Killary Clinton knew about questions ahead of presidential debate and did not report criminal misconduct to authorities !!!??? ARREST HER IMMEDIATELY !!! ARREST HER TODAY IT IS YOUR JOB - YOUR DUTY !!!

A public question for FBI !!! Since Clinton received questions ahead of the presidential debate(READ HERE) and have failed to report such criminal misconduct to authorities, shouldn't she be arrested and IMMEDIATELY charged with felony and if not - how so !!!??????
Clinton is 100% GUILTY !!! Clinton committed minimum a criminal PERJURY in this case alone(her felony also involves betrayal against USA) !!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury Perjuries are punishable with up to 5 years imprisonment !!! ARREST KILLARY CLINTON NOW - TODAY !!! IT IS YOUR JOB - YOUR DUTY !!! Please read and learn about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony

How long are we going to watch FBI/CIA and main stream media to cover up the truth about and for the sake of criminal felon Killary Clinton who happens to be even 2016 presidential candidate !!!????




United States[edit]

Perjury operates in American law as an inherited principle of the common law of England, which defined the act as the "willful and corrupt giving, upon a lawful oath, or in any form allowed by law to be substituted for an oath, in a judicial proceeding or course of justice, of a false testimony material to the issue or matter of inquiry."[26] William Blackstone touched on the subject in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, establishing perjury as "a crime committed when a lawful oath is administered, in some judicial proceeding, to a person who swears willfully, absolutely, and falsely, in a matter material to the issue or point in question."[27] The punishment for perjury under the common law has varied from death to banishment and has included such grotesque penalties as severing the tongue of the perjurer.[28] The definitional structure of perjury provides an important framework for legal proceedings, as the component parts of this definition have permeated jurisdictional lines, finding a home in American legal constructs. As such, the main tenets of perjury, including mens rea, a lawful oath, occurring during a judicial proceeding, a false testimony have remained necessary pieces of perjury’s definition in the United States.[29] Statutory definitions[edit] Perjury’s current position in the American legal system takes the form of state and federal statutes. Most notably, the United States Code prohibits perjury, which is defined in two senses for federal purposes as someone who: (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[30] The above statute provides for a fine and/or up to five years in prison as punishment. Within federal jurisdiction, statements made in two broad categories of judicial proceedings may qualify as perjurious: 1) Federal official proceedings, and 2) Federal Court or Grand Jury proceedings. A third type of perjury entails the procurement of perjurious statements from another person.[28] More generally, the statement must occur in the "course of justice," but this definition leaves room open for interpretation.[31] One particularly precarious aspect of this phrasing is that it entails knowledge of the accused person’s perception of the truthful nature of events and not necessarily the actual truth of those events. It is important to note the distinction here, between giving a false statement under oath and merely misstating a fact accidentally, though this distinction can be especially difficult to discern in court of law.[32] Precedents[edit] The development of perjury law in the United States centers on United States v. Dunnigan, a seminal case that set out the parameters of perjury within United States law. The court uses the Dunnigan-based legal standard to determine if an accused person, "[T]estifying under oath or affirmation violates this section if she gives false testimony concerning a material matter with the willful intent to provide false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory."[33] However, a defendant shown to be willfully ignorant may in fact be eligible for perjury prosecution.[34] The Dunnigan distinction manifests its importance with regard to the relation between two component parts of perjury’s definition: in willfully giving a false statement, a person must understand that she is giving a false statement to be considered a perjurer under the Dunnigan framework. Deliberation on the part of the defendant is required for a statement to constitute perjury.[31] Jurisprudential developments in the American law of perjury have revolved around the facilitation of "perjury prosecutions and thereby enhance the reliability of testimony before federal courts and grand juries."[35] With this goal in mind, Congress has sometimes expanded the grounds on which an individual may be prosecuted for perjury, with section 1623 of the United States Code recognizing the utterance of two mutually incompatible statements as grounds for perjury indictment even if neither can unequivocally be proven false.[36] However, the two statements must be so mutually incompatible that at least one must necessarily be false; it is irrelevant whether the false statement can be specifically identified from among the two.[37] It thus falls on the government to show that a defendant (a) knowingly made a (b) false (c) material statement (d) under oath (e) in a legal proceeding.[38] These proceedings can be ancillary to normal court proceedings, and thus, even such menial interactions as bail hearings can qualify as protected proceedings under this statute.[39] Wilfulness is an element of the offense. The mere existence of two mutually exclusive factual statements is not sufficient to prove perjury; the prosecutor nonetheless has the duty to plead and prove statement was willfully made. Mere contradiction will not sustain the charge; there must be strong corroborative evidence of the contradiction.[40] One significant legal distinction lies in the specific realm of knowledge necessarily possessed by a defendant for her statements to be properly called perjury. Though the defendant must knowingly render a false statement in a legal proceeding or under federal jurisdiction, the defendant need not know that they are speaking under such conditions for the statement to constitute perjury.[41] All tenets of perjury qualification persist- the “knowingly” aspect of telling the false statement simply does not apply to the defendant’s knowledge about the person she intends to deceive. Materiality[edit] Perjury law’s evolution in the United States has experienced the most debate with regards to the materiality requirement. Fundamentally, statements that are literally true cannot provide the basis for a perjury charge[42] (as they do not meet the falsehood requirement) just as answers to truly ambiguous statements cannot constitute perjury.[43] However, such fundamental truths of perjury law become muddled when discerning the materiality of a given statement and the way in which it was material to the given case. In United States v. Brown, the court defined material statements as those with "a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to be addressed," such as a jury or grand jury.[44] While courts have specifically made clear certain instances which have succeeded or failed to meet the nebulous threshold for materiality, the topic remains unresolved in large part, except in certain legal areas where intent manifests itself in an abundantly clear fashion, such as with the so-called perjury trap, a specific situation in which a prosecutor calls a person to testify before a grand jury with the intent of drawing a perjurious statement from the person being questioned.[45] Defense of recantation[edit] Despite a tendency of American perjury law toward broad prosecutory power under perjury statutes, American perjury law has afforded potential defendants a new form of defense not found in the British Common Law. This defense requires that an individual admit to making a perjurious statement during that same proceeding and recanting the statement.[46] Though this defensive loophole slightly narrows the types of cases which may be prosecuted for perjury, the effect of this statutory defense is to promote a truthful retelling of facts by witnesses, thus helping to ensure the reliability of American court proceedings just as broadened perjury statutes aimed to do. Subornation of perjury[edit] Subornation of perjury stands as a subset of American perjury laws and prohibits an individual from inducing another to commit perjury.[47] Subornation of perjury entails equivalent possible punishments as perjury on the federal level. This crime requires an extra level of satisfactory proof, as prosecutors must show not only that perjury occurred, but also that the defendant positively induced said perjury. Furthermore, the inducing defendant must know that the suborned statement is a false, perjurious statement.[48]