The Constitution contains all the qualifications for president. Congress may not add to those qualifications through statute.
Then our Owners start having to explain why those laws don't apply to THEM.
Killary would need to be convicted on the charges before these statutes kick in...
She'll just claim an 'oops - didn't mean to'....
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE......
the law....???
pfffft
for you ..... not MEEEEEEEE
SPECIAL ......SO F**K*NG SPACIAL ....
i cant imaging how anyone could vote for this treasonous criminal reptile
This is exactly what I’ve been wondering about. She may not be going to jail, but she darn well will be losing her ability to get any kind of secret clearance. Let alone holding an office in the US gov’t.
The way I understand this is:
Because she was never indicted, she is not guilty of any crime...
Without being indicted, she is as free as you and I and it is up to the House of Representatives to decide if she can have security clearance...
Because she wasn’t indicted, there is not a limit on the ‘crimes’ so therefore, when Trump goes into the Oval Office, he can have his A.G. indict her, bring her before a Grand Jury and from there it will go to trial...
Obama cannot pardon her, she wasn’t charged with anything...
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,[etc.]
**Except Hitlery
You need to have your eyes checked. Can’t you read? It says, right there in the statute, “Whoever, except Hillary Clinton...”
A country that twice elected an ineligible person to the presidency isn’t going to care that hillary is ineligible.
She should not be given any security clearance. Does anybody know who determines whether or not she can continue her security clearance?
CONCLUSION Comey's contradictory statements actually did not let Hillary completely off the hook. Comey pitched out a sharp-edged boomerang that's slicing back to cut Hillary to pieces.
=============================================
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: After the ’70s, the digital revolution pushed cultural trends in the opposite direction of centralized power with everything becoming more niche-oriented, decentralized and personalized.
This revolutionary change puts “unprecedented power in the hands of every individual,” according to Harvard’s Nicco Mele.
It’s “a radical redistribution of power that our traditional institutions don’t and perhaps can’t understand.” As if that wasn’t enough, he adds, “Radical connectivity is toxic to traditional power structures.”
NOTE: means we, the people, now have the power.
I wish I’d seen this before I sent off my latest letter to the editor (which they called me about to confirm that I did send it; that usually means it will be published). They only publish one per month per person.
I pointed out that even if not criminal her behavior was so irresponsible she should never be allowed near the most responsible position in our nation. She couldn’t even obtain a basic security clearance given her record of carelessness and obfuscation.
Laws are for peons and not royalty
Comey said it’s okay. Move along, folks.
If we had rule of law...
At the least Clinton has violated:
18 USC § 793
18 USC § 798
18 USC § 1924
18 USC § 2071
36 CFR § 1236.22
Indictment required Fed. R. Crim. P. 7.
If we had rule of law...
Hillary could be taped handing Top Secret documents over to members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and shown receiving a $1 million bribe, but the majority of Donkeys and other idiots would still vote for her. This woman is totally corrupt and evil. Yet, there are too many brain dead Americans that will vote for her solely due to her gender.