Work Email Chain Found That Hillary Did Not Disclose, Possible Perjury Violation

[73chief]

Within the last 24 hours a lengthy email chain between Hillary and then US Central Commander David Petraeus has been discovered by the Obama Administration. The email chain begins in early January 2009 through February 2009. This set of emails had not been previously turned over to Congress or to the courts handling the FOIA requests as ordered. If this turns out to be a business/work related set of emails, it would violate Hillary's signed sworn statement to that federal judge in August, 2015, therefore making her guilty of perjury. So unless she and Gen. Petraeus were discussing Chelsae's wedding colors this could be the first shoe to fall. Interesting that these were current Obama Administration officials that turned over the emails. I guess they are now part of the right wing conspiracy. It appears that they may be washing their hands of her.

This also catches Hillary and her campaign in yet another lie ( I know, hard to believe). They have been and are still claiming that she did not begin to use her private email for business/work purposes until March 18, 2009, a full two months after these current emails occurred.

Cue Huey and Cig's "there is nothing to this", "It's not coming from a reliable source", All other Secs. of State did the same", etc. etc.

 

[swagsurfer02]

Won't stick...

Ciggy called it faux outrage, he'll be along shortly with a cut and paste piece.

 

[73chief]

Won't stick...

Ciggy called it faux outrage, he'll be along shortly with a cut and paste piece.

I have to admit, his cut and paste skills are top shelf.

 

[naturalmwa]

Is there any topic this doesn't work for?

 

[swagsurfer02]

Is there any topic this doesn't work for?

You tell me 8 inches or 3 inches!

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Within the last 24 hours a lengthy email chain between Hillary and then US Central Commander David Petraeus has been discovered by the Obama Administration. The email chain begins in early January 2009 through February 2009. This set of emails had not been previously turned over to Congress or to the courts handling the FOIA requests as ordered. If this turns out to be a business/work related set of emails, it would violate Hillary's signed sworn statement to that federal judge in August, 2015, therefore making her guilty of perjury.
.

Is this a cut and paste or is this you writing this? Because the author doesn't know anything about the definition of perjury. An inaccurate affidavit -- assuming it is inaccurate -- is not perjury.

 

[gusto79]

If this turns out to be a business/work related set of emails, it would violate Hillary's signed sworn statement to that federal judge in August, 2015, therefore making her guilty of perjury.

Incorrect.

This also catches Hillary and her campaign in yet another lie ( I know, hard to believe). They have been and are still claiming that she did not begin to use her private email for business/work purposes until March 18, 2009, a full two months after these current emails occurred.

This is what will be interesting. As 73 says, Clinton has claimed that she started using clintonemail.com in March, 2009. They've claimed that she used a AT&T blackberry email before that, and don't have access to the emails, that's why they didn't turn over anything before March 2009. But at least one article I've read says this email chain start out as Clinton's blackberry email, but by Jan 28th was from Hillary's clintonemail.com address.

Here is an exchange on twitter between Clinton's press secretary and an AP reporter.


Seems to dodge the issue of emails starting on Jan 28th.

 

[naturalmwa]

You tell me 8 inches or 3 inches!

Roll him over. But I appreciate your thinking.

 

[73chief]

Is this a cut and paste or is this you writing this? Because the author doesn't know anything about the definition of perjury. An inaccurate affidavit -- assuming it is inaccurate -- is not perjury.

US District Judge Emmet Sullivan says you're wrong again. Read Hillary's attached sworn declaration to the court. Opening Line: "I, Hillary Rodham Clinton, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct:"

You can also see the actual order from Judge Sullivan which states "under penalty of perjury" right in his order.

Thanks for the lecture on what constitutes "perjury" in this case. You are about two months behind on this issue. Let me know if you have any other questions.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...nformation-to-court-under-penalty-of-perjury/

 

[73chief]

Incorrect.

No it's correct. Read her attached sworn declaration to the court. Opening Line: "I, Hillary Rodham Clinton, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct:"

The attached has the declaration and the judges order which states "under penalty of perjury" right in the order.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...nformation-to-court-under-penalty-of-perjury/

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

US District Judge Emmet Sullivan says you're wrong again. Read Hillary's attached sworn declaration to the court. Opening Line: "I, Hillary Rodham Clinton, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct:"

You can also see the actual order from Judge Sullivan which states "under penalty of perjury" right in his order.

Thanks for the lecture on what constitutes "perjury" in this case. You are about two months behind on this issue. Let me know if you have any other questions.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...nformation-to-court-under-penalty-of-perjury/

If you are going to be a condescending ass, you should at least be right. You have no idea what you are talking about. I went to law school and understand an affidavit is made under penalty of perjury.

What you don't understand is the basic concept that an inaccurate affidavit does not equal perjury.

Perjury requires, among other things, both a material misrepresentation and an intent to deceive. An inaccurate affidavit -- again assuming it's inaccurate -- is not perjury.

 

[Funky Bunch]

Thanks Obama

 

[ihhawk]

they also found deleted emails related to Bengazi.

 

[joelbc1]

If you are going to be a condescending ass, you should at least be right. You have no idea what you are talking about. I went to law school and understand an affidavit is made under penalty of perjury.

What you don't understand is the basic concept that an inaccurate affidavit does not equal perjury.

Perjury requires, among other things, both a material misrepresentation and an intent to deceive. An inaccurate affidavit -- again assuming it's inaccurate -- is not perjury.

St.Louis.......you win today's "Pissing Into the Wind" award. Trying to correct or educate a few here....you might as well piss into a gale for all the good it will do. Not saying Chief is one of them......I'm just saying there are others here who occasionally admit they have overreached their abilities. I haven't ever seen the chief backdown....and I know he has been incorrect a time or two.

 

[Pheidippides]

So you're assuming there was "no intent to deceive"? How do you know this or are you just giving Hillary the benefit of the doubt given her outstanding track record for being forthcoming?

 

[BABiscuit]

So you're assuming there was "no intent to deceive"? How do you know this or are you just giving Hillary the benefit of the doubt given her outstanding track record for being forthcoming?

OP makes a statement with no qualifiers about intent. Pointing out he is wrong doesnt mean you are assuming anything.

If this turns out to be a business/work related set of emails, it would violate Hillary's signed sworn statement to that federal judge in August, 2015, therefore making her guilty of perjury.

 

[73chief]

If you are going to be a condescending ass, you should at least be right. You have no idea what you are talking about. I went to law school and understand an affidavit is made under penalty of perjury.

What you don't understand is the basic concept that an inaccurate affidavit does not equal perjury.

Perjury requires, among other things, both a material misrepresentation and an intent to deceive. An inaccurate affidavit -- again assuming it's inaccurate -- is not perjury.

Then every legal expert on every major network who has been discussing this on CNN, Fox, MSNBC has been wrong for the last 3 months. Check.

Here is another former judge who contradicts you:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...on-signed-state-dept-docs-probably-committed/

Interesting because my father and uncle who are attorneys contradict your opinion based on the court order from the judge and the requirements she had to agree to by oath when she became Secretary of State.. My Grandfather is a retired judge in Illinois and he contradicts your opinion as well.

 

[gusto79]

No it's correct. Read her attached sworn declaration to the court. Opening Line: "I, Hillary Rodham Clinton, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct:"

The attached has the declaration and the judges order which states "under penalty of perjury" right in the order.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...nformation-to-court-under-penalty-of-perjury/

You're so dumb. The declare under penalty of perjury isn't why you're statement is incorrect.

Here is her statement:

I, Hillary Rodham Clinton, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct:

1. While I do not know what information may be “responsive” for purposes of this law suit, I have directed that all my e-mails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records to be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.
2. As a result of my directive, approximately 55,000 pages of these emails were produced to the Department on December 5, 2014.
3. Cheryl Mills did not have an account on clintonemail.com. Huma Abedin did have such an account which was used at times for government business.

Here is what you said in the OP:

If this turns out to be a business/work related set of emails, it would violate Hillary's signed sworn statement to that federal judge in August, 2015, therefore making her guilty of perjury.

These emails showing up alone don't violate her statement. She states that she "directed that all my e-mails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records to be provided". To conclude that she perjured herself, there needs to be evidence that she told somebody to leave these out. And, these emails need to be clintonemail.com emails and not her blackberry emails.

 

[gusto79]

Then every legal expert on every major network who has been discussing this on CNN, Fox, MSNBC has been wrong for the last 3 months. Check.

Here is another former judge who contradicts you:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...on-signed-state-dept-docs-probably-committed/

Interesting because my father and uncle who are attorneys contradict your opinion based on the court order from the judge and the requirements she had to agree to by oath when she became Secretary of State.. My Grandfather is a retired judge in Illinois and he contradicts your opinion as well.

That video is from March 12th. Do you think Judge Napolitano is talking about the same August 8th statement you are? Think it through, buddy. You can do this.

 

[pablow]

I, Hillary Rodham Clinton, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct:

1. While I do not know what information may be “responsive” for purposes of this law suit, I have directed I that all my e-mails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records to be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.
2. As a result of my directive, approximately 55,000 pages of these emails were produced to the Department on December 5, 2014.
3. Cheryl Mills did not have an account on clintonemail.com. Huma Abedin did have such an account which was used at times for government business.

There's a lot of wiggle room in the first paragraph of that affidavit - nothing but qualifiers and emergency exits. Did Bill Belichick draft this?

 

[Lone Clone]

So......this time, instead of picking the nit of what "is" means, we're doing it with perjury?

The point is that she got caught lying again. I don't think anyone seriously believes she's going to be charged with a crime.

 

[TexMichFan]

Looks like Valerie Jarrett is using the same strategy as the people putting out the PP videos.

Put out something and wait for Clinton to say something and then release something else that shows she is either lying or clueless about it.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

(1) Then every legal expert on every major network who has been discussing this on CNN, Fox, MSNBC has been wrong for the last 3 months. Check.

(2) Here is another former judge who contradicts you:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...on-signed-state-dept-docs-probably-committed/

(3) Interesting because my father and uncle who are attorneys contradict your opinion based on the court order from the judge and the requirements she had to agree to by oath when she became Secretary of State.. My Grandfather is a retired judge in Illinois and he contradicts your opinion as well.

(1) No, from your posts, it is clear you just don't understand what they are saying.

(2) Try to read your link critically. Even the Fox expert can only say probably -- Why? For the same reason I am saying: you can't assume the affiant committed perjury from an inaccurate affidavit. You still need proof of materiality and intent. For example, if you sign an affidavit that says "I produced all 138 emails", and their were 183 emails, that could be a typo, an innocent mistake, a difference in interpretation on what is an email (How is an "email" counted? Does an email include the entire string? Does an email include nested or branching emails?), and all sorts other explanations.

Again, an inaccurate affidavit-- even assuming it's inaccurate -- doesn't mean perjury was committed by the affiant.

(3) I'm licensed in Illinois as well and a trial lawyer. I am sure that they would agree with what I am saying.

 

[TexMichFan]

(1) No, from your posts, it is clear you just don't understand what they are saying.

(2) Try to read your link critically. Even the Fox expert can only say probably -- Why? For the same reason I am saying: you can't assume the affiant committed perjury from an inaccurate affidavit. You still need proof of materiality and intent. For example, if you sign an affidavit that says "I produced all 138 emails", and their were 183 emails, that could be a typo, an innocent mistake, a difference in interpretation on what is an email (How is an "email" counted? Does an email include the entire string? Does an email include nested or branching emails?), and all sorts other explanations.

Again, an inaccurate email -- even assuming it's inaccurate -- doesn't mean perjury was committed by the affiant.

(3) I'm licensed in Illinois as well and a trial lawyer. I am sure that they would agree with what I am saying.

Good point, but Clinton did not put a number on it besides to show how many she released. She said all work e-mails were turned over.

There will be a lot of hair splitting here as there always is in cases like this.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

So you're assuming there was "no intent to deceive"? How do you know this or are you just giving Hillary the benefit of the doubt given her outstanding track record for being forthcoming?

That's a good question. I'm not giving her the benefit of the doubt. I'm simply saying an inaccurate affidavit doesn't equal perjury. We have to wait until all the evidence is in, recovered, and analyzed before we start throwing around terms like perjury.

I'm a dem, but no Clinton supporter, and an attorney. I understand how affidavits are drafted and used and I highly highly doubt the State Department attorneys drafted an affidavit or that her personal attorney allowed her to sign one that contains no wiggle room. She doesn't have personal knowledge of the inner workings of the computer system, or how the emails were recovered - so I am fairly certain they wouldn't draft and she wouldn't sign an affidavit that contains absolutist positions that would even come close to exposing her to a perjury charge if they later turned out to be inaccurate.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Good point, but Clinton did not put a number on it besides to show how many she released. She said all work e-mails were turned over.

There will be a lot of hair splitting here as there always is in cases like this.

Of course, without even looking, I can tell you there is wiggle room on what's "work related" and by using "all" did that mean all emails that had been recovered at that point, all that were recoverable by usual means (the Federal Rules have a specific provision about producing emails when they are not recoverable with ordinary means), all those in her personal possession, all those in her possession, custody, and control ....

 

[ottumwan in tx]

she will get out of it somehow, she and bill were drug dealing in mena Arkansas and two boys found the airstrip field and got killed- nothing ever happened. if you can get away with murder in Arkansas and Benghazi- you can get away with hidden e-mails

 

[TexMichFan]

Of course, without even looking, I can tell you there is wiggle room on what's "work related" and by using "all" did that mean all emails that had been recovered at that point, all that were recoverable by usual means (the Federal Rules have a specific provision about producing emails when they are not recoverable with ordinary means), all those in her personal possession, all those in her possession, custody, and control ....

Unfortunately for Clinton this is not just a legal question.

I think you are right when it comes down to it there will be legal outs for Clinton as to what she meant.

However, on the public opinion side she is looking worse and worse with each new explanation she gives.

 

[BubsFinn]

Clinton? Perjury? Hard to imagine.

 

[pablow]

A witness testifying under oath or affirmation violates this statute [18 U.S.C. § 1621] if she gives false testimony concerning a material matter with the willful intent to provide false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake, faulty memory, or because she fell down and hit her head.

So in essence, Hillary is just a liar, it's Bill that's the perjuror. That is, so far.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

So......this time, instead of picking the nit of what "is" means, we're doing it with perjury?

The point is that she got caught lying again. I don't think anyone seriously believes she's going to be charged with a crime.

Now now LC. Your bias is showing. I thought we settled on the definition of a lie. You keep backsliding, and I'll start calling the Bush Administration's pre-invasion statements lies rather than inaccurate ...

 

[Lone Clone]

That's a good question. I'm not giving her the benefit of the doubt. I'm simply saying an inaccurate affidavit doesn't equal perjury. We have to wait until all the evidence is in, recovered, and analyzed before we start throwing around terms like perjury.

I'm a dem, but no Clinton supporter, and an attorney. I understand how affidavits are drafted and used and I highly highly doubt the State Department attorneys drafted an affidavit or that her personal attorney allowed her to sign one that contains no wiggle room. She doesn't have personal knowledge of the inner workings of the computer system, or how the emails were recovered - so I am fairly certain they wouldn't draft and she wouldn't sign an affidavit that contains absolutist positions that would even come close to exposing her to a perjury charge if they later turned out to be inaccurate.

Serious question: Assuming your comments are correct (as a non-lawyer, I have no clue), then what's the point of having the phrase "under penalty of perjury I swear...." attached to the statement? It's clearly moot if the person doing the swearing can simply say, "oops, my bad" and that's the end of it.

 

[Lone Clone]

Now now LC. Your bias is showing. I thought we settled on the definition of a lie. You keep backsliding, and I'll start calling the Bush Administration's pre-invasion statements lies rather than inaccurate ...

You make an excellent point. We do not know whether Hillary intentionally said something untrue or was just monumentally uninformed about her job. I got careless with the word.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Serious question: Assuming your comments are correct (as a non-lawyer, I have no clue), then what's the point of having the phrase "under penalty of perjury I swear...." attached to the statement? It's clearly moot if the person doing the swearing can simply say, "oops, my bad" and that's the end of it.

The "penalty of perjury" language makes the affidavit admissible in evidence -- both affirmatively by the affiant to prove what is contained in the affidavit without having that person come to court, and against the affiant in any subsequent perjury prosecution.

As far as errors, we all make them. If you signed a declaration that had a typo with your name as CL, and if we had strict criminal liability, then that would be perjury. But it's not.

We don't have strict criminal liability for most crimes (statutory rape being an exception in some jurisdictions) and we don't criminally penalize people unless the "mistake" is both material and it was intended to deceive. That's a high standard and requires proof from other sources. And that's why perjury is very rarely charged - because of the level of proof, the fact that very few statements in affidavits are absolute, and language usually has built in wiggle room.

 

[pablow]

Serious question: Assuming your comments are correct (as a non-lawyer, I have no clue), then what's the point of having the phrase "under penalty of perjury I swear...." attached to the statement? It's clearly moot if the person doing the swearing can simply say, "oops, my bad" and that's the end of it.

It's a self-serving affidavit, the first paragraph of which has been perjury-proofed. It's worthless.

 

[Lone Clone]

The "penalty of perjury" language makes the affidavit admissible in evidence -- both affirmatively by the affiant to prove what is contained in the affidavit without having that person come to court, and against the affiant in any subsequent perjury prosecution.

As far as errors, we all make them. If you signed a declaration that had a typo with your name as CL, and if we had strict criminal liability, then that would be perjury. But it's not.

We don't have strict criminal liability for most crimes (statutory rape being an exception in some jurisdictions) and we don't criminally penalize people unless the "mistake" is both material and it was intended to deceive. That's a high standard and requires proof from other sources. And that's why perjury is very rarely charged - because of the level of proof, the fact that very few statements in affidavits are absolute, and language usually has built in wiggle room.

So......how's about if she raises her hand, puts the other one on the Bible, and swears to tell the truth to the House committee, and it turns out later that half of what she said isn't true. Pass that off as a simple mistake, too?

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

So......how's about if she raises her hand, puts the other one on the Bible, and swears to tell the truth to the House committee, and it turns out later that half of what she said isn't true. Pass that off as a simple mistake, too?

Same standard would generally apply. Federal law has two statutes - perjury and making a false statement. Different elements, but similar theories.

You can make an inaccurate statement in a depot or Congressional testimony. It generally doesn't turn into perjury unless it was under oath, the statement was false, you knew it at the time, you answered inaccurately and not as a result of confusion, mistake or faulty memory, the question asked was clear, and the question was material.

If you answer a question inaccurately, but you believed the statement was correct at the time, then there is no perjury.

 

[Lone Clone]

Same standard would generally apply. Federal law has two statutes - perjury and making a false statement. Different elements, but similar theories.

You can make an inaccurate statement in a depot or Congressional testimony. It generally doesn't turn into perjury unless it was under oath, the statement was false, you knew it at the time, you answered inaccurately and not as a result of confusion, mistake or faulty memory, the question asked was clear, and the question was material.

If you answer a question inaccurately, but you believed the statement was correct at the time, then there is no perjury.

Well, I learn something every day. Thanks.

However, the underlying political point remains the same. Numerous statements Hillary has made, some under oath and some not (whether it makes a difference or not) are simply wrong, and either she knew they were wrong when she made them, or she is amazingly incompetent.

It is going to be interesting to watch the Democrats on the House committee try to defend her.....if they do. This might prove to be too much even for Elijah Cummings.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Elijah Cummings will just say she's black and bill was the first black prez and ya'll are being racist

 

[pepsicock]