I’m not trying to defend Hillary Clinton but calls from her detractors in the GOP to have perjury charges made against her are ludicrous.
Now if she had been tried and convicted in the email case then I suppose perjury charges could be in order.
I’m not a lawyer, but as I understand it, in most cases prosecutors forgo perjury charges even when they win a conviction — although not always.
I mean it’s an odd thing I think that in our legal system we often realize that one side is essentially lying and the trick is to find out which side it is. Now this might not always be the case, because in civil cases it might be just a difference of opinion or point of view, with the court making the final determination. And in criminal cases, if the defense sticks to forcing the prosecution to prove its case (or hopefully not from the defense point of view), then one could say the defense did not lie. But even then one might say in the case of a conviction, the defense knew it was lying by omission or by selective testimony so the lies were implicit.
But at any rate, especially if the defendant testifies to his or her own innocence and then is convicted, I guess then the defendant would be said to have committed perjury (not sure on this).
Oh, but I forgot. I guess in the case of Mrs. Clinton some say she lied to federal officials. There is a statute or statutes (I have no cite here) that make it a violation of the law to lie to the feds. One can go to jail not because he or she is convicted of wrong doing but simply for lying to federal investigators. Ask Martha Stewart on that one. I always thought sending her to jail was an outrage, not because I was fond of her, but just because it was so transparently wrong to send one female to jail when so many of her male counterparts were just as guilty.
In addition, I am not convinced that Mrs. Clinton has lied (although I would not put it past her).
The FBI director claims that while she said she did not send and receive classified information via personal email, she did. But just because he said she did does not mean there is conclusive proof that she did. We have not seen any evidence. And he has not proved his case in court.
I do think that Mrs. Clinton carefully parsed her words about the matter, as both her and her husband are so good at doing (remember it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is and I did not have sex with that woman — depends upon what the meaning of sex is I guess).
And, anyway, I will bet that every GOP politician that accuses her of lying has lied as much as she has. It is the stock in trade of politicians.
Not sure my logic here hangs together in the above, but I’m thinking the prosecution had its chance, and it is gone, and the GOP would do better by trying to beat Mrs. Clinton at that ballot box (well I guess that is what the perjury nonsense is about — just a campaign ploy). But for some inexplicable reason they are set to nominate the biggest liar of all for their presidential candidate. Ironically that man got where he is because so many voters said he “tells it like it is”.