Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Congress to Ask FBI to Investigate Whether Hillary Lied Under Oath

Congress to Ask FBI to Investigate Whether Hillary Lied Under Oath

“Do you need a referral from Congress to investigate her statements under oath?”

FBI Director James Comey testified before the House Oversight Committee earlier today. For some of the highlights of that hearing, see here.

Early in the hearing, Committee Chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz indicated he would submit a referral asking the FBI to investigate whether Hillary lied under oath.

Lawnewz has the breakdown:

“Not to the FBI, not in a case we are working,” Director Comey replied.

Congressman Chaffetz then clarified that he was referring to her testimony before the Select Committee on Benghazi in October 2015.

“Did you review the documents where Congressman Jim Jordan asked her specifically, and she said ‘There was nothing marked classified on my emails either sent or received,’” Congressman Chaffetz asked.

“I don’t remember reviewing that particular testimony,” Director Comey replied. “I am aware of that being said, though.”

“Did the FBI investigate her statements under oath on this topic?” Congressman Chaffetz asked.

“Not to my knowledge — I don’t think there has been a referral from Congress,” Director Comey replied.

“Do you need a referral from Congress to investigate her statements under oath?” Congressman Chaffetz asked.

“Sure do,” Comey replied.

Congressman Chaffetz then left no doubt that the FBI would have one, very soon.

“You’ll have one. You’ll have one in the next few hours,” Chaffetz said.

Yesterday, Senators McConnell and Cornyn called for the release of the transcript from Hillary’s FBI interview.

Yet another disturbing revelation from today’s hearing — Hillary was not sworn in prior to her three plus hour interview, nor was the interview recorded.

Convenient.

As for the lies? Rep. Trey Gowdy went down the list one by one:

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

My recollection is that the Benghazi Select Committee didn’t swear her in either. Am I correct?

    Sanddog in reply to openeyes. | July 7, 2016 at 7:59 pm

    You are correct. Yet just another example of how the ruling class treats their peers vs the “little people”.

So what if she did lie under oath? Corrupt Comey will just say. “She had no intent to do anything criminal” and let her skate.

Impeach Comey and remove him from office IMMEDIATELY. Then we’ll talk about what comes next.

    That might work for Comey, but it won’t work for anyone else.

    Lying is a deliberate action; it is IMPOSSIBLE to without intending to do so.

    Lying under oath is a crime (perjury).

    It is possible to be mistaken, and in that mistaken-ness utter a falsehood under oath, but unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, she was demonstrably aware of her falsehoods before she uttered them under oath. Therefore, she was not mistaken; she was lying.

    And because lying under oath (perjury) is BOTH a deliberate action AND a crime, Comey cannot credibly write it off as “carelessness”.

      He couldn’t credibly do what he’s already done. But he did it.

      VetHusbandFather in reply to Archer. | July 7, 2016 at 10:32 pm

      I recall another Clinton that lied under oath and had no real problems. Something about the definition of “sexual relations.” I’m pretty sure HRC will squirrel her way out of these lies too.

      Also it is totally shady that the FBI didn’t record her interview.

That didn’t take long.
Republicans return to form, look for an out that serve’s their purposes.
Gives them an opportunity to yet again strut on stage, show by God they’re serious.
Kick the can down the road.
Return to the same well that poisoned the last horse.
And call it a day of republican accomplishments.
Gag me with a spoon.

A referral. Right, that’ll do it.

At this point it isn’t even kabuki. In kabuki Comey would be in costume and makeup so that even if he isn’t really a policeman he at least simulates one on stage. But he isn’t even doing that. And Congress is playing along with him. Sure, they’ll give him a referral, and then he’ll do his job. They’re all pretending.

They won’t talk to Hillary under oath, because she’ll lie … she always does, and everybody on the planet knows it … and if it’s under oath, they might actually have to charge her with it. But if she’s not under oath, there’s no danger of that. So she can lie in perfect safety while they pretend to grill her. They’re all pretending.

    Ragspierre in reply to tom swift. | July 7, 2016 at 7:14 pm

    As so often before, tom, you don’t know WTF you’re talking about.

    You lie to the FBI…or most law enforcement agencies…and you’ve committed a crime.

    No oath required.

      Sanddog in reply to Ragspierre. | July 7, 2016 at 8:00 pm

      How do you prove a lie when the subject is not recorded during the interview?

      You don’t.

        Ragspierre in reply to Sanddog. | July 7, 2016 at 8:05 pm

        Bullshit. You prove it the way we do every day in trials. With evidence. This includes, of course, testimony.

          iconotastic in reply to Ragspierre. | July 8, 2016 at 12:56 pm

          I was confused that the testimony record was a summary written up by an agent. Do you know if two agents are present to corroborate the summary and the recollection of the testimony? Or if the word of an interviewing agent is sufficient to convict someone of lying to a federal officer?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 8, 2016 at 1:08 pm

          I don’t know FBI proceedure well enough to say how many agents or other FBI personnel are present at an interview.

          I can say that one witness who is credible can carry the day against an obvious known liar. Easily.

          randian in reply to Ragspierre. | July 8, 2016 at 2:08 pm

          I saw an interview with a cop on youtube where he said it was sop to only release transcripts of suspect interviews and destroy the original audio recording. The courts apparently sign off on this practice even though it makes rebutting the transcript impossible.

    Chaffetz shouldn’t promise something he can’t deliver. Unless the policies of Speaker Ryan have changed, he doesn’t have such authority any more than the Benghazi committee chair did. And Hillary wasn’t sworn in even though she did lie to the committee, so there.

Director Comey, why not tell the truth about what is going on and come clean? Then you will be able to sleep at night again – assuming you bring in a few reliable agents for security.

I wonder if the thought of a President Trump pushed Comey over the edge into Never-Never land.

Ken Mitchell | July 7, 2016 at 9:09 pm

It doesn’t matter that Hillary wasn’t under oath; it’s STILL a crime to lie to the FBI.

Martha Stewart knows this well. She lied to the FBI about receiving a stock tip. The stock tip was legal; acting on it was legal. Stewart went to prison for the lie, which was not at all “material” to the case – since there wasn’t a case.

Hillary lied to Congress, and to the FBI. She should be in the slammer. In Leavenworth, actually, for her other assorted treasons.

    MenckensGhost in reply to Ken Mitchell. | July 8, 2016 at 2:50 pm

    From the federal prosecuting attorney in the Martha Stewart case.

    At a news conference announcing the charges against Ms. Stewart, James B. COMEY, the US attorney for the Southern district of New York, said, “This criminal case is about lying–lying to the FBI, lying to the SEC, lying to the investors.” Addressing a question that has long hovered over the investigation, he added, “Martha Stewart is being prosecuted not for who she is, but because of what she did.

    Out of the horse’s mouth!!! Why weren’t the same statute protocols applied in the case against Mrs. Clinton?

    You can fact check at New York Times, June 5, 2003 column by Constance L. Hays.

didn’t Scooter Libbey get in trouble because his story differed from someone else’s.

DINORightMarie | July 7, 2016 at 11:29 pm

I expect Comey to either turn up dead in about a year, or commit suicide.

I doubt he will be able to live with his actions – or that these gangster-thugs will let him live to tell about what REALLY happened……

Al Capone was Saul Alinsky’s buddy, after all……..

From Breitbart :
Mike Lee gave an interview to the Huffington Post in which he praised Elizabeth Warren & called out Donald Trump as a religious bigot for his stand on a pause in indiscriminate Muslim immigration. It seems the good Senator wants unlimited immigration. It seems the Mormon church cut a deal with the Chamber of Commerce in support of such such a policy. The church elders thereby have put the Mormon church behind such a policy. Jeff’s Flakey, a fellow Mormon is likewise on board.

It’s in the golden sheets of Eli or some such nonsense.

Now the Democrats are accusing conservatives of conducting a witch hunt. At least this now confirms that Democrats even think Hillary is a witch.

This Congressional request for an investigation of perjury would be meaningful if any of the parties involved had any credibility. Unfortunately, none of them do – not the Congress, not the Department of “Justice”, not the FBI, and – most especially – not Clinton.

MenckensGhost | July 8, 2016 at 2:39 pm

In 2003, Martha Stewart spent 5 months in jail and was assessed a huge fine for lying to the FBI over insider trading. Guess who was the federal prosecuting attorney?

At a news conference announcing the charges against Ms. Stewart, James B. Comey, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, said, ”This criminal case is about lying — lying to the F.B.I., lying to the S.E.C., lying to investors.” Addressing a question that has long hovered over the investigation, he added, ”Martha Stewart is being prosecuted not for who she is, but because of what she did.’

The above quote can be fact checked by going to the NY Times June 5, 2003 column by Constance L Hays.

Do we have a referral yet? Can we check?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend