Home / #Solutions / Breaking: FBI to Investigate Clinton for Lying Under Oath to Congress About Email Server

Breaking: FBI to Investigate Clinton for Lying Under Oath to Congress About Email Server

Washington, D.C. –  After FBI Director James Comey announced on Wednesday that the bureau had found no basis to bring a criminal case against Clinton for her handling of email when she was secretary of state, he was immediately called before Congress to explain the reasoning behind his decision.

Interestingly, as Comey began his testimony, by explaining again that there was no cause to prosecute Clinton and reiterated that there was no precedent for bringing such a case, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the committee chairman, zeroed in on another matter altogether, but potentially even more damaging — lying under oath.

During questioning by House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz on Thursday, FBI Director James Comey was grilled about whether Clinton had perjured herself. The exchange ultimately culminated in Chaffetz announcing that he will send a referral to the FBI on Thursday to investigate Hillary Clinton’s testimony under oath last October in regards to statements about the setup of her private email server.

“Did Hillary Clinton lie under oath?” Chaffetz asked.

“Not to the FBI,” Comey responded. “Not in a case we were working.”

Chaffetz quickly reminded the FBI director that while under oath last October, Clinton stated that “there was nothing marked classified” in her emails, either “sent or received.”

While Comey said he was “aware” of the statements, the FBI has not investigated the testimony as there hadn’t been a referral from Congress to investigate the alleged perjury by Clinton in her statements before Congress.

READ MORE:  BREAKING: DNC Holding Emergency Meeting to Discuss Replacing Clinton as Presidential Nominee 

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

“Sure do,” Comey replied.

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

Then former federal prosecutor Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) laid the groundwork for an FBI investigation with his questioning of Comey — highlighting now proven lies told by Clinton under oath to the Benghazi committee Gowdy chaired. Noting Clinton’s dubious testimony to his committee previously, he asked Comey a series of questions leading to only one possible conclusion.

“Did Clinton email classified information?” Gowdy asked.

“Yes,” Comey replied.

“Did she use just one device?” Gowdy continued.

“No,” Comey said, “there were multiple devices.”

“Did Clinton return all work-related emails to the State Department?”

“No,” Comey said, “the bureau found others.”

“Did her lawyers read through every single email they reviewed before returning the material to the State Department?” Gowdy pressed.

“No”, Comey said, “they had not.”

The implication of the questioning is clear — and damning. Numerous statements made by Clinton to the committee about her private email server were clearly erroneous, as highlighted by Comey’s own testimony. Any false statements by Clinton would be a sign of “intent and consciousness of guilt,” according to Gowdy, which would blatantly undermine the FBI recommendation, and the DOJ’s non-indictment of Clinton.

FBI Director Comey also admitted that a government worker would have been disciplined for handling classified information the way Hillary Clinton did.

READ MORE:  17 Reasons Why Your Vote Not Only Doesn't Count, But is Part of the Problem

One would be wise to recall the case of Martha Stewart, who was investigated intensely by the FBI for insider trading. Stewart wasn’t charged criminally with an underlying crime, but rather for attempting to obstruct the investigation by lying under oath about the reasons for her sale.

  • Wuulf

    And the persecution continues.

    • Tom Moore

      that’s criminal prosecution, not “persecution”

  • Jack Mabry

    As well it should. Hillary has committed a multitude of felonies! She needs to be sitting in jail, not running for the Presidency.

    • LorenajHankins

      I currently get paid around $6.000-$8.000 a month for freelance jobs i do at home. For anyone ready to work simple at home jobs for 2-5 hours /day from your living room and earn good profit while doing it… This is a work for you… http://self40.com

  • JN West

    The witch hunt continues.

    • ta111

      Well she is witch, no doubt about that. And a lying scum.

    • LAZT

      Don’t think it needs to continue….they’ve found her.

  • befranktome

    She lied under oath. Felony. I don’t think she will skate on that one. The only reason she isn’t being prosecuted for the emails in the first place is because Comey couldn’t prove intent and refused to prosecute. She broke the law, that isn’t at question. It was a discretion decision for prosecution by Comey. Another clue was the question if the Clinton Foundation is under investigation. You can come to your own conclusions on that one. I hope they bring the whole house of cards down. Integrity does matter.

    • Louise Simrell

      Intent is not part of the law.

      • Lawrence WTTD

        Yes it is. “(b)
        Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent”

        • Stormy Drop

          ok, go rob a bank and tell the police you had no intention to break the law and watch what happens. intent is irrelevant, read the law.

          • Lawrence WTTD

            I know, it sounds unusual, but you can read many case files where “proven” intent was a factor. For example a guy was in a fight, and when his punch missed his intended target and busted a car window, he was found not guilty of vandalism because he did not intend to bust the window. It even applies to shooting a gun while hunting and accidentally shooting your friend in the face.

          • cashills

            Her setting up a server in her basement shows intent. Destruction of emails shows intent.

    • Stormy Drop

      he doesnt need to prove intent, that was all propaganda and lies. read the law. intent doesnt matter if you comit a crime.

      • Patrick Musson

        Technically, if you are trying to prove criminality in regard to the Espionage Act, intent is not necessary, all you need to prove is gross negligence.

    • Patrick Musson

      The lies she told the public show intent.

    • sanity1

      She wasn’t under oath, stupid!

      • befranktome

        Hey, you may want to do some checking before you look “stupid” yourself. She was under oath when she testified before congress. That is why they are charging her with perjury….. duh.

    • Hogarth Kramer

      Listen to the full questioning. It was pointed out that intent would have been fairly easy to prove, ironically by the very thing that might now bring her down: there is well established precedent for proving intent based on the fact that the defendant spent four years lying about it. So, the whole “intent” thing is really two lies in one: not only is it not needed, but it could have been done anyway.

    • B.L. Splatter

      I intended to wash my underwear but that was last year, now nobody wants to be my friend. Intent is a strange world.

  • ta111

    Gowdy was fantastic and pointed out not only is there a mountain of evidence to prove intent but she lied under oath.

    • Stormy Drop

      intent is still irrelevant in the eyes of the law, if you comit a crime it doesnt matter at all if you meant to or not.

    • Trixie

      If only Gowdy was running for president.

  • boblgumm

    We are now back to Hillary having told the truth about classified information:

    http://bluenationreview.com/grilling-of-comey-on-emails-even-more-humiliating-for-gop-than-benghazi-hearing/

    Comey has now made it clear that the year-long investigation of 55,000 Hillary emails did not reveal a single email clearly marked classified. Only three — just three — of Hillary’s emails “bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.” “Bore markings” is not the same thing as “marked classified.” Comey said that those markings were simply a (c) somewhere in the body of the email and nothing in the header or subject line. He further stated that they were improperly marked and that it was reasonable for Hillary to assume they were not classified.

    • Cha Cha DiGregorio
    • LAZT

      Grow a brain.

    • Michael Newberry

      That’s an absurd argument. For Hilary not to be able to recognize classified or classifiable information argues that she is butt-head stupid beyond belief! FBI Director Comey said 110 emails in 52 chains that were sent and received were classified at the time ,plus 2200 that were classified afterwards. A person with a security clearance is responsible for recognizing information that should be classified. Likewise, they are responsible NOT to delete ANY government information. Violations are punishible by firing, loss of security clearance for life, fines, and lengthy jail terms. All this is clearly stated in GSA Standard Form 312, which everyone must sign after their background investigation and security classes but before they can be given their clearance. There are 4.2 million Americans who signed this document and have a security clearance. Read the form here: http://www.gsa.gov/portal/forms/download/116218

      • Dennis

        Not absurd at all when it comes to the perjury claim. Out of tens of thousands of emails, there were literally three that had markings, and those markings were done improperly and not indicated in the headers. Further, Comey said they were buried within multiple levels of forwarding. There is also indication that that these may have been erroneously marked, however that a separate issue as far as intent. The point is that neither Clinton nor her lawyers actually read through the bodies of all these 50,000 or whatever emails before turning them over. So to try and make a perjury case that she “lied” under oath about there not being any emails sent or received that were marked classified would be not even come close to a reasonable doubt standard. It’s also laughable to claim that if she knew that out of 50,000 emails that three were marked, though improperly, and that these were being turned over to the investigators, that she would make some kind of calculation that it would be better to perjure herself about those three improperly and possibly erroneously marked email and lie to the public about that.

        Now I’m just referring to the claim that she lied or that she perjured herself. If you want to say that’s irrelevant, that it doesn’t matter whether she knew or not, then that may not matter either if they were erroneously marked in the first place. Not to mention that the FBI has already cleared her of criminal wrong doing in regards to the underlying activities.

        The irony of all of this is that her Republican interrogators in Congress, by their own self-set rules, allow themselves to use personal emails for government communications even though they also have security clearance. They are also allowed to use mobile devices to check said email, and are not subject to the archiving and FOIA rules that apply to the Executive Branch. So likely the public would never have the opportunity to find out if any of them ever sent or received classified information with their personal email even if by accident. Nor will the public be able to comb through for any other ridiculous minutiae to discredit them in a similar fashion.

        Further, there were no findings that Clinton’s email server was ever hacked, even though the State Department and White House were both hacked. True that Comey could not rule this out, however that’s a pretty low legal standard to say that not being able to prove a negative is therefore proof of a positive. If this was anything other than a massive waste of tax payer money and resources being used to stop Hillary Clinton from becoming the next president then Congress should be asking serious and pertinent questions about how to better protect and secure sensitive information across the board, and not just focus on this single-minded obsession with persecuting a political opponent.

        Chaffetz was quivering with excitement about referring a perjury investigation, Gowdy suggested that even if there’s not been a precedent in 100 years based on these facts for prosecuting Clinton that they should start one now and make an example of her, and Grothman suggested that their committee was entitled to review all of her personal email as well. They desperately tried to get Comey to say that she “lied” or was “dishonest”, neither of which he ever stated. In fact he directly contradicted that in regards to their own investigation. But that didn’t stop several Republican committee members from stating that he did. Another irony, that they literally lied about what Comey said while questioning Attorney General Lynch under oath (not to mention countless interviews in which they’ve lied about this also).

        There’s obviously a lot of problems that have come to light here, from inconsistent policies and enforcement between different agencies and branches of government, up-classifying and over-classifying (such as information that’s already in the public domain), and obvious human error or laziness or carelessness when it comes to security and archiving. Romney willfully destroyed millions of Gubernatorial emails at the end of his term and then bought off the hardware. Republicans did not care. Former Secretary of State Powell used personal email for government business and it was not archived. Republicans did not care. The Bush Administration destroyed over 20 million emails that used a private sever run by the RNC. Where was the Republican outrage? It just shows how disingenuous this whole effort has been.

        They had a free shot a Clinton for 11(?) hours to question her under oath. I could think of a few questions to ask Trump under oath, like that will ever happen. Following Romney’s lead, Trump is extremely stingy about releasing any kinds of records that he absolutely doesn’t have to. He won’t even release one year of tax returns before he’s officially confirmed as the party’s nominee. So there’s one candidate, Clinton, who we have more documents and information about than any candidate in modern history, and the other who we may have the least. Yet Clinton is considered the secretive one. Well done GOP, well done.

        So yet again the party of small government has proven their own charge, that government is ineffective, wasteful and abusive. If you don’t like Clinton then don’t vote for her. But using millions of dollars of tax payer money and untold government resources in a futile attempt take down a political opponent is disgraceful. Whichever party loses this election deserves it.

      • She willfully (can you spell intent?) diverted to a private server in order to avoid FOIA requests.

    • Kjartan Andersen

      If you have a security clearance this is one of the things you are told to look out for. A document would have many paragraphs/chapters/supchapters and for every one there would be a marking in the form (U), (R), (C), (S), (TS) to identify what type of info it contained.
      You can’t then say that if the big stamp in the header of the document is gone that it is unclassified. So either Clinton didn’t know or she willfully disregarded it. First option makes her stupid the second makes her dangerous. Both make her unfit for presidency.

      • boblgumm

        You may be right. However, there is a third possibility that seemed to get a lot of mention at the witch hunt, I mean hearing. That is that all kinds of government folks with high security clearances have a long history of not being careful due to things like laziness and big workload. Further, there is no indication anyone with any improper or evil intent got a hold of any of this stuff, unlike, for example, Dick Cheney giving up CIA undercover agent Valarie Plame, or David Petraeus willfully sharing admitted classified info. All I am saying is it looks a lot more like carelessness than stupidity or being dangerous. I am also saying, because of this, that the rush to find this action stupid or dangerous clearly smacks of one-sided “get Hillary at any cost ism.”

  • TehGrumpyOldGuy

    This Nov will be America’s one and only chance to end the Clintons madness for good.
    It’s time America, Trump needs to win in a landslide. Let’s make it happen.
    For those of you that support the Clintons, to make it simple for you to comprehend,
    you are not part of the problem, YOU are the problem.

    • LAZT

      It will be Bernie.

    • Jerry Adkins

      I do hope all of you nonviolent conservatives will recognize that you and us Bernie or busters really do have more in common than not. So, maybe, just maybe we can step back , take a deep breath and find a way to work together. Maybe I’m just crazy , but let me be the first to reach out and offer an olive branch so that we can straighten this mess out together. We’ve certainly got nothing to lose by talking to one another.

      • Janice

        your right except we Bernie supporters have 80% of the independent vote, 44% of the democratic vote, an unknown number of republicans who will not vote for trump and the folks who registered this cycle who had quit voting as they thought their input did not matter, oh lets not forget the green party and an unknown amount of others – We sir have the votes to elect Bernie Sanders our next president,,, if the DNC is smart they will choose Bernie, if not plan b or c will come into play which ever way we go we will Elect Bernie Sanders President

      • JJnTX

        We do. We just realize that Bernie’s policies are well intentioned, but will never work.

        • B. Alvn

          No, we have to spend about 1/2 of the budget on military and being the cop of the world, not on our own people and future. Clearly college students and medical care for our people is a waste of good money that can buy more weapons, more bases, and more boots on the ground …..everywhere! And we need to keep giving Israel cash payments too, how can you not remember our priorities, good sir?

        • They CAN work, but it all depends upon who is in Congress. He’s explained it all on his website. The jobs issue is a no-brainer: badly needed infrastructure.

  • Glenn Grillo

    intent doesn’t matter at all – the law is about whether you do it or not. Otherwise anyone could do it and then say I didn’t intend it to be bad and get out of it. They just used that as a way of justifying not prosecuting her

    • RANDY W FRICKE

      You are incorrect. Intent is 9/10th’s of the law. It’s all about intent because intent demonstrates malice aforethought and consciousness of guilt.

      • Louise Simrell

        Actually, with the particular law she was accused of violating, intent is not relevant. 793 of the US legal code does not include intent.

        • Lawrence WTTD

          Actually, yes, intent is relevant. Paragraph (b) “and with like intent”.

      • Stormy Drop

        you should read the law before you talk like a know it all. when a crime is comitted intent is irrelevant, otherwise for example i could shoot you and claim i didnt intend to break the law and escape charges, but i cant do that. now can i? its the same with all of the rest of the laws, if you break a law, it doesnt matter what your intentions were, the action matters.

    • PrimeMover

      Intent is an element that must be proven in a criminal trial. Circumstantial evidence is one way to prove intent. Gowdy talks about it in his grilling of (sold out traitor) Comey. There is overwhelming Circumstantial evidence for at least an indictment. There is also enough to make it all the way to a jury to decide whether she is Guilty or Not Guilty

    • PrimeMover

      To have 10 likes on your comment is proof how ignorant most of us are to the law. Sad

  • Michael J McGee

    I’m a registered Democrat and while I won’t be voting for Trump, I certainly won’t be voting for Clinton, either. It was great to see the committee going after the FBI director yesterday.

    • B.L. Splatter

      What are you going to do Oh please tell us we must know.

  • Giovanni Pincoletti

    If anyone wants to lose their lunch, watch the video of these hearings. I want to particularly point out the performance of Elijah Cummings, the rep from Maryland. His performance was the epitome of an obsequious sycophant. He tried to put a positive spin, a euphemism for lying, on Hillary’s crimes. Cummings is one of Hillary’s primary ass-kissing coterie members.

    While the other members of the committee were asking pertinent questions, Cummings continued his toady routine of acting like, dare I say it without sounding racist, the house servant. I gritted my teeth and watched it until the end where Cummings launched into hyperbolic praise of Comey, a devoted globalist and darling of the Elites. Cummings dripped sugary words upon the compromised director, who by the way has no law enforcement experience.

    I couldn’t help wonder what the people of Maryland saw in this loser who’s bad acting didn’t even measure up to Sarah Palin’s bad acting. But that is the wonder of politic in that creeps and criminals can fool enough of America’s mentally challenged to vote them into office.

    Back to Comey, the man tasked with the investigation. He was a VP at Lockheed Martin and also with the banking giant and money laundering entity for the illegal U.S. drug industry, HSBC, who also have been indicted for a myriad of other crimes.

    Comey also made a speech at Georgetown University concerning police relations with the black communities. He basically blamed the violence by the police, on the black community. He said that white cops become cynical patrolling the high black crime areas and sometimes vent that anger and cynicism by shooting black citizens He is also against police body cameras. He says it interferes with law enforcement. What he really means is that it interferes with police murders. I guess we should feel sorry for those police who are grossly damaged by “cynicism.”

    He is also for more holocaust educations, for whatever that is worth. Like we haven’t heard enough from the Zionists on that subject.

    We now know that Comey is an insider, a friend of the Clintons and Bushes and has a criminal past that rivals Hillary’s. He also knows nothing of law enforcement and is only there as an executive to keep a clear track for the Elites. Even the odious and unpopular creep, J. Edgar Hoover, worked his way up in the bureau. Comey was appointed to run the FBI as, you guessed it, another corporation.

    So, here we have one criminal conducting a sham investigation on another criminal who probably will be the next president. One wonders what plum appointment Comey will get in a Clinton administration for being such a good servant.

    Does anyone now not believe that the fix is in? All hail Hillary, the new queen and Wall Street prostitute.

  • Carolab

    Just ONE lie is enough to convict her of perjury.

  • Linda

    He said there was no other case like this where there was an indictment . There was a case ! http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/justice-department-prosecuted-4-cases-like-hillarys/#!

    • Michael Newberry

      There are numerous cases. The Obama Administration was vicious about prosecuting such cases and Hilary is on the record supporting the aggressive prosecution of people who were negligent with classified information.

  • Michael Newberry

    Read it for yourself: This is GSA Standard Form 312 which every clearance holder, including Clinton, must sign after taking the security classes in order to receive their security clearance. Clinton violated this thing up and down, left and right. http://www.gsa.gov/portal/forms/download/116218

    • boblgumm

      If true, that FBI and all the right wing investigator hacks in ihe House are sure incompetent, huh?

      • Michael Newberry

        You never had a security clearance so you don’t know, and I take it that you didn’t read the SF312 I posted. There are 4.2 million Americans with a security clearance. They know that they would be hung out to dry, possibly rotting in Leavenworth right now, if they did what Hilary did.

  • Gail B

    Her husband was IMPEACHED for lying to congress! I guess some people are just slow learners.

    • JiminHayward

      Hillary is keeping it in the family!! lolz.

    • ampay

      She is most definitely a slow learner. Just look at her foreign policy record for proof.

  • Louise Simrell

    Problems: the head of the FBI came there with no law enforcement experience. He was at Lickheed Martin before he was on the board of HSBC. In 2012 HSBC was found guilty of laundering drug money. No one went to jail, the fine was equal to 5 weeks of profit. The US attorney for NY who orchestrated that sweetheart deal is now the Attorney General of the United States…
    And we expect justice….

  • Francisco Scaramanga

    I was going to vote for H Clinton, but after this no way! I realized that she is pathological liar!

    • JiminHayward

      Please convince all your friends!

    • God love you for removing the shields from your eyes. She sure can bamboozle them with BS and fist waving. The worst part is how she’s played the woman card. She definitely is NOT the right woman. Not only is she a pathological liar, but she morphs into what she thinks the audience wants her to be. If you really want to get sick, read the book “Clinton Cash.” She’s bad for the environment being pro-fracking and pro-pipelines. She’s bad for the economy being pro-TPP even though she now says she’s against it. Hillwhorey bows to the Illuminati elitists who she will help in their agenda to depopulate the world and create only 2 classes: the lower serf class and the 1% slave masters.

  • Suchen

    Lying Duo: With a bit of luck they will dig up that same old helicopter Nixon waved goodbye from for Hillary’s last trip…

    • JiminHayward

      I was in Tustin that day Nixon landed. Eating oranges on the other side of the fence. I would love to do that again!!! Crooked Hillary (and I was a democrat until yesterday!).

  • RJ Wal

    And not mentioned in the article:
    “Her” lawyers who reviewed/read the emails before turning them over to the FBI had NO SECURITY CLEARANCE to be reading them in the first place.

    • Lawrence WTTD

      Actually, her lawyers David Kendall and Katherine Turner have both had Top Secret clearance since 2013. The argument you see now is “was it Top Top Top Secret clearance or just Top Top Secret clearance?” and it’s a joke anyway. There were Christmas card invitations sent around marked Top Secret. The whole place is a mess.

  • JiminHayward

    Doing the happy dance!!

  • AMERIKANS.ORG

    THIS WILL PROVIDE COMEY WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO REDEEM HIMSELF FOR HIS ILLOGICAL DECISION NOT TO PROSECUTE CLINTON FOR THE EMAIL SCANDAL. THE PERJURY CASE SEEMS A LITTLE STRONGER AND SHOULD RESULT IN A RECOMMENDATION FOR CHARGES……

    I WONDER WHETHER LORETTA LYNCH WILL STILL ALLOW COMEY TO MAKE THE ULTIMATE DECISION ON THIS ONE?

    MY BET IS THAT SINCE SHE KNEW THE FIX WAS IN ON THE EMAILS, SHE FELT OKAY DEFERRING TO COMEY…..BUT ON THIS NEW CASE, SHE WON’T FEEL THE SAME WAY, UNLESS THEY CAN SOMEHOW INFLUENCE COMEY’S DECISION MAKING ONCE AGAIN.

    HOPEFULLY THEY WON’T BE ABLE TO PULL THAT OFF AND BILL CLINTON WON’T BE VISITING HER AT AIRPORTS THIS TIME.

    • If the truth were known, her indictment probably would have led to many others including Obama who allowed the e-mail server debacle. It would bring the whole house down.

  • jimminn

    Why the FBI did not question Hilary under oath and record it is the stupidest thing I ever heard of. What do these people have for brains?

    • Kjartan Andersen

      I think the case is that Clinton has told the truth to the FBI and lied to everyone else. FBI will now be tasked to investigate her lying to Congress. That should be a short investigation as it is recorded on video/audiotapes. It is just to pause for every lie they find. So that should just take a few months of play pause play pause to log all of the lies.

    • boblgumm

      Don’t forget. It’s the same government that allowed Bush and Cheney to testify to the 911 Commission not under oath.

  • Mixelflick

    Yep. Many, MANY instances of lying under oath. Which means intent. To the powers that be: Exactly how much gross negligence, how many instances of perjury and examples of corruption do you need – before you ACT?

    All you Dems must be psyched: Celebrating no criminal charges. Just more and more blatant lies…

    • boblgumm

      At least you Repubs got your investigations (ad nauseum). All us Dems got was to watch the dozen or so lying, treasonous war criminals of the Bush Administration laugh off into the sunset. There were some good t-shirts however.

  • Alan Edwards

    Another investigation…same results I’d wager. Elites are ABOVE the law.

  • Everyone involved in this shamefully executed investigation should not only be in jail, but should have to be fined more than enough to repay the taxpayers’ dollars that went into this long and unfruitful investigation.

  • possibilities

    Anyone who thinks Hillary should be charged needs to “get out the vote” for Trump. If she wins the election, all of this will be a moot point. If she is indicted before Obama leaves office and before Trump takes office, Obama will pardon her before he leaves the White House. The only justice she will ever receive will be after Trump is elected.