![\"Hillary](\"http:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/Hillary-for-Prison.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This goes back to her testimony before the Benghazi committee. There has always been some serious questions regarding that testimony, especially since so much new information has become available. Here are the details on what\u2019s going on from The Hill<\/a>:<\/p>\n House Republicans are doubling down in their effort to bring perjury charges against Hillary Clinton over her testimony last year to the House Select Committee on Benghazi. GOP lawmakers have claimed that the Democratic presidential nominee broke the law by lying under oath about her private email setup during her marathon appearance in October. Next month, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee plan to make the issue a central part of a hearing with senior officials from the FBI, a committee aide said on Thursday.<\/b><\/p>\n As I recall, this came about when James \u201cThe Coward\u201d Comey was testifying on why he whitewashed Cankles crimes regarding her personal email server. One of the representatives asked if they had investigated Cankles regarding potential lying under oath, and Comey replied that they had not been asked to. The representative said he would be sending over the request asap.<\/p>\n Legally, the GOP faces a tough case. Politically, however, raising the perjury allegations would be a way to keep the issue of Clinton\u2019s truthfulness in the public eye throughout the fall as she battles Republican nominee Donald Trump for the White House.<\/b><\/p>\n And you can bet the Democrats on the committee will scream to high heaven that this is all politically motivated. No surprise there since the Democrats are as corrupt as the Nazi\u2019s and Communists. They will never punish one of their own.<\/p>\n Proving that someone committed perjury means overcoming a high hurdle: that the person knowingly told a falsehood under oath. <\/b><\/p>\n Hello, Hillary Clinton! The woman is a pathological liar. She will lie when telling the truth would be better for her. If it\u2019s something that affects her negatively, she will lie through her teeth.<\/p>\n Convincing lawyers at the Department of Justice to take the case would also be difficult, because prosecutors would have to prove that what the former secretary of State said during the 11-hour hearing was directly at odds with the truth.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cThere is no case,\u201d said Stephen Ryan, a former federal prosecutor and general counsel for the Democratic-run Senate Government Affairs Committee, bluntly. <\/b><\/p>\n \u201cEven if you tried to step back from the politically laden nature that this was the Democratic presidential nominee and you look at it, there\u2019s no way the Department of Justice would touch a case like that.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s just no appeal to this case, other than the political appeal,\u201d added Ryan, who said he is not involved in the presidential race. <\/b><\/p>\n Unfortunately, this jerk is correct. The Department of Justice has already proven they have been completely corrupted and will never prosecute a Clinton for anything. Other than that, Ryan is just another Democrat. Corrupt as the day is long. Even if the GOP representatives drop a nice, tight little package, all gift wrapped and ready for a grand jury, he won\u2019t believe Cankles is guilty.<\/p>\n The GOP heads of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees outlined the potential case against Clinton in a joint letter this week to Washington\u2019s top federal prosecutor. <\/b><\/p>\n In their six-page letter, Reps. Bob Goodlatte (Va.) and Jason Chaffetz (Utah) pointed to four instances during which the former secretary of State \u201cappear[ed] to implicate\u201d two criminal laws barring perjury and false statements.<\/b><\/p>\n \u201cThe evidence collected by the [FBI] during its investigation of Secretary Clinton\u2019s use of a personal email system during her time as secretary of State appears to directly contradict several aspects of her sworn testimony,\u201d they told U.S. Attorney Channing Phillips. <\/b><\/p>\n Gee, ya think? Cankles has not stopped lying about that since the story broke over a year ago. She recently tried to push this all on Colin Powell<\/a>, saying he had advised her not to use the State Department\u2019s email system. Powell avoided the bus, and instead threw Cankles under it instead, saying that he didn\u2019t recall the conversation and that when he sent her a note explaining what he did, it was a year after Cankles had set up her home email server.<\/p>\n Goodlatte and Chaffetz, in their letter, noted that the FBI discovered classification markings on three of the emails in Clinton\u2019s inbox, seemingly disproving her assertion that \u201cnothing was marked classified at the time I sent or received it.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n But in a letter to Capitol Hill this week, the FBI\u2019s congressional liaison noted that those markings were incomplete, might have been made in error and were buried in a chain of emails.<\/b><\/p>\n The fact that Clinton received messages with those partial markings, Jason Herring wrote, \u201cis not clear evidence of knowledge or intent.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n There we are again with that red herring of \u201cIntent.\u201d This is something that Comey came up with even though, under the statute Clinton should have been charged with, intent is not considered. There are plenty of people in jail or on trial who have done far less than Clinton did.<\/p>\n Democrats have written off the GOP\u2019s call for a prosecution, insisting that the move is merely a political gesture meant to attack Clinton\u2019s credibility.<\/b><\/p>\n They don\u2019t need to attack Clinton\u2019s credibility. She destroys it every time she opens her mouth.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is clear that Secretary Clinton was telling the truth based on the facts she had at the time, and this Republican perjury referral is making a mockery out of congressional authority and trivializing our procedures for political purposes,\u201d Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the ranking member of the Oversight panel, said in a statement. <\/b><\/p>\n Elijah Cummings is a dirtbag. He is unfit to hold office. His actions during the Benghazi hearings should have gotten him thrown off the committee, and frankly, he should be expelled from Congress. He is everything that is wrong with the modern Democrat party.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n