Posted on 08/15/2016 6:55:41 AM PDT by HomerBohn
But she won’t be if Trump isn’t elected.
George Orwell said, “I TOLD YOU SO!”
But that appears to be modified by the "filed or deposited with" part. I'm not saying you're incorrect; but those lawyerspeak weasel words have to be clarified before I can write my scathing letter to the editor. I hate being wrong because I didn't read or correctly interpret the fine print!
Sent to the Trump Campaign.
Hopefully he will use it embarrass the Harridan.
Laws?
Surely, you jest.
Laws are only for we Little People.
You must be CONVICTED of this crime for the stipulations to stick.
Can’t be a conviction if there isn’t a trial. Can’t be a trial unless the prosecution decides to bring forward the case to the court system.
“Did you kiss Comey saying they don’t recommend prosecution?
No trial. No conviction. She can do what she wants”....
Perhaps we need to have charges brought against Comey for “knowingly aiding a criminal act”? Not sure that would work but damn sure would get some attention.
Time for a hard reset.
Dear Washington,
America is coming,
And they’re bringing Donald J Trump.
“….shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.”
It depends on the meaning of what “his” is.
She hasn’t been convicted of violating that law.
Yeah, and what ever happened to Sandy Berger? He stuffed his pants with documents and walked out of the National Archives with them.
One must be convicted of having violated a particular statute in order to be liable for the penalties set forth thereunder.
Can it be any clearer???!!!
The whole point is that she will NEVER be convicted - not even indicted - unless she loses and Trump decides to tell his A.G. to reopen the investigation.
Then draw up articles of impeachment now and have them ready day one
The question with the Clintons, as always, is whether a/the conviction is required for the finding of fact. Stated differently, do the consequences stem from the finding(s) of fact or from the conviction(s)?
Absolutely brilliant legal minds apparently cannot figure this out.
If you rob a bank and they happen to be out of money and you walk out with nothing, have you really robbed the bank?
IANAL. Note carefully that the cited consequences [eg; whoever ____ willfully and illegally shall be _____] are worded such that a conviction does not appear necessary.
There are many laws that are written “whoever is convicted (of let’s say DWI) shall, upon first conviction _____ and upon second conviction ____
The word “conviction” or “____found guilty of” is not used in the 18 USC statutes.
Same old Clinton crap, huh? Worth hundreds of $$ millions.
“Those laws were written when this country was a country of laws.”
That’s a solid point.
He took it back.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/former-ag-michael-mukasey-says-hes-wrong-about-clinton-e-n417291
BFL!
Who has the authority to enforce this law on behalf of the people? Only Comey, or only Lynch?
I would think she would have to be tried and convicted first. Otherwise she can’t be jailed, fined, or banned from holding office.
Comey would say that 1) she had this elaborate system of secret servers, but it doesn’t prove “intent.” However, 2) is the section that doesn’t mention intent. It simply says that if government property was in your custody and it was mishandled, you are disqualified from holding any federal office. That’s hitting the jackpot and that should be the basis of a law suit by states with dedicated Attorneys General. Strange that Comey couldn’t find this part of the law. He ought to be fired as the first thing President Trump does.
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.