The perjury accusations against #Democratic Party presidential nominee #Hillary Clinton continue, but as a boat without a rudder in a choppy sea. No matter how one twists and turns the weak case against Clinton, there is no evidence of criminal intent to lie to federal investigators or to conceal any information related to the emails. The case against Clinton is so weak and inept that it would have sputtered out in a normal judicial setting over a year ago; but it keeps getting recharged by GOP style CPR and then going nowhere.
If it were not for the fact that Clinton is running for president and that Trump's poll numbers are sagging, this case would have dissipated long ago, perhaps even as it was being drawn up. There is no case; there never was a case and there never will be a perjury case against Hillary Clinton with respect to the email issue.
Current perjury laws
The current federal perjury laws definitively make it clear that just relating false information during one's testimony or questioning by federal authorities is not enough. Under the current federal statute (18 U.S.C. 1621), a defendant under oath has to know that their testimony is false, and must "willingly" provide false testimony, in order to be successfully prosecuted for perjury. There is no evidence that Clinton knew or believed that anything she said to federal authorities was false, or intended to commit perjury, thereby making it virtually impossible to prosecute her under the federal statute..
Knowing one is lying
In the case of "Scooter Libby," who was accused of lying about revealing the identity of a CIA operative during the presidency of George W. Bush, there was no proof that Libby intentionally lied under oath. In Libby's case, the measure of proof was not only that he made false statements, but that he was aware that the his statements were false. Although he later was falsely convicted on four counts, including perjury, his sentence was commuted by Bush most likely because of a lack of evidence that Libby intentionally lied to federal authorities or in court.
The same principle would apply in Clinton's case. If she has, in fact, ever given false statements to federal authorities, there is no proof that she intended to do so or knew that her statements were false. Clinton, therefore, could not be successfully prosecuted or convicted of perjury pertaining to the email issue as this observer sees it.
Small C's and reasonable doubt
FBI investigator James Comey testified before the House of Representatives that it was doubtful that Clinton could be prosecuted for perjury despite the fact that some of the emails that she both sent and received were marked "classified." This is because there was no proof that Clinton knew that the emails were classified, especially since the classified markings were buried in the body of the emails and only denoted with a small "C".
Once again, intent to commit a crime has to be proven, as does knowledge that one is committing a crime, for a defendant to be convicted of a criminal act under federal law.
Nothing but a witch hunt
This whole case against Hillary Clinton is nothing but a witch hunt. The simple truth of the matter is that there is no case against Clinton, and the whole thing is politically motivated. It is a pathetic attempt to cast a shadow over Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State and to switch the poll numbers in favor of Trump. It is not going to work. Clinton is not going to be prosecuted nor convicted and "the Donald" is going to lose in a landslide for Clinton.
Trump needs hand-holding
Meanwhile, #Donald Trump is dragging Chris Christie and Lt. General Michael Flynn to his first classified hearing today. Apparently, Trump can't do it all alone after all and needs some hand-holding. Is it any wonder?