No witch hunt - no investigation - it's already been done - 1 year of investigating - now Loretta Lynch has been asked to make a determination as to whether or not Hilderbeast should be charged with perjury - we charge people with perjury day and night in the country - pretty easy for Lynch - Hillary's husband gave her a job and now she will be fired unless the beast gets in - pretty sure she pretends nothing happened
But later in the hearing, Democratic Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman asked Comey if he knew that the State Department had said that the emails were marked classified in error. Comey replied, “No.”
Likewise, Rep. Matt Cartwright, also a Democrat, asked Comey if the emails were properly classified, and Comey said they were not. (Executive Order 13526 spells out how documents should be properly classified, including a header on the document clearly identifying the email as classified as “confidential,” “secret” or “top secret.”)
Cartwright asked if Clinton could have missed the improper markings. Comey said that that was possible.
Cartwright, July 7: So, if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what’s classified and what’s not classified and we’re following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?
Comey: That would be a reasonable inference.
They live in a simple minded, 5-10 second sound bite influenced world, where "You didn't build that" and "What Difference would it make" are replayed time after time, with no context, none of what came before and after those phrases are put into context. That's why they support the Idiot Drumpf, who has mastered the simplistic, idiot speaking to idiots soundbite.
[h=1]1747. Elements Of Perjury -- Specific Intent[/h]The third element of a perjury offense is proof of specific intent, that is, that the defendant made the false statement with knowledge of its falsity, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake or faulty memory.United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94 (1993). Section 1621 requires that the defendant have acted "willfully"; the section 1623 requirement is to act "knowingly." In practice, these standards are virtually identical, although the government need not prove both willfulness and knowledge to sustain a section 1623 prosecution. United States v. Fornaro, 894 F.2d 508, 512 (2d Cir. 1990). Under either statute, the government must demonstrate the defendant voluntarily made the false statement with knowledge of its falsity. If the defendant believed his or her statement to be true when it was made, even though it was false, this essential element will not have been proven. See this Manual at 1753.
[cited in USAM 9-69.200]
