidence to prosecute Mrs. Clinton on charges of lying to Congress. But there is enough evidence to  open investigation. That fact alone might be pretty damaging to her campaign (NYT, Jul 11, 2016)

Republicans have seized on a number of contradictions between what Mrs. Clinton told Congress about her private email server and what the FBI found in its investigation.

Mrs. Clinton told the House Select Committee on Benghazi, for instance, that she had turned over all her “work-related” emails to the State Department and that “nothing” in the more than 60,000 emails routed through her private server “was marked classified at the time I sent or received it.”

The FBI investigation found that, in fact, there were “thousands” of work-related emails that her lawyers did not turn over, and that a handful of emails were marked classified at the time — although the State Department now says they should not have been.

Still, it would be difficult for prosecutors to show that she intended to mislead Congress — a high legal bar — and that she should be criminally prosecuted for it.

In eight hours of testimony during a marathon 11-hour session of the Benghazi committee, Mrs. Clinton was careful to hedge a number of answers about her email system by saying that she was basing her statements on information from her lawyers.
 


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Oct 30, 2016] House Committee Chairmen Lay Out Case For Perjury Against Hillary

Aug 15, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
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.

"The FBI found, however, that Secretary Clinton's lawyers did not in fact read all of her emails-they relied exclusively on a set of search terms to identify work-related messages," Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote, before quoting from Comey's July 5 testimony:

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.

[Oct 30, 2016] Report Huma Abedin Doesnt Know How Her Emails Wound Up on Her Husbands Computer - Breitbart

Oct 30, 2016 | www.breitbart.com

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's top aide Huma Abedin said she doesn't know how her emails wound up on a device she said was her husband's computer, according to a person familiar with the investigation.

The person, who requested anonymity, said Abedin was not a regular user of the computer and her lawyers did not search it for materials, thinking no messages would be there even after she agreed to turn over her messages to the State Department for record-keeping, the Washington Post reported.

On June 28, 2016, Abedin swore under oath that she looked for all devices containing work information so the records could be given to the State Department, the Daily Beast reported.

In the sworn oath, she said she "looked for all the devices that may have any of my State Department work on it and returned - returned - gave them to my attorneys for them to review for all relevant documents."

Investigators found thousands of emails on Weiner's computer that they believe to be relevant to the Clinton investigation, according to federal law enforcement officials.

It is still unknown how the emails are relevant or whether or not they are significant.

Officials say it is possible that the messages could be duplicates of already investigated emails, but that will not be determined until a computer program goes through the emails to weed out the duplicates so officials can closely examine the emails for classified information.

[Oct 30, 2016] Former FBI Official Calls Bill, Hillary Clinton a Crime Family

Notable quotes:
"... "The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation," he said. "That's the problem. They never had a grand jury empanelled, and the reason they never had a grand jury empanelled, I'm sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that." ..."
"... Kallstrom blamed the FBI leadership under FBI Director James Comey as the reason the investigation was held back, but not the rest of the bureau. ..."
"... "The agents are furious with what's going on, I know that for a fact," he said. ..."
Oct 30, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
A former FBI official said Sunday that Bill and Hillary Clinton are part of a "crime family" and added that top officials impeded the investigation into Clinton's email server while she was secretary of state.

Former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom praised Donald Trump before he offered a take down of the Clintons in a radio interview with John Catsimatidis, The Hill reported.

"The Clintons, that's a crime family, basically," Kallstrom said. "It's like organized crime. I mean the Clinton Foundation is a cesspool."

Kallstrom, best known for spearheading the investigation into the explosion of TWA flight 800 in the late '90s, called Clinton a "pathological liar" and blamed Attorney General Loretta Lynch for botching the Clinton email server investigation.

"The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation," he said. "That's the problem. They never had a grand jury empanelled, and the reason they never had a grand jury empanelled, I'm sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that."

"God forbid we put someone like that in the White House," he added of Clinton.

Kallstrom blamed the FBI leadership under FBI Director James Comey as the reason the investigation was held back, but not the rest of the bureau.

"The agents are furious with what's going on, I know that for a fact," he said.

[Aug 14, 2016] Rand Paul Says Jail Hillary Clinton on Reilly Factor

Essentially Rand Paul accused Hillary of perjury before Congress that should be punished by five year imprisonment. He is the first senator that asked for her imprisonment.
August 11, 2016 | YouTube

cyberflea30

I love Rand Paul. Sad thing tho is Rand.. we the general public is think she has the entire government wrapped around her finger.

louis santiago

I know it, and that tells me one thing. The system creates the illusion that we have a say on who is president, but im starting to believe we don't, it's all a facade. It's all rigged, I think Hillary will be president, seems to me that either the democratic party is much more powerful or because of the fact they are running the administration it gives them leverage to call all thr shots, even our votes.

Look at what happened with Sander's votes, all rigged.

D Googolize

How obvious does it have to be when all the evidence of corruption is out there? Director Comey laying out all the evidence of numerous lies and not being able to prove intent is just obvious signs of bribery, threats or both. Same thing with the dirtbag Loretta Lynch not answering any questions in the press conference. How many damning emails will it take??

[Aug 01, 2016] Clinton Accused of Taking Down Congressional Website Calling for Perjury Indictment " by Dave Hodges

Notable quotes:
"... Dear Mr. Phillips: ..."
"... We write to request an investigation to determine whether Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton committed perjury and made false statements during her testimony under oath before congressional committees. ..."
"... While testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 7, 2016, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey stated the truthfulness of Secretary's testimony before Congress was not within the scope of the FBI's investigation. Nor had the FBI even considered any of Secretary Clinton's testimony. ..."
"... Director Comey further testified the Department of Justice requires a criminal referral from Congress to initiate an investigation of Secretary Clinton's congressional testimony. We are writing for that purpose. ..."
"... The evidence collected by the FBI during its investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email system appears to directly contradict several aspects of her sworn testimony. ..."
"... In light of those contradictions, the Department should investigate and determine whether to prosecute Secretary Clinton for violating statutes that prohibit perjury and false statements to Congress, or any other relevant statutes. ..."
"... Thank you for your attention to this important matter. ..."
"... During FBI Director Comey's testimony before Congress, he admitted that statements made by Clinton under oath were "not true" and that her handling of this nation's classified material was "extremely careless." ..."
investmentwatchblog.com
It is only one more scandal. The Congressional website which contained a call from 2 Congressmen to prosecute Hillary for perjury has mysteriously been taken down.

On July 11, Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) sent the following letter to US Attorney Phillps. I have been waiting for action on this item.

I went to the Congressional website where I expected to see an update and the site is down and has been down for 2 days. Does Hillary Clinton have that kind of power to erase this kind of evidence with regard to sociopathic criminality?

Here is the letter written by Chaffetz and Goodlatte:


Dear Mr. Phillips:

We write to request an investigation to determine whether Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton committed perjury and made false statements during her testimony under oath before congressional committees.

While testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 7, 2016, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey stated the truthfulness of Secretary's testimony before Congress was not within the scope of the FBI's investigation. Nor had the FBI even considered any of Secretary Clinton's testimony.

Director Comey further testified the Department of Justice requires a criminal referral from Congress to initiate an investigation of Secretary Clinton's congressional testimony. We are writing for that purpose.
The evidence collected by the FBI during its investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email system appears to directly contradict several aspects of her sworn testimony.

In light of those contradictions, the Department should investigate and determine whether to prosecute Secretary Clinton for violating statutes that prohibit perjury and false statements to Congress, or any other relevant statutes.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

During FBI Director Comey's testimony before Congress, he admitted that statements made by Clinton under oath were "not true" and that her handling of this nation's classified material was "extremely careless."


Clinton has escaped the prosecution the Congressmen called for based upon a technicality because she was not under oath when she was questioned. However, I have a source that said they strongly suspect Clinton's aids in taking down this Congressional website until the Democrats can get the above letter removed. You see, it's now to the point that even die-hard Democrats have had it with her criminality. One more revelation could be the tipping point for many of her supporters.

I obtained the above information from private sources and later from the following House of Representatives website .

Now, the website is mysteriously down. How convenient for Hillary that this website malfunction has taken place during the GOP convention where they could capitalize on the political fall-out from this letter to the US Deputy Attorney.

Do want to bet that the letter from the two Congressman to the US Deputy Attorney requesting an investigation into Clinton for perjury diappears when the website comes back up?

Here it is America, I could not make this stuff up. The following site has been down since yesterday.

United States House of Representatives

Site Under Maintenance

The site you requested is currently undergoing maintenance. Please try again later.

[Aug 01, 2016] Let Me Remind You Fuckers Who I Am

Medium

What the fuck is your problem, America??

I'm Hillary goddamn Clinton. I'm a political prodigy, have been since I was 16. I have an insane network of powerful friends. I'm willing to spend the next eight years catching shit on all sides, all so I can fix this fucking country for you. And all you little bitches need to do is get off your asses one goddamn day in November.

"Oh but what about your eeeemaaaaillls???" Shut the fuck up. Seriously, shut the fuck up and listen for one fucking second...

But you know what? I don't fucking care. If I gave two shits about the haters I would've dropped the game decades ago.

[Jul 17, 2016] Loretta Lynch Will NOT Charge Hillary Clinton With Perjury Conservative Daily

Notable quotes:
"... She didn't ..."
"... Contempt of Congress ..."
conservative-daily.com

Fellow Conservative,

Yesterday, the House of Representatives formally referred Hillary Clinton's testimony to the FBI for investigation into perjury/false statements under oath.

Hillary Clinton, as you well know, made no less than three false statements under oath during her previous Congressional testimony.

She declared she never sent any emails with information marked classified. She did .

She asserted that she handed over all of her work-related emails. She didn't .

And she claimed that her attorneys went through all of her emails before deciding what to turn over and what to delete. They didn't .

The FBI will now investigate and submit a recommendation to Loretta Lynch.

But after yesterday's joke of a hearing, does anyone really think that Lynch would prosecute Hillary Clinton? Lynch refused to answer at least 74 questions pertaining to the Clinton email scandal.

She was asked point-blank to explain her reasoning in declining to indict Hillary Clinton and each time, she just refused to answer.

Unfortunately, after yesterday's performance, it is clear that even if the FBI does find evidence that Hillary Clinton committed perjury or made false statements under oath – which is absolutely obvious – Lynch will protect the Clintons once again.

But there is a way to take Loretta Lynch out of the equation entirely. There is a way to ensure that a Grand Jury is impaneled and that both the FBI and DOJ would be powerless to stop it.

FaxBlast and tell Congress that it MUST file contempt charges against Hillary Clinton to send her perjury case directly to a Grand Jury!

When the House refers a matter to the FBI, there is no guarantee that anything will come of it. Technically, the FBI doesn't even need to accept the referral.

Even when there are so many clear lies and false statements, the Obama administration can still derail such an investigation at every level.

The same is not true for Contempt of Congress charges.

When Congress charges someone with Contempt, the law is actually written to take the DOJ and FBI pretty much out of the equation.

According to the law, the Attorney General has a "duty" to impanel a Grand Jury for action on a Congressional Contempt charge. The law does not allow the DOJ or FBI to insert themselves into the case if they don't agree with the findings. It the House votes to charge someone with Contempt of Congress, the Sergeant at Arms is instructed to have that individual arrested and, if necessary, is given the power to imprison someone in the Capitol Jail pending the Grand Jury's decision.

In 1983, the House of Representatives held Rita Lavelle, an EPA administrator, in Contempt of Congress for lying under oath. The Attorney General impaneled a Grand Jury, as the law requires, and Rita Lavelle was convicted and ultimately served three months of her six month sentence.

This isn't some obscure function that hasn't been used since the 1800s. This is a legitimate method for Congress to hold administration officials accountable without having to deal with corruption in the Executive Branch.

One floor vote. That's all it takes. One House of Representatives vote.

It takes 218 "yes" votes and then the House can force the Attorney General to impanel a Grand Jury. Just to put it in perspective, twenty-nine RINOs could vote with the Democrats and there would still be enough votes to hold Hillary in Contempt.

No more political interference… no more re-interpreting the law to get Hillary off the hook…

FaxBlast and DEMAND that Congress circumvent the corrupt Department of (in)Justice and formally charge Hillary Clinton with Contempt of Congress for her lying under oath!

Sincerely,

Max McGuire
Advocacy Director
Conservative Daily

[Jul 17, 2016] Did Hillary Clinton commit perjury, by lying about her emails, during the Benghazi hearing

Notable quotes:
"... The classified status of her emails was not her only lie under oath. She also testified that she had submitted all her work related emails to the FBI. Now it is apparent that was also a complete fabrication, as the FBI reports thousands of other work related emails retrieved from the recipient's servers. ..."
"... The biggest example of her intentional deception is that she testified that she only had one server and Comey said she had several. Since those are physical objects she had to know that she had more than one. To claim ignorance not only asserts that she didn't know simple math, but that as a former senator who sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee that she didn't understand what classified information meant, the same Hillary Clinton who earned her law degree from Yale. ..."
www.quora.com
Cary Aguillard, Opinions are like a**holes; everybody's got one and nobody wants to hear yours! 237 Views

She unquestionably lied under oath at the Benghazi hearings about the sending of classified emails through her personal server. Mrs. Clinton clearly stated that she sent no classified information through her emails. Period. Now we know this is a big, fat lie. Under sworn oath.

The classified status of her emails was not her only lie under oath. She also testified that she had submitted all her work related emails to the FBI. Now it is apparent that was also a complete fabrication, as the FBI reports thousands of other work related emails retrieved from the recipient's servers.

Multiple lies under oath. Perjury. If you or I distorted the truth to that extent under oath, they would lock us up and destroy the key. The time for perversion of justice in favor of this habitual criminal offender is over. If charges of perjury are not brought then our entire justice system will be proven corrupt in the eyes of America and the world. End this embarrassment, and let justice be served!

"All of my work related emails, yes." All that weren't erased and all the hard copies that were put into burn bags don't count by her reasoning. If she had nothing to hide why did her staff take the 5th so frequently? Of course she committed perjury. Drew McCormick , No, Hillary did not lie about Benghazi 91 Views

No. She instructed her lawyers to release all work related emails and they, based on the headings, separated out all of those that seemed to be work related. They then told her that they had released all her work related emails.

  1. Apparently the Lawyers did the job competently but not thoroughly, as the FBI did identify a few emails that should have been released.
  2. Since Hillary believed her Lawyers and their statements, she did not lie. She may have been mistaken, but it does not meet minimal standards for perjury.

A couple of points for those who didn't pay attention the last time a Clinton was baselessly charged: Lying is not perjury. It has to be material to the investigation in order to be perjury. Obviously this didn't meet that standard since none of her emails were informative to the case. The second is that being mistaken is not a lie. If a New York Times reader believed that there were extant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they would be mistaken, but their statements would not knowingly be false. When the British politicians stated that, however, they were lying.

Richard Warner, Author and researcher 122 Views

I believe she did. She certainly made false statements under oath, and I think there is sufficient evidence to show that she knowingly and intentionally made false statements. The continuous references to "marked" emails as a qualifier is used by her supporters as a safety net that is irrelevant since classified information is classified whether or not it is marked. Moreover, since so many emails were kept on her private servers they could not have been passed on to officials whose job it was to make markings.

The biggest example of her intentional deception is that she testified that she only had one server and Comey said she had several. Since those are physical objects she had to know that she had more than one. To claim ignorance not only asserts that she didn't know simple math, but that as a former senator who sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee that she didn't understand what classified information meant, the same Hillary Clinton who earned her law degree from Yale.

Does this mean that she will be recommended for an indictment, prosecution or any penalty? Probably not. She could probably order a hit squad and leaders of her party would protect her as her supporters would cheer her on.

[Jul 16, 2016] Did Hillary commit perjury?

03/28/2013 | www.wnd.com

TEL AVIV – Did former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton commit perjury when she claimed in a Senate hearing that she did not know whether the U.S. mission in Libya was procuring or transferring weapons to Turkey and other Arab countries?

The goal of the alleged weapons shipments was to arm the rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

Any training or arming of the Syrian rebels would be considered highly controversial. A major issue is the inclusion of jihadists, including al-Qaida, among the ranks of the Free Syrian Army and other Syrian opposition groups

During the recent hearings over the Obama administration's handling of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Clinton was directly asked about alleged U.S. weapons shipments out of Libya.

Clinton claimed she did not know whether the U.S. was aiding Turkey and other Arab countries in procuring weapons.

The exchange took place with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

Paul asked Clinton: "Is the U. S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?"

"To Turkey?" Clinton asked. "I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me."

Continued Paul: "It's been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that may have weapons, and what I'd like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?"

Clinton replied, "Well, Senator, you'll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is available."

"You're saying you don't know?" asked Paul.

"I do not know," Clinton said. "I don't have any information on that."

Clinton's claims seem to now be unraveling.

Confirming WND's exclusive reporting for over a year, the New York Times earlier this week reported that since early 2012, the CIA has been aiding Arab governments and Turkey in obtaining and shipping weapons to the Syrian rebels.

Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND have said U.S.-aided weapons shipments go back more than a year, escalating before the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi.

In fact, the Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND since last year describe the U.S. mission in Benghazi and nearby CIA annex attacked last September as an intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels in the Middle East, particularly those fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

The aid, the sources stated, included weapons shipments and was being coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

The specifics of the New York Times reporting, meanwhile, open major holes in Clinton's sworn claims to be in the dark about the alleged weapons shipments.

U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity told the Times that American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons and then helped to vet rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive.

The plan mirrors one the Times reported last month in a separate article that was proposed by Clinton herself. The Times described Clinton as one of the driving forces advocating for arming the Syrian rebels.

Last month, the New York Times reported Clinton and then-CIA Director David Petraeus had concocted a plan calling for vetting rebels and arming Syrian fighters with the assistance of Arab countries.

The Times report from earlier this week of U.S. arms shipments and vetting seems to be the Clinton-Petraeus plan put in action.

It may be difficult for most to believe the secretary of state was not aware that her alleged plan was being implemented, especially when arming the Syrian rebels is a serious policy with obvious major repercussions internationally.

Clinton is not the only one in hot water.

As WND reported yesterday, the New York Times report threatens the longstanding White House narrative that claims the Obama administration has only supplied nonlethal aid to the rebels.

The White House has repeatedly denied directly arming the rebels.

Recruiting jihadists

Days after the Benghazi attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, WND broke the story that Stevens himself played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Assad's regime in Syria, according to Egyptian and other Middle Eastern security officials.

Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad's forces, said the security officials.

The officials said Stevens also worked with the Saudis to send names of potential jihadi recruits to U.S. security organizations for review. Names found to be directly involved in previous attacks against the U.S., including in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately not recruited by the Saudis to fight in Syria, said the officials.

The latest New York Times report has bolstered WND's reporting, citing air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders describing how the CIA has been working with Arab governments and Turkey to sharply increase arms shipments to Syrian rebels in recent months.

The Times reported that the weapons airlifts began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanding into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows.

The Times further revealed that from offices at "secret locations," American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia. They have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive.

The CIA declined to comment to the Times on the shipments or its role in them.

The Times quoted a former American official as saying that David H. Petraeus, the CIA director until November, had been instrumental in helping set up an aviation network to fly in the weapons. The paper said Petraeus had prodded various countries to work together on the plan.

Petraeus did not return multiple emails from the Times asking for comment.

Both WND's reporting, which first revealed the U.S.-coordinated arms shipments, and the Times reporting starkly contrast with statements from top U.S. officials who have denied aiding the supply of weapons to the rebels.

Rebel training

It's not the first time WND's original investigative reporting on U.S. support for the Syrian rebels was later confirmed by reporting in major media outlets. Other WND reporting indicates support for the Syrian rebels that goes beyond supplying arms, painting a larger picture of U.S. involvement in the Middle East revolutions.

A story by the German weekly Der Spiegel earlier this month reporting the U.S. is training Syrian rebels in Jordan was exclusively exposed by WND 13 months ago.

Quoting what it said were training participants and organizers, Der Spiegel reported it was not clear whether the Americans worked for private firms or were with the U.S. Army, but the magazine said some organizers wore uniforms.

The training in Jordan reportedly focused on use of anti-tank weaponry.

The German magazine reported some 200 men received the training over the previous three months amid U.S. plans to train a total of 1,200 members of the Free Syrian Army in two camps in the south and the east of Jordan.

Britain's Guardian newspaper also reported U.S. trainers were aiding Syrian rebels in Jordan along with British and French instructors.

Reuters reported a spokesman for the U.S. Defense Department declined immediate comment on the Der Spiegel report. The French foreign ministry and Britain's foreign and defense ministries also would not comment to Reuters.

While Der Spiegel quoted sources discussing training of the rebels in Jordan over the last three months, WND was first to report the training as far back as February 2012.

At the time, WND quoted knowledgeable Egyptian and Arab security officials claimed the U.S., Turkey and Jordan were running a training base for the Syrian rebels in the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country's northern desert region.

Editor's note: Additional research by Joshua Klein

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/did-hillary-commit-perjury/#GD9uo2OOii2wJdpE.99

House Chairmen Request Perjury Investigation of Hillary Clinton By Michael W. Chapman

July 12, 2016 | cnsnews.com

(CNSNews.com) -- Given the testimony of FBI Director James Comey and statements made under oath by Hillary Clinton about her use of a personal email server as Secretary of State, two chairmen in the House of Representatives have sent a letter to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia requesting that he investigate whether Clinton "committed perjury and made false statements when testifying under oath before Congress."

In the July 11 letter, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) write to the Honorable Channing D. Phillips: "We write to request an investigation to determine whether former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton committed perjury and made false statements during her testimony under oath before congressional committees."

"While testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 7, 2016, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey stated the truthfulness of Secretary Clinton's testimony before Congress was not within the scope of the FBI's investigation," write the chairmen. "Nor had the FBI even considered any of Secretary Clinton's testimony."

"Director Comey further testified the Department of Justice requires a criminal referral from Congress to initiate an investigation of Secretary Clinton's congressional testimony," said Chaffetz and Goodlatte. "We are writing for that purpose."

"The evidence collected by the FBI during its investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email system appears to directly contradict several aspects of her sworn testimony," said the chairmen. "In light of those contradictions, the Department should investigate and determine whether to prosecute Secretary Clinton for violating statutes that prohibit perjury and false statements to Congress, or any other relevant statutes."

In a press release, Chaffetz and Goodlatte further note that they have requested FBI Director Comey to turn over "the FBI's full investigative file from its review of former Secretary Clinton's use of an authorized private email server."

In addition, Chariman Goodlatte has asked Director Comey, in a letter signed by more than 200 members of Congress, "demanding answers" regarding "the many questions surrounding his announcement that he does not recommend federal prosecution against former Secretary Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information through private email servers."

[May 20, 2015] Looks Like Hillary May Be Facing Two Perjury Charges

Notable quotes:
"... Clinton served as secretary of state from Jan. 2009 to Feb. 2013. The emails she sent with the "hrod17@clintonemail.com" were sent in 2011 and 2012, according to the documents released by the Times. ..."
May 20, 2015 | beforeitsnews.com

Emails published by the New York Times Monday indicate that Hillary Clinton used more than one private email address during her time as secretary of state, contradicting previous claims from the Democratic presidential contender's office.

Multiple emails show Clinton used account "hrod17@clintonemail.com" while serving in the Obama administration as secretary of state.

... ... ...

Clinton served as secretary of state from Jan. 2009 to Feb. 2013. The emails she sent with the "hrod17@clintonemail.com" were sent in 2011 and 2012, according to the documents released by the Times.

... ... ...

Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus tweeted Monday evening that the news proved Clinton "misled public about the use of only one secret email address."

Earlier this year, it was reported Clinton may have violated federal rules by exclusively using a personal email address to conduct all official government business while serving as secretary of state.