Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
News Feeds

Congress urges feds to scrutinize Hillary's lies under oath

Recommended Posts



Two committees in Congress are pursuing perjury allegations against Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, dispatching to the Department of Justice their claims that at least four times she lied under oath.


The action comes from House Oversight and Government Reform and the House Judiciary committees, which sent to the federal prosecutors evidence of four instances members say Clinton lied under oath about her private email server and setup that she used while U.S. secretary of state.


The DOJ, through its chief, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, earlier took no action on evidence Clinton used her private and unsecured system for classified emails even though the FBI investigated and concluded that Clinton was “extremely careless” with classified national security information.


Roll Call classified the congressional action as “criticism from Republicans.”


The congressional letter also outlined how Clinton allegedly perjured herself during the October 22, 2015, Benghazi hearing before the House Select Committee on Benghazi.


Hillary for prosecution, not president! Join the sizzling campaign to put Mrs. Clinton where she really belongs


The letter to Channing Phillips, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, followed one from several months ago asking the DOJ to review the instances of possible perjury.


At that time, “Assistant Attorney General Peter J. Kadzik responded in an August 2 letter saying that the department was reviewing the information and would ‘take appropriate action as necessary,'” the report said.


The new letter, from Rep. Jason Chaffetz, of the Oversight and Government Reform panel, and Rep. Robert. W. Goodlatte, of the Judiciary panel, both Republicans, explained their information was to help with that investigation.


Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND’s Email News Alerts!


“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,” they said.


For example, FBI Director James Comey testified that Clinton’s statement was not true when ahe claimed that, regarding the contents of her private email system, “There was nothing marked classified on my emails, either went or received.”


Roll Coll reported a second example was Clinton’s claim her attorneys reviewed every single email to identify those related to work. But Comey confirmed Clinton’s lawyers didn’t read the emails, relying instead of header information.


Further, Clinton said she used one private server, a statement contradicted by Comey, who said there were several, and she claimed she gave the government all work-related emails, but Comey said the FBI found thousands more that were not returned.


Fox reported the letter said, “The four pieces of sworn testimony by Secretary Clinton described herein are incompatible with the FBI’s findings.”


The process now, a retired FBI executive said, will be, “They look at the transcript of the testimony they provided in light of what they know to be, suspect to be the truth. They investigate both sides and take the aggregate and turn it over to the prosecuting authority for a decision.”


Steven Pomerantz told Fox, “Since the director (Comey) already established what she (Clinton) said and the investigation is complete, it would be a relatively simple matter to make a decision about perjury… given the history of this, it’s hard to say – it would seem to me a matter of weeks not months in this case.”


A conviction for perjury can lead to a fine or jail time.


Clinton’s campaign, meanwhile, has claimed that Comey’s statements vindicated Clinton.


“In his testimony … Comey has reconciled most every apparent contradiction between his remarks Tuesday and Clinton’s public statements,” Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon said on Twitter.


Earlier this summer, WND reported on plans by members of Congress to ask for an investigation into whether Clinton lied under oath to the Benghazi committee.



When the FBI interviewed her about her email, Comey confirmed, she was not under oath, providing a basis for Comey to state, when asked whether Clinton lied, “To the FBI? We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI.”


At the time Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., who chaired that committee, asked Comey a series of questions, eliciting responses that what Clinton stated was not true.


Asked about her claim there were no classified emails, Comey said, “That is not true.”


“Secretary Clinton said she used just one device. Was that true?” asked Gowdy.


“She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state,” said Comey.


Asked about the truthfulness of her statement she had returned all work emails to the government, Comey said, “No. We found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned.”


Columnist Andrew Napolitano had asked last year whether the U.S. was giving the presidency to a “perjuror.”


“Perjury is lying under oath. Misleading Congress is criminal and consists of testimony that employs deceptive language so as to create an untruthful impression. Bad acts constitute repeated behavior demonstrating moral turpitude – usually a pattern of deception,” he wrote.


“The FBI agents surely heard Clinton mislead Congress when she answered a hard question about arms going to rebels by saying ‘I think the answer is no’ and again when she answered a question about arming private militias by saying it may have been considered but wasn’t ‘seriously’ considered. And they heard her directly commit perjury when she was asked whether she knew about our country’s supplying arms to Libyan rebels directly or indirectly and she answered, ‘No,'” he wrote.


“How could she answer ‘no’? She not only knew about the sending of arms to rebels but also personally authored and authorized it. How could she answer ‘no’? The FBI and CIA advised her – in documents that are now public – that U.S. arms were making their way to known al-Qaida operatives. How could she answer ‘no’? This reached a crisis point when some of those operatives used their American-made weapons to murder U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens at the U.S. Mission in Benghazi.”


Hillary for prosecution, not president! Join the sizzling campaign to put Mrs. Clinton where she really belongs


Continue reading...

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this