BREAKING: Obama Lied Under Oath

[Alex.]

When was Obama put under OATH?

When he took office or did that expire?

The oath he took was nothing like what one takes in court or a formal deposition.

Which court?

 

[boedicca]

When was Obama put under OATH?

When he took office or did that expire?

The oath he took was nothing like what one takes in court or a formal deposition.

That's correct, but not in a way that supports your implication that it is less serious.

Swearing to tell the truth is not nearly as significant as this:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."


Actions are more important that words, and Obama's actions (and lack thereof) demonstrate time and time again that he has failed to fulfill his oath of office.

 

[Lakhota]

Some of you losers need to get on the right side of history.

 

[jc456]

Proof is in black and white folks. Obama knew of Clintons private email server long before it went public. Lies under oath and nothing will happen. This info comes via WikiLeaks newest dump. The corruption continues........

‘CLEAN THIS UP’: Obama Had Emails From Clinton’s Private Account

Updated link courtesy of Kosh: WikiLeaks - The Podesta Emails

dude, they paid off the FBI who was responsible for the email hunt. It came out yesterday.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Criminally obtained emails are not admissible as evidence.

But stolen Trump tax returns are fine with you, fucking hypocrite

WTF are you babbling about? Are you 2 years old?

 

[jc456]

Some of you losers need to get on the right side of history.

so when are you coming over to Trump?

 

[Alex.]

Here is one professor Lakhota:


18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense informati



(a)
Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or

(b)
Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or

(c)
Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or

(d)
Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e)
Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


(g)
If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

(h)
(1)
Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign government, or any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

(2)
The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.

(3) The provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)–(p)) shall apply to—
(A)
property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;

(B)
any seizure or disposition of such property; and

(C)
any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property,

if not inconsistent with this subsection.

(4)
Notwithstanding section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 736; Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, § 18, 64 Stat. 1003; Pub. L. 99–399, title XIII, § 1306(a), Aug. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 898; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, § 804(b)(1), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3440; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 607(b), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3511.)

When you are through digesting this we can go on to the next and after that a third.

Did you actually READ those sections of the ESPIONAGE ACT?

NOT a single one of those provisions apply to Clinton's situation.... there was no INTENT to transmit anything to the ENEMY, nor was anything Taken from it's proper place and given to the enemy...

as in:


Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States

prove there was no intent.the terrorist nations certainly contributed a good deal of money to her for something. Damn sure wasn't for her looks, their goats are sexier than she is

Are you just going bonkers?

She had to steal classified documents from its proper place and transmit them to an enemy....THAT is espionage,

And in no way, shape or form, did Hillary or her team steal T/S information to give to the enemy.

you have to prove she DID intentionally give this information to the enemy.

YOU and others have NO PROOF, what so ever, that this is what she and her top aides, did.

END OF STORY.

Are you blind?
she took those documents and put them on a private server, What other reason could she have to do this if not to put a layer of deception between her office and the terrorists.
They way you claimed that she didn't do this, I figured you had some sort of proof that she didn't.
I can see you don't, therefore, since you suggested such, where is your proof that this did not happen.

NOPE! She took NO T/S documents from its proper place, nor did her aides. The information they were discussing among each other on the 7 email chains that were classified, was information they received from an OUT SIDE government source, Blumenthal....the FBI or CIA or NSA had gotten their own source for the information that they classified as T/S when they got it.... nor had the IC seen the information the State dept had gathered from Syd Blumenthal....it was duel sourced....

nor had the State department top aides or Hillary, had seen the Intelligence communities T/S documents on it.

they took NOTHING from the government's top secret system.... they transmitted nothing to the enemy.

The laws posted DO NOT apply to her situation.

there may be other laws that apply....but these espionage act laws, are not them...

Wrong

 

[jc456]

Criminally obtained emails are not admissible as evidence.

But stolen Trump tax returns are fine with you, fucking hypocrite

WTF are you babbling about? Are you 2 years old?

shvinnnnnnnnggggg

 

[Care4all]

When was Obama put under OATH?

When he took office or did that expire?

when was obama put under oath, to allegedly lie under oath about his knowledge of Clinton's private server....

Try keeping up!

No, just like you have a license to drive and do not need to renew it every time you drive he took an oath when he took office and that does not expire..

Now you try to keep up, you brain washed fools never cease to keep me entertained.

That's utterly ridiculous, and you know it and truly can't DANCE very well...

The term ''Lying under oath'', means a SPECIFIC thing, PERJURY.

Perjury - What Is Perjury?

Perjury - Wikipedia
Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.[1][A] Contrary to popular misconception, no crime has occurred when a false statement is (intentionally or unintentionally) made while under oath or subject to penalty—instead, criminal culpability only attaches at the instant the declarant falsely asserts the truth of statements (made or to be made) which are material to the outcome of the proceeding. For example, it is not perjury to lie about one's age except where age is a fact material to influencing the legal result, such as eligibility for old age retirement benefits or whether a person was of an age to have legal capacity.


Perjury is considered a serious offense as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice. In the United States, for example, the general perjury statute under Federal law classifies perjury as a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to five years.[2] The California Penal Code allows for perjury to be a capital offense in cases causing wrongful execution. However, prosecutions for perjury are rare.[3] In some countries such as France and Italy, suspects cannot be heard under oath or affirmation and thus cannot commit perjury, regardless of what they say during their trial.


The rules for perjury also apply when a person has made a statement under penalty of perjury, even if the person has not been sworn or affirmed as a witness before an appropriate official. An example of this is the United States' income tax return, which, by law, must be signed as true and correct under penalty of perjury (see 26 U.S.C. § 6065). Federal tax law provides criminal penalties of up to three years in prison for violation of the tax return perjury statute. See: 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)


Statements which entail an interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often draw inaccurate conclusions unwittingly, or make honest mistakes without the intent to deceive. Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts, or their recollection may be inaccurate, or may have a different perception of what is the accurate way to state the truth. Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury one must have had the intention (mens rea) to commit the act, and to have actually committed the act (actus reus). Further, statements that are facts cannot be considered perjury, even if they might arguably constitute an omission, and it is not perjury to lie about matters immaterial to the legal proceeding.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Some of you losers need to get on the right side of history.

so when are you coming over to Trump?

I'm sure that there was at least one Jew that said about Hitler, I think he is going to do great things if elected, I'm voting for him.

 

[Care4all]

Did you actually READ those sections of the ESPIONAGE ACT?

NOT a single one of those provisions apply to Clinton's situation.... there was no INTENT to transmit anything to the ENEMY, nor was anything Taken from it's proper place and given to the enemy...

as in:


Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States

prove there was no intent.the terrorist nations certainly contributed a good deal of money to her for something. Damn sure wasn't for her looks, their goats are sexier than she is

Are you just going bonkers?

She had to steal classified documents from its proper place and transmit them to an enemy....THAT is espionage,

And in no way, shape or form, did Hillary or her team steal T/S information to give to the enemy.

you have to prove she DID intentionally give this information to the enemy.

YOU and others have NO PROOF, what so ever, that this is what she and her top aides, did.

END OF STORY.

Are you blind?
she took those documents and put them on a private server, What other reason could she have to do this if not to put a layer of deception between her office and the terrorists.
They way you claimed that she didn't do this, I figured you had some sort of proof that she didn't.
I can see you don't, therefore, since you suggested such, where is your proof that this did not happen.

NOPE! She took NO T/S documents from its proper place, nor did her aides. The information they were discussing among each other on the 7 email chains that were classified, was information they received from an OUT SIDE government source, Blumenthal....the FBI or CIA or NSA had gotten their own source for the information that they classified as T/S when they got it.... nor had the IC seen the information the State dept had gathered from Syd Blumenthal....it was duel sourced....

nor had the State department top aides or Hillary, had seen the Intelligence communities T/S documents on it.

they took NOTHING from the government's top secret system.... they transmitted nothing to the enemy.

The laws posted DO NOT apply to her situation.

there may be other laws that apply....but these espionage act laws, are not them...

Wrong

okie dokie!!! or is it okee dokee?

 

[cereal_killer]

Some of you losers need to get on the right side of history.

WAIT!!! Lakhota is a man? WTF?!!! I thought you were a woman (no joke). I'm not saying that to insult you, I really thought you were a woman.

So you're a man and supporting Clinton? Oh hell no man. Thats just fucked up. Men have no business supporting this woman. Support Elizabeth Warren if you must but Hillary Clinton? I can't beleive it. Do you wear skinny jeans, have a bad beard and get triggered by chants of "USA"?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Criminally obtained emails are not admissible as evidence.

But stolen Trump tax returns are fine with you, fucking hypocrite

WTF are you babbling about? Are you 2 years old?

shvinnnnnnnnggggg

So you would not contest information acquired by hacking, without cause, from your email, or any other personal account or possession,

if it were used to prosecute you?

interesting.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The trumpers show they don't understand law or how the government works.

doods, there is no "oath" as you seem to think.

You know better, ck.

 

[deltex1]

Proof is in black and white folks. Obama knew of Clintons private email server long before it went public. Lies under oath and nothing will happen. This info comes via WikiLeaks newest dump. The corruption continues........

‘CLEAN THIS UP’: Obama Had Emails From Clinton’s Private Account

Updated link courtesy of Kosh: WikiLeaks - The Podesta Emails

Not sure anyone questioned Obabble under oath. In any case, he has the usual excuse....he's stupid, he only knows what he sees on TV, he is not an email expert, he assumed Hillary was following the rules, it was Bush's fault, and the Russians can't be trusted.

 

[Alex.]

Some of you losers need to get on the right side of history.

WAIT!!! Lakhota is a man? WTF?!!! I thought you were a woman (no joke). I'm not saying that to insult you, I really thought you were a woman.

So you're a man and supporting Clinton? Oh hell no man. Thats just fucked up. Men have no business supporting this woman. Support Elizabeth Warren if you must but Hillary Clinton? I can't beleive it. Do you wear skinny jeans, have a bad beard and get triggered by chants of "USA"?

Of course he is not a woman, he only acts like one.

 

[Kat]

Some of you losers need to get on the right side of history.

WAIT!!! Lakhota is a man? WTF?!!! I thought you were a woman (no joke). I'm not saying that to insult you, I really thought you were a woman.

So you're a man and supporting Clinton? Oh hell no man. Thats just fucked up. Men have no business supporting this woman. Support Elizabeth Warren if you must but Hillary Clinton? I can't beleive it. Do you wear skinny jeans, have a bad beard and get triggered by chants of "USA"?

LOL I had thought that as well one time.

 

[L.K.Eder]

When was Obama put under OATH?

When he took office or did that expire?

when was obama put under oath, to allegedly lie under oath about his knowledge of Clinton's private server....

Try keeping up!

No, just like you have a license to drive and do not need to renew it every time you drive he took an oath when he took office and that does not expire..

Now you try to keep up, you brain washed fools never cease to keep me entertained.

That's utterly ridiculous, and you know it and truly can't DANCE very well...

The term ''Lying under oath'', means a SPECIFIC thing, PERJURY.

Perjury - What Is Perjury?

Perjury - Wikipedia
Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.[1][A] Contrary to popular misconception, no crime has occurred when a false statement is (intentionally or unintentionally) made while under oath or subject to penalty—instead, criminal culpability only attaches at the instant the declarant falsely asserts the truth of statements (made or to be made) which are material to the outcome of the proceeding. For example, it is not perjury to lie about one's age except where age is a fact material to influencing the legal result, such as eligibility for old age retirement benefits or whether a person was of an age to have legal capacity.


Perjury is considered a serious offense as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice. In the United States, for example, the general perjury statute under Federal law classifies perjury as a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to five years.[2] The California Penal Code allows for perjury to be a capital offense in cases causing wrongful execution. However, prosecutions for perjury are rare.[3] In some countries such as France and Italy, suspects cannot be heard under oath or affirmation and thus cannot commit perjury, regardless of what they say during their trial.


The rules for perjury also apply when a person has made a statement under penalty of perjury, even if the person has not been sworn or affirmed as a witness before an appropriate official. An example of this is the United States' income tax return, which, by law, must be signed as true and correct under penalty of perjury (see 26 U.S.C. § 6065). Federal tax law provides criminal penalties of up to three years in prison for violation of the tax return perjury statute. See: 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)


Statements which entail an interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often draw inaccurate conclusions unwittingly, or make honest mistakes without the intent to deceive. Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts, or their recollection may be inaccurate, or may have a different perception of what is the accurate way to state the truth. Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury one must have had the intention (mens rea) to commit the act, and to have actually committed the act (actus reus). Further, statements that are facts cannot be considered perjury, even if they might arguably constitute an omission, and it is not perjury to lie about matters immaterial to the legal proceeding.

here is the US code:

18 U.S. Code § 1621 - Perjury generally
Whoever—
(1)
having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2)
in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.

now let's see these legal beagles hammer the oath of office into this code. should be awesome.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Proof is in black and white folks. Obama knew of Clintons private email server long before it went public. Lies under oath and nothing will happen. This info comes via WikiLeaks newest dump. The corruption continues........

‘CLEAN THIS UP’: Obama Had Emails From Clinton’s Private Account

Updated link courtesy of Kosh: WikiLeaks - The Podesta Emails

EVERYBODY in Washington who ever sent an email to Hillary Clinton knew of Clinton's private server from the first time she used it, which is to say always.

1/3 of administration staffers do business RIGHT NOW, through their private email accounts because federal government email servers are pieces of shit:, you can't access them remotely, they're frequently hacked, and staff have very limited memory for individual accounts. This is what happens when the sequestration has kicked in and your equipment is out of date.

Her email address was [email protected]. If you sent her an email, the information that she is using a private account is right there in her address. You have to be willfully blind not to see it.

Your ignorance with regards to email is just incredible. Since you obviously know nothing about how email works, and what its limitations are, your outrage over the security implications of Hillary's email server are false placed hysteria.

When working at my law office, I had to fight with bank's every day to provide me with client mortgage instructions via email and many flat out refused to do so because sensitive client information was contained in the instructions which could not be sent out via email due to concerns under The Privacy Act.

Many banks will not allow lawyers to provide their reports or draft documents via email because of security concerns. This has been happening since 1999 - concerns about security and privacy of email. And hackers lead the list of concerns.

There was NOTHING on that server which compromised the security of the United States because that's not the nature of governmental email conversations. Some of the emails deemed "classified" after the fact, contained the schedule for conference calls between staffers. It might have been sensitive information in that it pinned down locations for said staffers during those times, but since some have a public calendar, it's hard to understand why such information is deemed "classified".

Thanks for posting this. It's strange that it was ignored.

 

[Alex.]

Proof is in black and white folks. Obama knew of Clintons private email server long before it went public. Lies under oath and nothing will happen. This info comes via WikiLeaks newest dump. The corruption continues........

‘CLEAN THIS UP’: Obama Had Emails From Clinton’s Private Account

Updated link courtesy of Kosh: WikiLeaks - The Podesta Emails

EVERYBODY in Washington who ever sent an email to Hillary Clinton knew of Clinton's private server from the first time she used it, which is to say always.

1/3 of administration staffers do business RIGHT NOW, through their private email accounts because federal government email servers are pieces of shit:, you can't access them remotely, they're frequently hacked, and staff have very limited memory for individual accounts. This is what happens when the sequestration has kicked in and your equipment is out of date.

Her email address was [email protected]. If you sent her an email, the information that she is using a private account is right there in her address. You have to be willfully blind not to see it.

Your ignorance with regards to email is just incredible. Since you obviously know nothing about how email works, and what its limitations are, your outrage over the security implications of Hillary's email server are false placed hysteria.

When working at my law office, I had to fight with bank's every day to provide me with client mortgage instructions via email and many flat out refused to do so because sensitive client information was contained in the instructions which could not be sent out via email due to concerns under The Privacy Act.

Many banks will not allow lawyers to provide their reports or draft documents via email because of security concerns. This has been happening since 1999 - concerns about security and privacy of email. And hackers lead the list of concerns.

There was NOTHING on that server which compromised the security of the United States because that's not the nature of governmental email conversations. Some of the emails deemed "classified" after the fact, contained the schedule for conference calls between staffers. It might have been sensitive information in that it pinned down locations for said staffers during those times, but since some have a public calendar, it's hard to understand why such information is deemed "classified".

"There was NOTHING on that server which compromised the security of the United States because that's not the nature of governmental email conversations"


You do not know that for sure, that was a lot of work for a failed post.