Anonymous ID: 4adec2 Sept. 23, 2018, 6:15 p.m. No.3158076   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8128 >>8153 >>8345 >>8488 >>8528 >>8538 >>8542 >>8616

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/what-happens-if-you-lie-to-congress.html

>Q: What are the rules about lying to Congress?

>A: Glad you asked. If you are testifying in front of Congress sometime soon, and are wondering how far you can bend the truth, there are a two key statutes governing perjury you need to be aware of: U.S. Code sections 1621 and 1001 of Title 18.

>Section 1621 covers general perjury, and stipulates that anyone who "willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true" is guilty of perjury and shall be fined or imprisoned up to five years, or both. Section 1001 covers false statements more generally, without requiring an oath. The section stipulates that "whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the government of the United States, knowingly and willfully" falsifies or conceals information, including before a congressional committee's inquiry, may also be fined or imprisoned up to five years.

 

>Q: What potential punishment would someone who lied to Congress face?

>A: If you paid attention during the last section, you may have read that general perjury comes with a maximum five-year prison sentence and potential fine. The same basically goes for not telling the truth to Congress, even without an oath. However, if the lie under Section 1001 involves terrorism, the maximum prison sentence rises to eight years.

 

I've uploaded .pdf copies of both relevent sections for the lawfags. Of particular interest, to me, was:

§ 1622. Subornation of perjury

Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

 

If Grassley is aware that these people are under investigation, then odds are good that the evidence needed to prove "Subornation" is being gathered as we speak. That would have some profound implications here.

Anonymous ID: 4adec2 Sept. 23, 2018, 6:22 p.m. No.3158199   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8273

>>3158090

I'll laugh if they derail Kavanaugh, then lose both the House and the Senate. If that happens, I hope POTUS gets Barnett in, as well as Kavanaugh and maybe Gowdey for Chief Justice.

 

Kavanaugh is going to be so fired up after all this bullshit, he'll make Clarence Thomas look like Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Anonymous ID: 4adec2 Sept. 23, 2018, 6:30 p.m. No.3158339   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8372 >>8426 >>8488 >>8538 >>8616

>>3158155 This is incorrect, unfortunately. Would've been a good find.

>>3158204 This anon is right, it's a different Deborah Ramirez

 

I've uploaded her resume/bio; it says she was a freshman at Northwestern back in '73. But if you look at the accusation, it states that the occurrence happened when Ramirez and Kavanaugh were freshmen at Yale. So not the same person.

Anonymous ID: 4adec2 Sept. 23, 2018, 6:39 p.m. No.3158471   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>3158315

Big Notable

What if someone convinced her to go along with Feinstein changing the contents of the letter? Does the cabal have something on that professor?

 

What if it was changed without the professor's knowledge? She did say, after all, that they were doing things without her consent :)