Comey was asked if she lied under oath, he said "Not to the FBI."

When asked about her lying under oath to Congress he said "they didn't look into that."

Asked "Do you need a referral from Congress to investigate that?"

Comey said, "Yes"

"You will have one within a few hours"

 

So it looks like her committing perjury and lying to congress will now be investigated...I would have thought the FBI would have already looked at that, but evidently they needed a Congressional request to look into that.

 

Won't matter. They'll just say she did not intend to lie...

Comey was asked if she lied under oath, he said "Not to the FBI."

When asked about her lying under oath to Congress he said "they didn't look into that."

Asked "Do you need a referral from Congress to investigate that?"

Comey said, "Yes"

"You will have one within a few hours"

 

So it looks like her committing perjury and lying to congress will now be investigated...I would have thought the FBI would have already looked at that, but evidently they needed a Congressional request to look into that.

 

He already knows the answer to that question.

 

This investigation shouldn't take long but will due to the politics of it.

He already knows the answer to that question.

 

This investigation shouldn't take long but will due to the politics of it.

True, they have the evidence. All they have to do is review what she said under oath to the evidence they already have...investigation could be completed by this time tomorrow.

Won't matter. They'll just say she did not intend to lie...

I wonder how many people will be using this defense for speeding tickets?

Driver: "Officer, I didn't intend to go 80mph"

Officer: "OK then, you are free to go"

 

You know this is going to play out all over the country at traffic stops, during arrest and in court rooms.

I wonder how many people will be using this defense for speeding tickets? Driver: "Officer' date=' I didn't intend to go 80mph" Officer: "OK then, you are free to go" You know this is going to play out all over the country at traffic stops, during arrest and in court rooms.[/quote']

 

As they should, precedents have consequences.

I wonder how many people will be using this defense for speeding tickets?

Driver: "Officer, I didn't intend to go 80mph"

Officer: "OK then, you are free to go"

 

You know this is going to play out all over the country at traffic stops, during arrest and in court rooms.

 

I don't think so. The statute covering Clinton's actions had something about intent in it, as I gather from Comey's remarks. Traffic laws do not have anything about intent in them.

I don't think so. The statute covering Clinton's actions had something about intent in it, as I gather from Comey's remarks. Traffic laws do not have anything about intent in them.

I'm not saying it will work, I'm just saying that Police Officers are going to get tired of hearing this defense...everyone will be trying to be clever and say this.

GOP congressional pitbulls are spinning their wheels like they did at the Benghazi hearing. The public is becoming immune to this type of hackneyed political theater.

I don't think so. The statute covering Clinton's actions had something about intent in it, as I gather from Comey's remarks. Traffic laws do not have anything about intent in them.

 

I'm still trying to figure out how deleting evidence and lying under oath doesn't show intent.

True, they have the evidence. All they have to do is review what she said under oath to the evidence they already have...investigation could be completed by this time tomorrow.

 

It will take several months, making sure it drags out past the election.

 

Like I said, this is political.

Because politics trumps all. Bill told Lynch she would keep her job. Lynch said she would take direction from Comey. That equals no charges. Let's all face facts. Our justice system is corrupt.

 

More so when a Clinton is involved.

I don't think so. The statute covering Clinton's actions had something about intent in it, as I gather from Comey's remarks. Traffic laws do not have anything about intent in them.

 

A Congresswoman read the statute aloud. It has nothing about intent in it. Comey is the one that keeps inserting intent into it.

Are the Clinton's really the Underwoods? Is House of Cards actually a Docudrama based on their lives?

GOP congressional pitbulls are spinning their wheels like they did at the Benghazi hearing. The public is becoming immune to this type of hackneyed political theater.

 

Only those that don't care about double standards for the rest of us underlings.

Will anyone dispute that her security clearance should be taken away?