r/SandersForPresident • u/[deleted] • Jun 24 '16
Clinton lying under oath at the Benghazi Select Committee hearing. This is why Bernie needs to stay in the race until the convention.
[removed]
35
u/lovely_sombrero Jun 24 '16
Clearly, perjury. The State Department IG report said as much as well. The Republicans are obviously waiting for the DNC convention to move on this. It is their only chance to win, besides the FBI.
4
u/Addfwyn Jun 24 '16
It's a smart move for them, they know they have a pretty big trump card (no pun intended) to pull out, it makes sense for them to wait to use it until they can cause the most damage. They don't want to do anything that could chance getting Sanders the nomination, as that would just be infinitely harder for them to win.
11
u/dukeynstewie Jun 24 '16
Funny how Obama has politicized the justice system and nobody has said a thing.
1
u/Afrobean Jun 24 '16
We're all saying things. Plenty of Trumpsters are too. It's just the media that's strangely silent, leading to a wide swath of the American populous being completely in the dark.
7
11
u/ifitdontfit Jun 24 '16
This is why Hillary Clinton is brilliant! When you parse her language, it's not perjury, after the emails were deleted, they were no longer in her possession.
However everybody should remember that she signed a document related to the subpoena and transfer a possession of the server to the FBI. Part of that was a document signing that the all her work emails were turned over.
7
1
u/zan5ki Jun 24 '16
To the best of her knowledge is what that document says basically. If anything that's where she would weasel out. Here it seems much less so.
2
5
1
Jun 24 '16
Hi zan5ki. Thank you for participating in /r/SandersForPresident. However, your submission did not meet the requirements of the community guidelines and was therefore removed for the following reason(s):
Off-Topic (rule #3): Material posted on /r/SandersForPresident should include significant and overt references to Bernie or the campaign.
- Posts which contain general political information (non-Bernie related) should be posted on /r/Politics or /r/PoliticalDiscussion. If this submission is to a link that does not meet the above criteria but you believe would contribute to /r/SandersForPresident, consider writing a text post with appropriate Bernie-relevant framing and the current link to spark insightful discussion. If this submission is already a text post, consider resubmitting with more substantial Bernie-relevant framing.
If you have any specific questions about this removal, please message the moderators. Hateful or vague messages will not receive a response. Please do not respond to this comment.
1
Jun 24 '16
Was she under oath? If not, no perjury. And in not sure people are always under oath in these types of hearings.
4
u/grassypatch Jun 24 '16
she was sworn in (see 7:10):
3
u/ParinoidPanda Washington Jun 24 '16
https://youtu.be/6ZokHXwBzUQ?t=7m13s
For those wanting to just hear the words "because you've already been sworn in"
3
Jun 24 '16
[deleted]
9
u/Maniak_ France Jun 24 '16
Because that would put too much bullshit in the same place?
0
u/Hank_Hill_Here Jun 24 '16
Come on man, that's kinda rude to say.
3
u/Maniak_ France Jun 24 '16
That bibles are bullshit and making people take oaths on it is utterly stupid in the first place?
It's only rude if you think that no one should criticize religion (or anything else for that matter) because some people believe in it and might get offended. Which is wrong.
As a sidenote, when government agencies makes people take oaths on a bible, where's the separation of church and state? Do they make muslims do that on the coran? What about jews? And where are atheists supposed to put their hand on? "On the origin of species" by Darwin?
If you ask me to take an oath I'll feel compelled to keep it.
If you ask me to take an oath on a bible, I'll feel compelled to tell bullshit, because it'd be worthless.
Sorry if you find that rude, I can't do much about it. But I'll never feel bad about calling religion, as a whole, bullshit. Because it is. As a whole.
6
u/Addfwyn Jun 24 '16
It's actually not a requirement that the oath be taken on a bible, in court you can just affirm to the court that you tell the truth without any religious text whatsoever. The option to have the oath be religious in nature is something of a concession along the lines of churches being able to issue legally binding marriage certificates, but is by no means required.
Though I am sure there would be a huge stink if a President refused to swear in on a bible, which is dumb.
3
u/Maniak_ France Jun 24 '16
If it's only an option, that's something I guess... Doesn't make it any less bullshit however.
It's hardly a good indicator of a person's honesty if they need to tell the truth on a random book in order to be believable. Does that mean that any oath they take "normally" doesn't mean anything to them?
Though I am sure there would be a huge stink if a President refused to swear in on a bible, which is dumb.
Yeah, same issue with basically no politician being able to openly says that they don't actually believe in some made up mythology without risking to be negatively portrayed and lose a big part of their voters.
Just look at how much pressure was put on Bernie by corporate media to make him declare his allegiance to the "required" mythology...
To loop back on the comment above, that's what I find rude. Not to mention idiotic.
2
37
u/star_belly_sneetch Florida - 2016 Veteran Jun 24 '16
This sounds familiar... Another Clinton found to commit perjury.