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.
The statute is unconstitutional if applied to the president. The only qualifications for president are contained within the four corners of the Constitution.
Heh, you expect the laws to be upheld? Bwahahaha.
Hillary has many lines of defense, even though we know the lying idiots is a crook.
To list the main piles of extremely fetid excrement protecting the female felon:
1. The MSM
2. The Just-Us Department (Utterly corrupt)
3. The FBI - (Utterly corrupt)
4. The supreme court (give me a break - that collection of clowns is long gone)
That’s crystal clear.
Two things come to mind, 1) who would live through the task of eliminating her from running and 2) would we then end up with Kaine?
Hillary wants to increase ‘refugees’ to our country by
500%!!
Have a look at what they’ve done to Paris;
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14/scenes-apocalypse-mass-immigration-ruins-streets-france
Unbelievable
.
Oops, that’s “lying idiotess”, not “lying idiots”. Spell check liketh not my made up word. But does it not really nail that awful excuse for a female?
Were I referring to lying idiots, the pool of potential politicians/MSMs is pretty much beyond comprehending.
Hillary Clinton isn't the president.
Even if she were, the law is the law. Nixon was nearly impeached for similar transgressions.
This isn't about the basic constitutional requirements for eligibility. Don't confuse that with the issue at hand.
She's guilty of having violated the above statute while she was an officer of the government, so is therefore LEGALLY ineligible to hold federal office again - per the statute.
Putting der Hildebeast in that jump suit and frog marching her in the perp walk would be the best fashion statement America would have. She could set a trend for Fashion Week.
And so is Obama.
Next.
Some will need to slap the cuffs on Comey first, before he charges Hillary.
They can define ineligibility though, as this one does.
Now all we need is a conviction.
What do you think this is about? Hillary violated the above statute while she was serving as Secretary of State. The basic facts of what she did are not in question.
Per section (b) of the statute, Hillary is forbidden (ineligible) from ever holding a federal position again. That includes the office of President.
Yeah, well BHO isn’t a natural born citizen and he has been usurping the office for almost eight years.
Besides Comey told us Hillary didn’t intend to break any laws....../s
Totally disgusting!
The world needs to see that vid!
Don't get hung up on the word, 'ineligible'. Hillary is ineligible to hold the office for entirely different reasons than Obama.
In reality, yes. In law, no.
It's a statute. You have to apply it. That invokes a judicial proceeding. The conviction - not just the accusation - has to be produced, or that particular statute can't be applied, by definition, because that statute references a conviction in its own definition of itself. Hillary's defense would be that simple: she rejects Comey's "opinion."
And druggie. It’s only drugs that keep her upright. Trump has the right idea...drug test participants before debates, include the moderators in that idea.
It's a statute. You have to apply it. That invokes a judicial proceeding. The conviction - not just the accusation - has to be produced, or that particular statute can't be applied, by definition, because that statute references a conviction in its own definition of itself. Hillary's defense would be that simple: she rejects Comey's "opinion."
You are absolutely correct. She has to be indicted or presented with a criminal information first, and found guilty by plea or trial, and convicted in a United States District Court before the statute means anything. The burden of proof doesn't change. Law enforcement can accuse or state that laws were broken all of the time, but the individual must be convicted in court before any of the statutory provisions apply. End of discussion.
Has she been indicted, tried, and found guilty?
That is a description Of Donald J. Trump IMHO.
U.S. law is full of thousands of statutes that forbid all kinds of things. There are penalties for violating those statutes. Hillary was proven to have violated part (a) of the statute, so part (b) applies.
What this actually takes, is enforcement.
The government obviously isn't going to do that, so it's up to the people. The first step is to make everyone aware that she's broken a LAW, and that that law forbids her from ever holding federal office again.
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.