US State Department restarts Hillary Clinton email probe
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-07-2016, 11:15 AM
RE: US State Department restarts Hillary Clinton email probe
(10-07-2016 10:20 AM)BnW Wrote:  
(09-07-2016 02:35 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  But, again, perjury is next to impossible to prove here. Common sense should prevail over vendettas and being butthurt.

I'm not sure why perjury is next to impossible to prove here. I think this case has an easier burden of proof than probably almost any perjury case you can have. Ignoring the specifics of who she is and all the extra circumstances, you have someone who spoke to two different bodies and told told two different stories. It's not like 10 years went by between the two tellings, either. Within roughly a 12 month period she gave one account to Congress while under oath and a different account to the investigating agents from the FBI.

Why you insist it is impossible to prove perjury is a mystery to me.

Department of Justice has something like a 95% conviction rate. That might be because they only take cases they know they can win, but it also is a testament to their skill. If they WANTED to convict Hillary on perjury (or the classified emails) they would and could.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2016, 12:29 PM (This post was last modified: 10-07-2016 12:43 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: US State Department restarts Hillary Clinton email probe
(10-07-2016 11:15 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  Department of Justice has something like a 95% conviction rate. That might be because they only take cases they know they can win, but it also is a testament to their skill. If they WANTED to convict Hillary on perjury (or the classified emails) they would and could.

If the DOJ WANTED to prosecute anyone the Attorney General should and would be dismissed immediately. I'm not sure you understand how our judicial system works.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2016, 12:30 PM
RE: US State Department restarts Hillary Clinton email probe
(10-07-2016 11:15 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(10-07-2016 10:20 AM)BnW Wrote:  I'm not sure why perjury is next to impossible to prove here. I think this case has an easier burden of proof than probably almost any perjury case you can have. Ignoring the specifics of who she is and all the extra circumstances, you have someone who spoke to two different bodies and told told two different stories. It's not like 10 years went by between the two tellings, either. Within roughly a 12 month period she gave one account to Congress while under oath and a different account to the investigating agents from the FBI.

Why you insist it is impossible to prove perjury is a mystery to me.

Department of Justice has something like a 95% conviction rate. That might be because they only take cases they know they can win, but it also is a testament to their skill. If they WANTED to convict Hillary on perjury (or the classified emails) they would and could.

Convict? Apparently you've forgotten due process and a jury of peers. Your conspiracy shit gets old real fast.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2016, 12:45 PM
RE: US State Department restarts Hillary Clinton email probe
(10-07-2016 10:20 AM)BnW Wrote:  
(09-07-2016 02:35 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  But, again, perjury is next to impossible to prove here. Common sense should prevail over vendettas and being butthurt.

I'm not sure why perjury is next to impossible to prove here. I think this case has an easier burden of proof than probably almost any perjury case you can have. Ignoring the specifics of who she is and all the extra circumstances, you have someone who spoke to two different bodies and told told two different stories. It's not like 10 years went by between the two tellings, either. Within roughly a 12 month period she gave one account to Congress while under oath and a different account to the investigating agents from the FBI.

Why you insist it is impossible to prove perjury is a mystery to me.

You're sadly mistaken, sorry to say. In fact, only a handful of people since the '40s have been convicted of such a charge.

Here is a piece that clearly proves my point.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/cl...ans-225250

Here are the important excerpts that back up my points:

House Republicans are pushing for a new FBI investigation into whether Hillary Clinton lied to Congress during her marathon testimony before the Benghazi committee, but if history is any guide, the chances of perjury charges are practically nil.

“It will be a shark with no teeth,” said Rusty Hardin, the lawyer who successfully defended the pitcher Roger Clemens when he was charged with lying to Congress about doping in 2010. “Perjury is a very, very difficult crime to prosecute.”

... Hardin, who worked as a prosecutor for 15 years before opening his private practice in Houston, said the Justice Department rarely moves to charge people with perjury before Congress, and they’re unlikely to make a decision one way or the other before the election. Even if they did bring her to trial, the defense is likely pretty straightforward: she believed what she was saying at the time, even if it turned out to be inaccurate.

... According to a widely cited 2007 study by P.J. Meitl in the Quinnipiac Law Review, only six people had been convicted of perjury to Congress going back to the 1940s – and two of them were related to the Watergate scandal, another from Iran-Contra.

When it comes to Clinton, the Justice Department will respond to any referral and decide independently how many FBI resources should be invested in the case, said Hardin. But don’t count on any big decisions by Nov. 8.

“For sure it won’t be made any time before this election,” Hardin said. “Professional prosecutors abhor having to make a decision on the schedule of an election.”
Ultimately, Clinton is likely to avoid charges for perjury for the same reasons she’s avoided them for mishandling her classified emails, Hardin said: it’s hard to prove intent. ... Being wrong doesn’t necessarily equal criminal perjury, Hardin said. Intent to mislead is key.

“A lie is intentionally stating something you know is not true,” Hardin said. “It’s not the same thing as being mistaken.”

Clinton can credibly make the case, for example, that of tens of thousands of emails, she did not remember the three that were marked classified when she testified.


The story also goes on to say Clinton’s campaign is arguing some of Comey’s statements about Clinton’s intent and about some confusing markings on classified documents vindicate the presumptive Democratic nominee.

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

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WillHopp's post
10-07-2016, 01:57 PM
RE: US State Department restarts Hillary Clinton email probe
And again: This is a fucking waste of time and money.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2016, 02:06 PM
RE: US State Department restarts Hillary Clinton email probe
(10-07-2016 01:57 PM)Dom Wrote:  And again: This is a fucking waste of time and money.

I don't agree with that. I'm not talking Congress' impotent, never ending, Black Knight bluster. Everything they've done (or haven't done) recently seems to be a fucking waste of time and money. But the State Dept should conduct an internal investigation to see what the fuck went wrong where. Was it just a few career federal employees who failed to realize and/or properly mark classified info or is it an indication of a more systemic problem and a lack of proper training in the handling of sensitive information?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like GirlyMan's post
10-07-2016, 02:22 PM
RE: US State Department restarts Hillary Clinton email probe
(10-07-2016 02:06 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(10-07-2016 01:57 PM)Dom Wrote:  And again: This is a fucking waste of time and money.

I don't agree with that. I'm not talking Congress' impotent, never ending, Black Knight bluster. Everything they've done (or haven't done) recently seems to be a fucking waste of time and money. But the State Dept should conduct an internal investigation to see what the fuck went wrong where. Was it just a few career federal employees who failed to realize and/or properly mark classified info or is it an indication of a more systemic problem and a lack of proper training in the handling of sensitive information?

This I agree with, because security needs to be improved and this is the perfect way to learn of the leaks and pitfalls. The State investigation isn't a waste, the perjury bullshit is, because they have no interest in justice, just reversing their butthurt.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WillHopp's post
11-07-2016, 06:48 PM
RE: US State Department restarts Hillary Clinton email probe
(10-07-2016 12:45 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  You're sadly mistaken, sorry to say. In fact, only a handful of people since the '40s have been convicted of such a charge.

Here is a piece that clearly proves my point.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/cl...ans-225250

Here are the important excerpts that back up my points:

House Republicans are pushing for a new FBI investigation into whether Hillary Clinton lied to Congress during her marathon testimony before the Benghazi committee, but if history is any guide, the chances of perjury charges are practically nil.

“It will be a shark with no teeth,” said Rusty Hardin, the lawyer who successfully defended the pitcher Roger Clemens when he was charged with lying to Congress about doping in 2010. “Perjury is a very, very difficult crime to prosecute.”

... Hardin, who worked as a prosecutor for 15 years before opening his private practice in Houston, said the Justice Department rarely moves to charge people with perjury before Congress, and they’re unlikely to make a decision one way or the other before the election. Even if they did bring her to trial, the defense is likely pretty straightforward: she believed what she was saying at the time, even if it turned out to be inaccurate.

... According to a widely cited 2007 study by P.J. Meitl in the Quinnipiac Law Review, only six people had been convicted of perjury to Congress going back to the 1940s – and two of them were related to the Watergate scandal, another from Iran-Contra.

When it comes to Clinton, the Justice Department will respond to any referral and decide independently how many FBI resources should be invested in the case, said Hardin. But don’t count on any big decisions by Nov. 8.

“For sure it won’t be made any time before this election,” Hardin said. “Professional prosecutors abhor having to make a decision on the schedule of an election.”
Ultimately, Clinton is likely to avoid charges for perjury for the same reasons she’s avoided them for mishandling her classified emails, Hardin said: it’s hard to prove intent. ... Being wrong doesn’t necessarily equal criminal perjury, Hardin said. Intent to mislead is key.

“A lie is intentionally stating something you know is not true,” Hardin said. “It’s not the same thing as being mistaken.”

Clinton can credibly make the case, for example, that of tens of thousands of emails, she did not remember the three that were marked classified when she testified.


The story also goes on to say Clinton’s campaign is arguing some of Comey’s statements about Clinton’s intent and about some confusing markings on classified documents vindicate the presumptive Democratic nominee.

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

First, I'm not sure why, if I'm mistaken, I'm "sadly" mistaken. I can't be happily mistaken? Indifferently mistaken? Why am I sadly mistaken? But, I digress.....

This article doesn't contradict my point at all, btw. My point was that yes, perjury is generally hard to prove but here you have a person who seemingly made two contradictory statements to two different government bodies. That doesn't mean it's a slam dunk conviction. But, you can't compare it to a case like Clemens where he only had his statement before Congress and nothing to compare it to. And, she can't have it both ways; she can't say her comments to Congress, even if wrong, weren't made in good faith if within 12 months of that she gave contradictory statements to the FBI. If those statements conflict, it's a prima facia case that she either committed perjury OR lied to the FBI (which, as Martha Stewart will tell you, is a crime that carries a prison term). It's one of the two.

Now, if she's claiming that her statements don't conflict, that's a different matter. I've not parsed them enough to really say for certain, but in broad strokes it certainly appeared that her comments on her email usage to Congress contradicted the FBI findings. The FBI findings are their conclusions and of course as a defense she would seek to explain why their conclusions and analysis was wrong. And, if it went to trial, it would be up to a trier of fact to determine if that was right or not. But, in simple strokes, there is more evidence here for perjury than there probably every is because, as your article points out, it's very tough to prove. Usually you don't get two conflicting statements from one person. Here, arguably you do.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
11-07-2016, 09:17 PM
RE: US State Department restarts Hillary Clinton email probe
(11-07-2016 06:48 PM)BnW Wrote:  
(10-07-2016 12:45 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  You're sadly mistaken, sorry to say. In fact, only a handful of people since the '40s have been convicted of such a charge.

Here is a piece that clearly proves my point.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/cl...ans-225250

Here are the important excerpts that back up my points:

House Republicans are pushing for a new FBI investigation into whether Hillary Clinton lied to Congress during her marathon testimony before the Benghazi committee, but if history is any guide, the chances of perjury charges are practically nil.

“It will be a shark with no teeth,” said Rusty Hardin, the lawyer who successfully defended the pitcher Roger Clemens when he was charged with lying to Congress about doping in 2010. “Perjury is a very, very difficult crime to prosecute.”

... Hardin, who worked as a prosecutor for 15 years before opening his private practice in Houston, said the Justice Department rarely moves to charge people with perjury before Congress, and they’re unlikely to make a decision one way or the other before the election. Even if they did bring her to trial, the defense is likely pretty straightforward: she believed what she was saying at the time, even if it turned out to be inaccurate.

... According to a widely cited 2007 study by P.J. Meitl in the Quinnipiac Law Review, only six people had been convicted of perjury to Congress going back to the 1940s – and two of them were related to the Watergate scandal, another from Iran-Contra.

When it comes to Clinton, the Justice Department will respond to any referral and decide independently how many FBI resources should be invested in the case, said Hardin. But don’t count on any big decisions by Nov. 8.

“For sure it won’t be made any time before this election,” Hardin said. “Professional prosecutors abhor having to make a decision on the schedule of an election.”
Ultimately, Clinton is likely to avoid charges for perjury for the same reasons she’s avoided them for mishandling her classified emails, Hardin said: it’s hard to prove intent. ... Being wrong doesn’t necessarily equal criminal perjury, Hardin said. Intent to mislead is key.

“A lie is intentionally stating something you know is not true,” Hardin said. “It’s not the same thing as being mistaken.”

Clinton can credibly make the case, for example, that of tens of thousands of emails, she did not remember the three that were marked classified when she testified.


The story also goes on to say Clinton’s campaign is arguing some of Comey’s statements about Clinton’s intent and about some confusing markings on classified documents vindicate the presumptive Democratic nominee.

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

First, I'm not sure why, if I'm mistaken, I'm "sadly" mistaken. I can't be happily mistaken? Indifferently mistaken? Why am I sadly mistaken? But, I digress.....

This article doesn't contradict my point at all, btw. My point was that yes, perjury is generally hard to prove but here you have a person who seemingly made two contradictory statements to two different government bodies. That doesn't mean it's a slam dunk conviction. But, you can't compare it to a case like Clemens where he only had his statement before Congress and nothing to compare it to. And, she can't have it both ways; she can't say her comments to Congress, even if wrong, weren't made in good faith if within 12 months of that she gave contradictory statements to the FBI. If those statements conflict, it's a prima facia case that she either committed perjury OR lied to the FBI (which, as Martha Stewart will tell you, is a crime that carries a prison term). It's one of the two.

Now, if she's claiming that her statements don't conflict, that's a different matter. I've not parsed them enough to really say for certain, but in broad strokes it certainly appeared that her comments on her email usage to Congress contradicted the FBI findings. The FBI findings are their conclusions and of course as a defense she would seek to explain why their conclusions and analysis was wrong. And, if it went to trial, it would be up to a trier of fact to determine if that was right or not. But, in simple strokes, there is more evidence here for perjury than there probably every is because, as your article points out, it's very tough to prove. Usually you don't get two conflicting statements from one person. Here, arguably you do.

As an outsider, you have no transcripts from the meeting with Comey. You have no idea if what she said to him contradicts what she said during the Benghazi hearings. Do you think she told him that she knowingly sent classified emails? Of course not. What he said was he found evidence that contradicted what she said. She said she didn't send emails that had classified info and he said he found evidence to the contrary, meaning she did send emails. These aren't contradictory statements. Contradictory statements would be that she told Comey, "Yep, I sent classified emails on my server." She never said that. Now, I'm not saying she didn't send those emails, I'm saying she has essentially a fool-proof plausible excuse for not remembering three emails out of 30K that had minor markings within the email. They never get a conviction. Ever.

You're grasping at straws here. The article I quoted is from a guy far more educated and experienced in this area than either of us could ever dream to be. While I'm not presenting any fallacy from authority here, I will side with a guy whose career centers around these cases. History and precedence are on my side. I also disagree that it must be an either-or situation. You are imposing you're own guidelines to her memory and that is a judgment call. Perjury is so difficult to prove that you can't assign that rigid criteria when making your either-or conclusion. I pointed out immediately that proving perjury is almost impossible in this case and you said you couldn't understand how I coukd say that. I point out an article from a leading expert in this field that explicitly describes my stance and you tell me it doesn't contradict what you said. How is that?

You're "sadly" mistaken because it's usually never a happy occasion when you're wrong. Cool

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2016, 01:01 AM
RE: US State Department restarts Hillary Clinton email probe
"What did she know, and when did she know it?" seems to be the question. IANAL, but if the FBI has evidence from one of those thousands of emails that she knew the matter was classifed, dated before her Congressional testimony, that would seem to be pretty difinitive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: