Remember when Clinton swore under oath that she had handed over all of her work-related emails? Yeah, I do too.
The State Department says about 30 emails that may be related to the 2012 attack on U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya, are among the thousands of Hillary Clinton emails recovered during the FBI’s recently closed investigation into her use of a private server.
Government lawyers told U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta on Tuesday that an undetermined number of the emails among the 30 were not included in the 55,000 pages previously provided by Clinton. The State Department’s lawyer said it would need until the end of September to review the emails and redact potentially classified information before they are released.
Mehta questioned why it would take so long to release so few documents and urged that the process be sped up. He ordered the department to report to him in a week with more details about why the review process would take a full month.
Can’t wait until Nord and Pat denounce Hillary as a “liar” and that she is guilty of felony perjury!
Guess I will not lie awake waiting for that one…
Once again your total lack of understanding regarding the judicial system trips you up. Has HC been charged, brought to trial, and convicted of felony perjury? If so, please provide the details. If not, it is you that is bending the truth.
Don’t you ever ponder about how your almost constant diversion from the truth affects any credibility you have ? A little self-reflection would do you good.
If a crime was committed, by all means prosecute.
I can easily denounce liars. I’ve denounced Kevin many times for his lies, and he’s denied his as often as Hillary’s denied hers. I’ll treat her no different that I treat him.
Pat, glad you denounced Hillary for lying.
Point out specific statement where I lied? Many have tried and failed.
Nord seems good defending Hillary’s lying and perjury.
Start here, “she is guilty of felony perjury!”.
Read Owen’s post.
It’s all on tape.
Really? When was the trial? Who filed the charges? How long was the sentence?
You make up this nonsense and expect folks to believe everything you say. How sad.
The lie under oath is on tape!
We now know she was lying by the evidence.
Just because one drives 80 mph in a 70 mph zone and does not get pulled over…it still means you were speeding.
“she is guilty of felony perjury!”
When was the trial? Who filed the charges? How long was the sentence?
Just because you say something doesn’t make it true.
When you say something, that does make it true, correct?
Great comeback. You must have been a terror on the playground. And no doubt a self-created victim.
But back on topic. What you said is false. I asked 3 questions and you declined to answer, as a truthful response would not fit your contention. So, in this case, you made a statement knowing full well that it was false. By definition, that makes you a liar. Not very christian of you.
So if one sees a rape, report it, and it is not prosecuted, the rape did not occur?
There is a difference between a legal rendering and simple everyday fact discernment in determining good and evil behavior.
Like I said before, speeding occurs on highway everyday and it is not prosecuted, but that makes drivers no less guilty of doing it.
I am surprised that an eminent constitutional scholar such as yourself forgot that in the US you are innocent until proven guilty. I’m sure you will change that once Trump is elected.
Common sense needs to prevail on obvious crime even if legal system fails to prosecute the well connected.
Determination of law breaking has to fall along lines of common sense when it comes to character of the candidate.
I’m reminded of the Chisolm liberal “guilty until proven innocent 5 times by a court” witchhunt of of conservative speech in WI.
At least in this Hillary case, there is evidence of her law breaking.
Only thing conservatives were guilty of was free speech…, and liberals were salivating to prosecute it!
What happened to that liberal railroad justice attitude when it comes to Hillary’s actual crimes?
So the rule of law has no meaning in your personal belief system ? Anarchy and chaos are your goal? As a self proclaimed “conservative” you have some pretty strange ideas regarding the interpretation of the Constitution and the justice system in the US. That is why ideologues like you are so frightening; you want to make the law up as you go, and to suit your whim or fabrication of the day. Goebbels would be proud of you.
Your use of the term “common sense” is puzzling as well, as obviously you don’t have a clue as to the meaning of the word “common” in this context.