State Dept Provided 'Clearly False' Statements To Derail Requests For Clinton Docs, 'Shocked' Judge

Fox News ^ | 10-18-2018 | Gregg Re

[BeauBo]

“The immunity deals are invalid, as they are acts in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy.”

“If Mills lied, isn’t immunity forfeited?”

Cracking those immunity grants is key at getting to the big fish. They are a strong layer of protection, but not absolute.

They could also potentially catch the same people committing new crimes to continue the cover up - like lying to the FBI, if they haul them in for new questioning.

[Eleutheria5]

So when do we get to the part where they hang the evil harpy and her mangy little dog, too.

[M Kehoe]

Bttt.

5.56mm

[Enterprise]

He should hang out on Free Republic. He would know a lot of the things that the swamp creatures are doing.

[Lent]

Unless there is a statute of limitations on perjury it doesn’t matter if it was done pre-Sessions.

[AndyJackson]

because The Orange Man Is Bad

I have had posts deleted for saying that. The Russians launched an EMP attack and fried everyone's sarcasm meter. Fortunately I kept mine in a Faraday cage.

[ETL]

From CNBC.com, July 7, 2016...

A House panel grilled FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an email server scandal. In the hearing, South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Comey on the definition of intent and how Clinton could possibly evade punishment. ..."

Here’s a full transcript of the exchange:
_____________________________________________

Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey.
Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?

Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.

Gowdy: It was not true?

Comey: That’s what I said.

Gowdy: OK. Well, I’m looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?

Comey: That’s not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said “I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material.” That is true?

Comey: There was classified information emailed.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?

Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?

Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.

Comey: That’s a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there’s no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?

Comey: No.

Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I’m not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?

Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.

Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?

Comey: That is right[]

Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent?

In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.

You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether

They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.

Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You’re right. An average person does know not to do that.

This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn’t say that in ‘08 but says it now.

She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.

So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don’t know whether or not she was.

And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.

You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce ‘On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.’

It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence or if you’re Congress and you realize how difficult it is prove, specific intent, you will form lathe a statute that allows for gross negligence.

My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned there’s no precedent for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isn’t. There’s nothing to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email scheme or their staff.

And my real fear is this, what the chairman touched upon, this double track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information you will be kicked out.

But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be. With that I would yield back.

(the source of this transcript is closed captioning)

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/rep-trey-gowdy-rips-into-fbi-director-james-comey-on-hillary-clintons-intent.html

Backup link:

https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/rep-trey-gowdy-rips-into-fbi-director-james-comey-on-hillary-clintons-intent.html

____________________________________

[ETL]

From CNN, July 2016...

This was not his first time investigating the Clintons [Comey]

Nor his second. The email server probe marked the third time Comey has investigated Bill or Hillary Clinton.

His first run-in came in the mid-1990s, when he joined the Senate Whitewater Committee as a deputy special counsel. There he dug into allegations that the Clintons took part in a fraud connected to a Arkansas real estate venture gone bust. No charges were ever brought against either Clinton..."

"In 2002, Comey, then a federal prosecutor, took over an investigation into President Bill Clinton's 2001 pardon of financier Marc Rich, who had been indicted on a laundry list of charges before fleeing the country . ..."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/politics/who-is-james-comey-fbi-director-things-to-know/index.html
__________________________________

"The Whitewater controversy (also known as the Whitewater scandal, or simply Whitewater) began with investigations into the real estate investments of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their associates, Jim and Susan McDougal, in the Whitewater Development Corporation, a failed business venture in the 1970s and 1980s."

Whitewater Convictions

Jim Guy Tucker: Governor of Arkansas at the time, removed from office (fraud, 3 counts)

John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker (tax evasion)

William J. Marks, Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker's business partner (conspiracy)

Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds). Bill Clinton pardoned.

Webster Hubbell: Clinton political supporter; Rose Law Firm partner (embezzlement, fraud)

Jim McDougal: banker, Clinton political supporter: (18 felonies, varied)

Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple fraud). Bill Clinton pardoned.

David Hale: banker, self-proclaimed Clinton political supporter: (conspiracy, fraud)

Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president (embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign)

Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud). Bill Clinton pardoned.

Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent (multiple loan fraud)

Robert W. Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy). Bill Clinton pardoned.

John Latham: Madison Bank CEO (bank fraud)

Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant (multiple bribery)

Charles Matthews: Whitewater defendant (bribery)

Ultimately the Clintons were never charged, but 15 other persons were convicted of more than 40 crimes, including Bill Clinton's successor as Governor, who was removed from office.[40]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_%28controversy%29#Convictions

or,

https://web.archive.org/web/20090326122112/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_%28controversy%29

[Eagles6]

Yeah.

James O'Keefe and Dinesh need to do documentaries about this, the Russian Hoax, Benghazi...

[Mashood]

The first question they should ask is: Why would a supposed conservative nominee for the Supreme Court hire Ms. Wilkenson for his counsel?

[gibsonguy]

[Cheerio]

Shocked I tell ya!!!

Quick, to the windows. The Porcine Air Force will be passing over any moment.

[Eleutheria5]

What? He has a problem with Protestants in Northern Ireland?

[Kay]

Good post. Thanks.

[sargon]

[S]o now we see why HRC crashed into a wall today...

---

Literally or figuratively? I missed that story.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Sure it does. They have to undo the immunity deal.

The person perjured themselves, but was given immunity.

Now, you need a valid reason to undo the immunity agreement.

[Lent]

There is no such thing as immunity from perjured testimony. The immunity would be from any evidence they give regarding acts they are being examined for. There is no free license to lie on the stand or any kind of testimony given under oath.