Posted on 10/15/2016 1:53:04 PM PDT by Windflier
18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
And as a result the AG,after her half hour chat with BillyBob (grand kids and golf,don't you know) has....well,you know the rest.
The statutes don’t require an actual ruling.
The phrase you mention is not in there.
The investigation into her had the fbi releasing statements that affirm she violated these statutes.
It makes no qualification that it doesnt apply to the president. Statutes are written to contain exemptions.
Further if this would disqualify her from all lower offices it would make no sense it would not, for the very same conduct, apply to the highest office over all those shes disqualified from.
Well. I’m not on social media unless FR counts. But, I actively yak politix to any warm body that will let me including the dogs and cats. I’ve copied and pasted the statutes you cite to have with me. Now tell me the source of those statutes please.
Well. I’m not on social media unless FR counts. But, I actively yak politix to any warm body that will let me including the dogs and cats. I’ve copied and pasted the statutes you cite to have with me. Now tell me the source of those statutes please.
And who is going to step forward to arrest her and lock her up? Seems to be a major mystery going around Capitol Hill—the Case of the Missing Cojones. I doubt even Sherlock Holmes could find them.
Not guilty until convicted. Not convicted until prosecuted. Not prosecuted until we have an honest DOJ and FBI director.
Laws are for the little people.
“Laws are for the little people.”
Not in the court of public opinion.
If Trump reads the text of this statute out loud at every rally, he can force this matter into the public discourse.
Hillary can be forced to explain why she’s not subject to part (b) of the statute, even though Director Comey said that she violated every word of part (a).
Let Trump keep pounding on this, and let the people decide whether she should be kept out of government service for life. No better time for it.
Yes. I’m doing my part to spread it.
If the witch wins, that will be us.(She wants a 500% increase in ‘refugees’ ( future jihadists)
Tons of trash on the streets, people openly urinating on the street, fecal matter everywhere..
“And who is going to step forward to arrest her and lock her up?”
The point isn’t to lock her up, though that’s what she deserves. The point is to push this into the public consciousness, so that she can be tried and convicted at the ballot box.
If Trump informs the American people of the existence of this statute, many of them will read those two paragraphs and conclude that she should be subject to the prescriptions of part (b), because Director Comey already admitted that she violated the provisions of part (a).
“...tell me the source of those statutes please.”
The federal government. They’re a section of the U.S. Code.
“But FBI Director Comey,universally acknowledged as being the most honest and ethical man to have ever walked the earth (except for the Community Organizer-In-Chief,of course),has declared her to be as pure as the driven snow.”
He preceded that by admitting to the nation that Hillary violated every word of part (a) of the statute.
Can’t put that toothpaste back in the tube.
Also, the qualifications for President are laid out in the Constitution. Wouldn’t adding additional qualifications by statute, rather than by constitutional amendment, be unconstitutional?
“Trump should lead off with this at the third debate.”
Agreed. I was surveyed by the Trump campaign tonight, and I told them much the same thing that I’m saying on this thread.
The government is corrupt, and will not prosecute her for her crimes. They’re going to force Donald Trump to try the case in the court of public opinion, and I truly hope he does.
If he can manage to get enough people talking about this, Hillary will be put on the defensive. Let her explain to the American people why she’s not subject to the provisions of part (b) of the statute, after Director Comey admitted that she violated every word of part (a) of the statute.
I think the people will vote to keep her out of office.
“I am confident that this election is going to be much different than the way the media is portraying it.”
So am I, but I don’t want Trump to let this go. It is perhaps the strongest argument that can be made to the American people why Hillary should not be elected president.
She broke the law, and if Trump is wise, he’ll cite this statute until Hillary has it ringing in her ears. Let her explain to the people why she’s exempt.
I think the people will convict, and sentence her to live out her days as a private citizen. President Trump may have other ideas.
“I’m all for it. How to we get the word to DJT?”
I was surveyed by the Trump campaign tonight. At the end of the survey they had a box where you could leave a detailed comment. I laid out much of what I’ve been advocating on this thread, and pasted in the full title and text of the statute.
It’s my hope that some staffer will flag it for further consideration, and that the idea comes up in strategy meetings.
If you happen to get an invitation to participate in the survey, please consider pasting a copy of the statute into your closing comments.
It’s important to stress that the objective isn’t to get this into a court of law, but into the court of public opinion. Trump needs to make the people aware of this statute, if its going to work.
*ping*
This is right up your alley. I believe you posted this months ago.
“It is perhaps the strongest argument that can be made to the American people why Hillary should not be elected president.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your argument it totally, legally wrong. Congress can make no laws limiting who can run for President.
“Your argument it totally, legally wrong. Congress can make no laws limiting who can run for President.”
Where did I say she couldn’t run?
I’ll do the survey if i find one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.