This criminal has got to be charged, tried and jailed. Her occasional husband figure and all her lieutenants have to go with her.
Can it be any clearer? No, like “shall not be infringed”can’t be clearer. But then again.....
If an illegal immigrant Islamonazi enemy agent can Occupy our White House, there is no law anymore in Amerika
So these emails that were deleted would have to have met those criteria. What was "filed or deposited" with any of the above. Please clarify my thinking on this.
Something is really wrong in a country that elects people president who are not eligible. bam would not have passed the background check to become a mall security guard. hill has broken the law and should be in jail.
Those laws were written when this country was a country of laws. The government is so corrupt that nobody bothers reading the law books.
At this point what difference does it make.
Laws don’t matter when children are voting.
[...shall forfeit his office...]
It depends on what ‘his’ is.
We better get a SCOTUS ruling on this (snicker, snicker).
There are trolls out there (WAY out there!) advocating voting for her ‘so she can be impeached’. I kid you not.
But she won’t be if Trump isn’t elected.
George Orwell said, “I TOLD YOU SO!”
Sent to the Trump Campaign.
Hopefully he will use it embarrass the Harridan.
Laws?
Surely, you jest.
Laws are only for we Little People.
“….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.
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.
He took it back.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/former-ag-michael-mukasey-says-hes-wrong-about-clinton-e-n417291
BFL!