Did Hillary Clinton commit perjury?

Given that Gregory Hicks testified yesterday that he never stated a protest became a terrorist attack and also testified  the YouTube video was a non-event in Lybia: one can only conclude that then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, lied during this exchange.

Via The Right Scoop:

The transcript begins at the 2:08 mark and ends at the 5:29 mark:

SEC. CLINTON: …the FBI spoke to them before we spoke to them. And so other than our people in Tripoli, which — I think you’re talking about Washington, right?

SEN. JOHNSON: Yeah. The point–the point I’m making is a very simple phone call to these individuals I think would have ascertained immediately that there was no protest prior to this. I mean, this attack started at 9:40 p.m., Benghazi time, and it was an assault — and I appreciate the fact that you called it an assault. ….

SEC. CLINTON: Well –

SEN. JOHNSON: Why wasn’t that known? And again, I appreciate the fact of the transparency of this — of this hearing, but why weren’t we transparent at that point in time?

SEC. CLINTON: Well, first of all, Senator, I would say that once the assault happened and once we got our people rescued and out, our most immediate concern was, number one, taking care of their injuries — as I said, I still a DS agent at Walter Reed seriously injured — getting them into Frankfurt, Ramstein –

SEN. JOHNSON: Is that –

SEC. CLINTON: — to get taken care of, the FBI going over immediately to start talking to them — we did not think it was appropriate for us to talk to them before the FBI conducted their interviews, so — and we did not — I think this is accurate, sir — I certainly did not know of any reports that contradicted the IC talking points at the time that Ambassador Rice went on the TV shows.

And, you know, I just want to say that, you know, people have accused Ambassador Rice and the administration of, you know, misleading Americans. I can say, trying to be in the middle of this and understanding what was going on, nothing could be further from the truth. Was information developing? Was the situation fluid? Would we reach conclusions later that weren’t reached initially? And I appreciate the –

SEN. JOHNSON: But Madam Secretary, do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determine what happened wouldn’t have — wouldn’t have ascertained immediately that there was no protest?

I mean, that was — that was a piece of information that could have been easily, easily obtained –

SEC. CLINTON: Well, but Senator, again –

SEN. JOHNSON: — within hours, if not days.

SEC. CLINTON: Senator, I — you know, when you’re in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going on, number one. Number two — number two at –

SEN. JOHNSON: Well, that’s — I realize — I realize that’s — I realize that’s a good excuse, but –

SEC. CLINTON: Well, no, it’s the fact. Number two, I would recommend highly you read both what the ARB said about it and the classified ARB, because even today there are questions being raised.

Now, we have no doubt they were terrorists, they were militants, they attacked us, they killed our people, but what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing is still — is still unknown.

SEN. JOHNSON: No, no, no, no, I’m — I — again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and then something sprang out of that, an assault sprang out of that. And that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact –

SEC. CLINTON: But could — but, you know –

SEN. JOHNSON: — and the American people could have known that within days, and they didn’t know that.

SEC. CLINTON: And — with all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans.

SEN. JOHNSON: I understand.

SEC. CLINTON: Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.

It appears lying under oath is a family affair.

UPDATE: Looks like Hillary did not commit perjury, via Breitbart:

A Senate aide confirmed to Breitbart News Thursday: “We checked with the committee and she wasn’t sworn in.” A House aide indicated that Clinton had not been sworn in, but added that “all witnesses testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, including Secretary Clinton, are under a legal obligation to tell the truth. Any misrepresentation to the Committee in the context of a review or investigation is a violation of law.”

Perjury and lying to Congress are two different crimes. Perjury, defined under 18 U.S.C. § 1621, requires violation of an oath. The crime of making a false statement to Congress, defined under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, covers lying about or concealing a “a material fact” in “any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.”

The difference is subtle but significant. A witness testifying under oath is under a greater obligation to tell the truth right down to what he or she believes it to be. A witness merely testifying to a committee of Congress without taking an oath may not subjectively believe what he or she is saying but will probably escape punishment, so long as he or she does not “knowingly and willfully” misrepresent or cover up a material fact.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in politics and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s