House Republicans Move Forward With Really Strong Case Proving Hillary Committed Perjury

Two U.S. House committee chairmen are moving forward with their case against Hillary Clinton, and they are claiming that the Democrat presidential nominee committed perjury in front of Congress.

Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), the chairman of House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, along with Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Channing Phillips, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, making a strong case that Hillary committed perjury.

In their letter, the House Committee chairmen began by stating how FBI Director James Comey directly contradicted statements made by Hillary Clinton while she was under oath regarding her private email server:

“On August 2, 2016, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik confirmed that you received the Committees’ request for an investigation regarding certain statements made by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her testimony before Congress and will ‘take appropriate action as necessary. To assist the investigation, this letter identifies several pieces of Secretary Clinton’s testimony that appear to implicate 18 U.S.C. §§1621 and 1001 the criminal statutes that prohibit perjury and false statements, respectively. The evidence collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) during its investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State appears to directly contradict several aspects of her sworn testimony, which are described in greater detail below.”

The House Republicans revealed at least four specific times where Hillary lied under oath by digging into her past testimony on the Benghazi hearing late last year:

“During a House Select Committee on Benghazi hearing on October 22, 2015, Secretary Clinton testified with respect to (1) whether she sent or received emails that were marked classified at the time; (2) whether her attorneys reviewed each of the emails on her personal email system; (3) whether there was one, or more servers that stored work-related emails during her time as Secretary of State; and (4) whether she provided all her work-related emails to the Department of State. Although there may be other aspects of Secretary Clinton’s sworn testimony that are at odds with the FBI’s findings, her testimony in those four areas bears specific scrutiny in light of the facts and evidence FBI Director James Comey described in his public statement on July 5, 2016 and in testimony before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 7, 2016.”

The first point Chaffetz and Goodlatte touch on is the fact that Hillary swore to Congress she never sent nor received classified emails on her private server.

The House Republicans then continued, quoting Hillary’s exact testimony:

“[M]any Americans have no idea how the classification process works.  And therefore I wanted to make it clear that there is a system within our government, certainly within the State Department . . . where material that is thought to be classified is marked such, so that people have the opportunity to know how they are supposed to be handling those materials . . . and that’s why it became clearer, I believe, to say that nothing was marked classified at the time I sent or received it.”


Of course, the FBI Director has already revealed to Congress that Hillary outright lied and had sent and received classified emails.  The FBI had found several emails that “bore the markings indicating the presence of classified information.”

Director Comey specifically stated that,

“There was classified material emailed…In the one involving ‘top secret’ information, Secretary Clinton not only received but also sent emails that talked about the same subject.”

Hook.  Line.  And sinker.

The second claim of perjury talks about Hillary claiming that her lawyers did read all of her emails.  The FBI found out Clinton had lied and her legal team did not read all of her messages.

The third account of perjury relates to the number of private email servers Clinton was using, which she told Congress was one.  However, the FBI revealed Hillary was actually using several emails servers.

The fourth and final account of perjury was when Hillary Clinton told Congress that she had turned over all work-related emails to the State Department.

Again, the FBI’s investigation found this was not true.  Instead, “several thousand work-related emails were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014,” according to the FBI.

Hillary Clinton lied.

There’s no contesting that fact.

And House Republicans are determined to hold her accountable.

Let’s see if Hillary and her cronies can wiggle their way out of this scandal.

If you have any information to add, please leave a comment below.  Then share this article on Facebook and Twitter to help spread the word.

  • radiodickII

    If I had done that I would have already been arrested, she has not and probably won’t be since she seems to be above the law.

    • ricktenny

      Look at this kid in the Navy. He takes a few pictures of where he lives and works to show the family and he’s looking at six years! This woman needs to be convicted and imprisoned.


    Rule Of Law Is Essential To Ensuring Peaceful, Just And Inclusive Societies

    When addressing the rule of law and democracy nexus, a fundamental distinction has to be drawn between “rule by law”, whereby law is an instrument of government and government is considered above the law, and “rule of law”, which implies that everyone in society is bound by the law, including the government.

    Goal 16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.

    Goal 16 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is essentially a rule of law goal. Rule of law is required as a framework to achieve and maintain peace and good governance and is inherent to the achievement of equal access to justice. Access to justice in its broadest sense reflects and encompasses the need to ensure equality, inclusion and accountability in the implementation of all the other SDGs if development is to be truly sustainable.

  • SL

    The House Republicans can try to hold her accountable, but I will have to see it to believe it. This woman will not be held accountable for anything, watch and see. The Clinton machine just keeps rolling. The only way to be rid of this vile woman is if she is not elected president in Nov. But unfortunately, I believe she will be the next POTUS.

  • phyllis

    Haven’t we pretty much known from the beginning that everything that the Clintons have done thru all of the years of what they call Public Service, has really been the Public , all races, have been used by the Clintons because they believe that they are so smart. But with a ton of help from the Justice Department, and President Obama. Hillary Clinton is a Liar, period. And we all know that Bill Clinton lied to all Americans about Monica Lewinsky. How disgusting that these people would even be considered entering the White House again. And Hillary, the people that you claim you are fighting for would be in jail if they had done what you have, so should you!

    • Holy Joe

      You have chosen a good word to describe them both – “Disgusting” !

  • Censored_WND

    Great,, but remember this is an election year where politicians will do anything and even say MORE. Remember 2012 when ryan and his kind said to vote them into the congress and all the o-bam-ma’s craziness will end? Well we got a bigger budget, still have the aca, Illegal immigration is higher than ever, the VA is still out of control, ETC, ETC!!!! I am from the government and here to help Y’all’ 0 Run like HELL.

  • David Stewart

    She’ll walk; if we could only get those Senators and Representatives to leave those sheep alone——-be no grounds for blackmail!

  • Perjury committee against FBI. Indictment due!!!

  • Holy Joe

    No big deal, she has lied & committed perjury throughout her whole life and has consistently gotten away with it – nothing will stop her. She is totally incapable of knowing the truth or even understanding the basic concept of honesty.

  • Phil Esposito

    Okay, let’s get this moving and arrest her. I want to see her do the perp walk.

  • Donnie Buchanan

    The answer is, Were her lips moving?

    • nicholsda

      Do they ever stop?

  • Bob Taylor

    Not only is this government not going to do anything to Clinton it is hiding many other things it is doing. Below is a partial quote about Obama and what else he might do. However, be aware that H. Clinton would be ready to do the exact same things either for or with Obama.

    “Obama knows he is unpopular with the military; therefore, he has had to find a different way to institute martial law — and that is through a “civilian national security force.” On July 2, 2008, at a campaign stop, Obama made the following unscripted statement: “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

    In 2013 the United States spent $663.8 billion on the military, with personnel include 2.2 million people on active duty or in the reserves. America has local police forces, which could call in the National Guard, which could then call in the Department of Defense to protect the country in times of civil unrest. For what purpose, then, would a civilian security force funded with hundreds of billions of dollars and made up of millions of Americans be necessary?

    Another worrying issue is that Obama has militarized almost every federal agency. In September 2013, 70 federal agents in full body armor, carrying M-16s raided one person’s gold mining operation in a tiny Alaska town. They were from the Environmental Protection Agency looking for violations of the Clean Air Act.

    After this incident it was found that Obama had created law enforcement branches in over 70 federal agencies. It is estimated that there are over 120,000 law enforcement agents in the federal government who are not part of traditional law enforcement branches — CIA, FBI, DEA, ATF, DHS, DOJ, and Treasury Department.

    These law enforcement branches Obama has created are not comprised of just one or two security guards. Obama has armed these agencies to the teeth. Maj. Gen. Jerry Curry, a 40-year, decorated, military veteran, wrote an op-ed for the Daily Caller pointing out how, in addition to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s purchase of 46,000 hollow-point bullets, the Social Security Administration (SSA) bought 174,000 hollow-point bullets.

    In reaction to these purchases, Curry said, “Hollow-point bullets are so lethal that the Geneva Convention does not allow their use on the battlefield in time of war. Hollow-point bullets don’t just stop or hurt people, they penetrate the body, spread out, fragment and cause maximum damage to the body’s organs. Death often follows. Potentially each hollow nose bullet represents a dead American. If so, why would the U.S. government want the SSA to kill 174,000 of our citizens, even during a time of civil unrest? Or is the purpose to kill 174,000 of the nation’s military and replace them with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) special security forces, forces loyal to the Administration, not to the Constitution?”

    Curry goes on: “In the war in Iraq, our military forces expended approximately 70 million rounds per year. In March (of 2012) DHS ordered 750 million rounds of hollow-point ammunition. It then turned around and ordered an additional 750 million rounds of miscellaneous bullets including some that are capable of penetrating walls. This is enough ammunition to empty five rounds into the body of every living American citizen.”

    Curry’s final point is something that every American should consider: “Obama is a deadly serious, persistent man. Once he focuses on an object, he pursues it to the end. What is his focus here? … I hope I’m wrong, but something smells rotten. And If the Congress isn’t going to do its duty and investigate this matter fully, the military will have to protect the Constitution, the nation, and our citizens.”


  • Bob Taylor

    Next post to add to the other one.

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    The above is the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. It basically denies police power to the Federal government.

    This is the SCOTUS ruling in a case which seems to uphold this meaning. So how can congress approve money to arm these agencies?

    But even prior to 1937 not all measures taken to promote objectives which had traditionally been regarded as the responsibilities of the States had been held invalid. In Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co.,31 a unanimous Court, speaking by Justice Brandeis, upheld “War Prohibition,” saying: “That the United States lacks the police power, and that this was reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment, is true. But it is nonetheless true that when the United States exerts any of the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution, no valid objection can be based upon the fact that such exercise may be attended by the same incidents which attend the exercise by a State of its police power.”32 And in a series of cases, which today seem irreconcilable with Hammer v. Dagenhart, it sustained federal laws penalizing the interstate transportation of lottery tickets,33 of women for immoral purposes,34 of stolen automobiles,35and of tick-infected cattle,36 as well as a statute prohibiting the mailing of obscene matter.37 It affirmed the power of Congress to punish the forgery of bills of lading purporting to cover interstate shipments of merchandise,38 to subject prison-made goods moved from one State to another to the laws of the receiving State,39 to regulate prescriptions for the medicinal use of liquor as an appropriate measure for the enforcement of the Eighteenth Amendment,40and to control extortionate means of collecting and attempting to collect payments on loans, even when all aspects of the credit transaction took place within one State’s boundaries.41More recently, the Court upheld provisions of federal surface mining law that could be characterized as “land use regulation” traditionally subject to state police power regulation.42

    31 251 U.S. 146 (1919).

    32 Id. at 156.

    33 Lottery Case (Champion v. Ames), 188 U.S. 321 (1903).

    34 Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308 (1913).

    35 Brooks v. United States, 267 U.S. 432 (1925).

    36 Thornton v. United States, 271 U.S. 414 (1926).

    37 Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).

    38 United States v. Ferger, 250 U.S. 199 (1919).

    39 Kentucky Whip & Collar Co. v. Illinois C. R.R., 299 U.S. 334 (1937).

    40 Everard’s Breweries v. Day, 265 U.S. 545 (1924).

    Reversing this trend, the Court in 1995 in United States v. Lopez43 struck down a statute prohibiting possession of a gun at or near a school, rejecting an argument that possession of firearms in school zones can be punished under the Commerce Clause because it impairs the functioning of the national economy. Acceptance of this rationale, the Court said, would eliminate “a[ny] distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local,” would convert Congress’ commerce power into “a general police power of the sort retained by the States,” and would undermine the “first principle” that the Federal Government is one of enumerated and limited powers.44 Application of the same principle led five years later to the Court’s decision in United States v. Morrison45 invalidating a provision of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that created a federal cause of action for victims of gender-motivated violence. Congress may not regulate “non-economic, violent criminal conduct based solely on that conduct’s aggregate effect on interstate commerce,” the Court concluded. “[W]e can think of no better example of the police power, which the Founders denied the National Government and reposed in the States, than the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims.”46

    Notwithstanding these federal inroads into powers otherwise reserved to the States, the Court has held that Congress could not itself undertake to punish a violation of state law; inUnited States v. Constantine,47 a grossly disproportionate excise tax imposed on retail liquor dealers carrying on business in violation of local law was held unconstitutional. However, Congress does not contravene reserved state police powers when it levies an occupation tax on all persons engaged in the business of accepting wagers regardless of whether those persons are violating state law, and imposes severe penalties for failure to register and pay the tax.48

    Further information may be found here.

  • S. Rutherford

    She will walk. Just like her husband. The system is bought and paid for. All this talk about prosecution is political posturing. They know full well that those in power believe shillary will be elected and their future careers are on the line or lives even.

  • richardkpalais

    LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP! Clint-bitch should be in jail NOW!! Anyone else would be. The clint-bitches, that is both bill-bitch and hill-bitch, are NOT above the law and I for one, am sick and tired of them lying, committing crimes, and not being held accountable! Period!

  • gypsy314

    DOJ will not take the case because the fix is in for Hillary . The party of lies and crooks with there plant of rinos will cover for her . Americans must demand term limits be put on the ballot so Americans can vote for it.

  • jube8

    One of the problems this country faces is that so many people think it is ok to lie, Hillary, Lochte, Trump, Nixon, the people who got us into Viet Nam which eroded our country’s moral base.

  • Walton Ferris

    I’m curious about the fact that her “lawyers” were complicit in the DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE! Where are the charges against this band of racketeers? I say – Drag their butts up in front of a congressional hearing and make them testify. Of course they will all “plead the 5th” like her IT guy Bryan Pagliano did but it will show most honest people just how slimy this whole crew is.