world

Clinton aides to be questioned under oath on emails, judge orders

35 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2016.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

35 Comments
Login to comment

Will they lie for Hillary under oath? Are they that loyal? Will Hillary herself be honest when the day arrives?

0 ( +6 / -6 )

MarkG Answers to your questions, yes, yes, NO.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

If Hillary lies than she is in trouble for perjury again. The FBI Director is somebody who cares a great deal about national security and with the body of evidence they already have, he really has no choice but to refer this for indictment.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Is it too late to bring Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and Carl Rove to justice?

2 ( +8 / -6 )

If Hillary lies than she is in trouble for perjury again.

Again?

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Laguna...Powell, Rice, and Rove did not pass sensitive information like Hillary has. They did not publicly deny using private servers either like Hillary has. Hillary has abused her position and the global public. As China and Russia increased each of their respective hacking knowledge Hillary kept on going. Very irresponsible and reckless.

Only a few months ago she laughed about the private emails as "wedding planning" and other no risk use. The whole time she knew it was more than that. She played the bluff and the FBI called her on it. Her bad.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Liz: If Hillary lies than she is in trouble for perjury again.

Strangerland: Again?

Just google: Hillary perjury

First page of hits are all from Sept./Oct. 2015, re Benghazi hearings.

But I know, right? The idea of the Obama administration investigating itself is laughable. How much trouble could she be in?

https://thehornnews.com/perjury-hillary-caught-lying-in-benghazi-testimony/

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

She says she always tried to tell the truth (like it's so hard)

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/campaign-2016-hillary-clinton-ive-always-tried-to-tell-the-truth/

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Yea, trying to tell the truth and beeing truthfull are two different animals.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Hillary Clinton: 'I Don't Believe' I Have Ever Lied about anything

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-i-don-t-believe-i-have-ever-lied-n521776

IIRC Hillary was fired from the Watergate investigation by the Special Prosecutor for falsifying document evidence.

Her body language on these questions is fascinating. No wonder she loses 95% to 5 on the trustworthy issue.Pretty cool of Pelley to even go there nevertheless. I think she’s done for in the long run, but time will tell.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Sorry, where has any inquiry or investigation concluded that she lied? The article turbostat linked to was grasping at best.

IIRC Hillary was fired from the Watergate investigation by the Special Prosecutor for falsifying document evidence.

Sources please.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Strangerland: Sorry, where has any inquiry or investigation concluded that she lied? The article turbostat linked to was grasping at best.

Lie #2:

https://thehornnews.com/perjury-hillary-caught-lying-in-benghazi-testimony/

... Lie #2 — Clinton said “there was a lot of conflicting information” about who was behind the attacks, in an effort to defend early attempts to link the violence to YouTube videos and other factors.

The facts say otherwise. Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan produced an email Clinton sent to her daughter, Chelsea, the night of the attack where Clinton said it had been committed by al-Qaeda-linked terrorists.

And in a conversation with the Egyptian prime minister the next day, Clinton said she knew the online videos had nothing to do with the violence, and that it was a planned attack.

“State Department experts knew the truth, you knew the truth, but that’s not what the American people got,” Jordan said. ...

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The so-called 'evidence' used to determine she was lying, doesn't conclusively prove she was lying. There are all sorts of scenarios in which there was conflicting evidence and she also sent out the email in question.

Which is why I said that site is grasping at best.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Sorry, where has any inquiry or investigation concluded that she lied? The article turbostat linked to was grasping at best.

Do you need an investigation when she said, "there is no classified material" on her email server. That was a lie. Yeah she wasn't under oath but it was still an outright lie. When this claim was proven to be false she changed her story and claimed ignorance - that she didn't know those 1,700 classified emails were confidential, nor those 22 top secret emails were there, or the handful or more classified as special access. Someone she didn't know they were classified. But it was her job to know they were classified and ignorance of the law is no defense. She even instructed one of her aides to strip off the classification from a document and send it to her non-secure.

Who knows what she is going to tell the FBI once they complete investigating the server, her aides, and finally interview her under oath. She will probably ask "what the meaning of the word is - is". She may just say "what difference does it make - at this point". That's her attitude. The attitude of the entitled, the elitist, those that think they are better than the average citizen. Sorry, that doesn't fly.

Hillary is a national security disaster second only to Snowden. I hope she is frog marched in hand cuffs on prime time television. Will it happen? Obama will do whatever he can to get her off the hook - just as Lois Lerner got away with politicizing and corrupting the IRS.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Is it too late to bring Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and Carl Rove to justice?

For what? Oh, Holder tried that, a lawyer, liberal and a Democrst through and through and he has to conclude, there was No evidence of any wrongdoing on their part.

The idea of the Obama administration investigating itself is laughable. How much trouble could she be in?

BINGO!

Sorry, where has any inquiry or investigation concluded that she lied? The article turbostat linked to was grasping at best.

If the Feds could have gotten her HD, by the where are they? Oh, that's right, they went missing..... Sorry, the latest poll came out today, her untrustworthiness is at an all time high and that's not good at all. Again, if you libs think this is an automatic coronation, you guys keep making these tragic predictions.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Is it too late to bring Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and Carl Rove to justice?

That's of no significance. Neither of them are running for the presidency. Wow what a race- Hillary being investigated by the FBI, her aids being questioned in a federal court while the "other" guy is a socialist.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Hillary's march to the White House may (hopefully) take a detour to the Big House, as well deserved.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

One questioned on the use of an email sever, while the other one claiming "torture" is the mean to solve problems...wonder which one is the most dangerous.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Strangerland: The so-called 'evidence' used to determine she was lying, doesn't conclusively prove she was lying. There are all sorts of scenarios in which there was conflicting evidence and she also sent out the email in question.

Ummm, no.

At the time State was telling people the attack was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islam movie made in the USA, the Secretary of State was telling her daughter it was al-Qaeda and telling the Egyption prime minister that the videos had nothing to do with it.

But at the Benghazi hearings she kept going with the 'conflicting evidence' excuse.

Why did she even need to lie after the attack? Why couldn't she just tell us the truth? Is it the United States Department of State, or is it the United States Department of Administration-in-Power Public Relations?

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

LoL@ Frederic Bastiat

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

The "Banghazi! Syndrome" is uniquely restricted to Republicans and manifests itself in a curious way: sudden hysteria over self-fulfilling prophesies that never actually fulfill. This is a case in point. Judicial Watch is such a well-known right-wing organization that Googling its name instantly prompts search suggestions such as "Benghazi" and "Obama" (and "Obama birth certificate," of course). The organization accuses Hillary of conspiracy, and the District Court Judge authorized them to submit a plan for “narrowly-tailored discovery.”

Good luck with that. Their case will be laughed out of court for very sound legal reasons, and this outbreak of Benghazi Syndrome will vanish from everyone's mind except those deeply infected just as past outbreaks have. It's almost enough to make you feel sorry for them.

1 ( +4 / -4 )

At the time State was telling people the attack was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islam movie made in the USA, the Secretary of State was telling her daughter it was al-Qaeda and telling the Egyption prime minister that the videos had nothing to do with it.

Which would seem to infer there was conflicting information flying around. Thank you for proving my point.

But at the Benghazi hearings she kept going with the 'conflicting evidence' excuse.

Um, maybe because it was true? You do realize that she was found to have done no wrong by a bi-partisan investigation, right?

Why did she even need to lie after the attack?

It's not clear that she did lie. The bi-partisan investigation didn't think she did.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

@Laguna

You sound like the Baghdad Information Minister. The FBI has opened its own investigation into this. You can't hide behind the partisan deflection when the FBI (!) is investigating.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

To all the HRC supporters who think this isn't a real issue, Judge Sullivan took care of that today.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

At the time State was telling people the attack was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islam movie made in the USA, the Secretary of State was telling her daughter it was al-Qaeda and telling the Egyption prime minister that the videos had nothing to do with it.

And the fall guy was a Coptic Christian who is still sitting in a US prison and for what? Nothing.

But at the Benghazi hearings she kept going with the 'conflicting evidence' excuse.

And every time, she tries her best to avoid the questions, but gets testy when pressed. If you're confident, why get annoyed, stressed and why not simply answer any questions as long as it takes and don't forget, we still have an ongoing FBI investigation pending.

Why did she even need to lie after the attack? Why couldn't she just tell us the truth? Is it the United States Department of State, or is it the United States Department of Administration-in-Power Public Relations?

Remember, this all happened during the 2012 reelection campaign of Obama and how would that have affected the outcome of the election if the news came out that embassy was attacked and 4 people were murdered? Obama would probably have never made it back into the White House, that's something they couldn't afford and that's when the narrative came up to demonize and shift the focus on to the video.

Um, maybe because it was true? You do realize that she was found to have done no wrong by a bi-partisan investigation, right?

Or they haven't connected all the dots yet. Funny, if Hillary was innocent, there is no way, she as in the same situation as Louis Lerner have any reasons to destroy or hide any Hard Drives.

Hillary is smart, but the FBI are a lot smarter, they have time, Hillary doesn't.

The "Banghazi! Syndrome" is uniquely restricted to Republicans and manifests itself in a curious way: sudden hysteria over self-fulfilling prophesies that never actually fulfill.

Actually, it's more about justice for the families and before you libs get all hot under the neck, there is NO conspiracy theory, Hillary and Obama won't meet with the parents, all of the parents say she's lying and frankly I don't think they are Trump supporters. Clinton or Obama could talk to these people, but they won't and it looks very bad and very suspicious.

The FBI is watching, listening and are seriously and scrutinizing every single detail. If anyone has a stake in this it's the Feds and the families, of course the GOP are happy if she takes a spill and the Dems would feel equally gleeful if some tragedy would befall Trump.

This is a case in point. Judicial Watch is such a well-known right-wing organization that Googling its name instantly prompts search suggestions such as "Benghazi" and "Obama" (and "Obama birth certificate," of course).

That's a good thing. Anyway, you libs have "Media Matters," so what gives?

The organization accuses Hillary of conspiracy, and the District Court Judge authorized them to submit a plan for “narrowly-tailored discovery.”

Could be true and given Hillary's history when it comes to ethics and dishonesty.

Good luck with that.

Tell the FBI that.

Their case will be laughed out of court for very sound legal reasons, and this outbreak of Benghazi Syndrome will vanish from everyone's mind except those deeply infected just as past outbreaks have. It's almost enough to make you feel sorry for them.

Yeah, just like the drumbeat of libs shouting the GOP won't take back the House....oops, well, they won't take the Senate....oops,....2 out of 3, not good odds. LOL

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

The FBI is watching, listening and are seriously and scrutinizing every single detail. If anyone has a stake in this it's the Feds and the families...

Another symptom of the "Benghazi Syndrome" is the victims' inability to distinguish between their scandals - it all comes down to one big Hillary Mash.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Why does it matter? Maybe it's an American thing, but why should the public need to know what politicians are sending via email?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Rock paper scissors for who will take the fall.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hillary should go to Benghazi on a fact-finding mission.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Search for republicans behind this campaign against Hillary.They are pretty sure no way any of them will have a hope as long as she is there, i wish Sanders to win presidency elections,but i have no doubt Republicans are behind this dirty game.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"Clinton aides to be questioned under oath"

If they aren't under oath, would they lie?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can understand the GOP outrage over this. It's their best chance to get into White House without having to change and grow their base. One might even say the survival of the GOP overall hinges on the outcome of Clintons legal battles.

Good luck. If you don't succeed it won't be for a lack of trying.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@SuperLib - That's what it is all about isn't it ?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

They really have no other card to play. They are too dysfunctional to change so praying for an implosion by the Democrats really is their only hope. If I were them, I'd start even more lawsuits to see if they can come across anything incriminating. The more lawsuits you start the more information you can gain access to. Lord knows the bubble dwellers will line up to give their speculations because it's not like they are busy calling for a healthcare or immigration plan from their leaders.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Another symptom of the "Benghazi Syndrome" is the victims' inability to distinguish between their scandals - it all comes down to one big Hillary Mash.

Haha, is this the new Hillary defense line? Deflect from the email scandal by pointing out that she's involved in other scandals? Bravo.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites