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.
Bookmark for posterity.
Yes, she has - in the only court that really matters - the court of public opinion.
Absolutely agree and if we had an honest _resident and administration that didn’t thumb their noses at real Americans Mrs. Bill Clinton would be in prison or at least tied up in legal proceedings instead of running for the WH.
True, but this isn't about constitutional eligibility.
No one in the current administration is going to enforce the law in this case. It's up to the American people, which is who I posted this information for.
So, if elected, that will possibly be two illegal Presidents in a row.
What a country!
The only way the statute would be applicable to her (or anyone else) is if they were charged and found guilty by a court of being in violation of the statute. Hillary still enjoys the legal presumption of innocence under the law, as should every American.
That’s nice.
Meaningless, though.
Until she is convicted of a disqualifying statute, she didn’t do nuffin.
She has not been adjudicated guilty so save your nreath
This is even more of a non starter than all the obozo stufg
You are correct.
You’re absolutely right. Courts though have been demurring, or being derelict in their duty, in leaving these things up to a not entirely educated electorate. Witness allowing Ted Cruz’s run, not even mentioning Obama’s.
I’m puttin u in charge of re-opening that dept.
At present, the question isn't IF she is eligible under the statute, but WHO will enforce that statute?
This seems akin to Zero's birth issue. There is no one who will take the authority to enforce. Congress won't do it, comey won't do it. It's up to the electorate.
I am entirely open to suggestion here.
I've heard "orange is the new black."
I don’t know about Clinton, but bathroom Barry certainly wasn’t eligible, and that made no difference whatsoever.
I think it is.
The Constitution explicitly states the requirements to be elected President. One may not add, remove, or modify any of that without a Constitutional amendment.
Do you think a statute could require that a person be 40 years of age or only 30 in order to be President? Of course not. The enumeration of requirements to be President takes the issue out of the hands of Congress.
Like it or not, this places us with many 3rd world countries. We comment about Hitlery or Bernie taking us there, meaning socioeconomically, but with folks in office illegally, we're there.
Like it or not, this places us with many 3rd world countries. We comment about Hitlery or Bernie taking us there, meaning socioeconomically, but with folks in office illegally, we're there.
“The Constitution explicitly states the requirements to be elected President. One may not add, remove, or modify any of that without a Constitutional amendment.”
I think constitutional eligibility is a completely separate matter from the issue we’re discussing.
Naturally, I can’t disagree with the essence of your statement, but bear in mind that the Framers didn’t craft the sort of airtight document that lawmakers of today would. They granted only enough power to the federal government, for it to perform its prescribed duties, and (per the 10th Amendment) left the rest to the states and to The People.
We must assume that, in matters such as the one before us now, it’s the people who must decide on Mrs Clinton’s eligibility, in light of the referenced statute.
That statute is a common sense rule for those entrusted with our nation’s most sensitive information. Any government employee who violates the provisions of part (a) should be subject to the penalties and restrictions in part (b).
The difference between obama and hitlery is we didn’t know obama was so corrupt when he ran for POTUS. With hitlery we know it as fact.
It’s unthinkable she is even on the ticket.
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.