U.S. CODE: Hillary R. Clinton is disqualified from holding any office in the United States

[raykeller]

U.S. CODE: Hillary R. Clinton is disqualified from holding any office in the United States
State of the Nation ^ | October 5, 2016 | Ralph

Sometimes the hard truth appears in the funniest places … like a Law Library.

Interesting read! Wonder how many people are aware. Word for word from the Cornell Law Library – RE: Hillary R. Clinton

Apparently, the FBI forgot to visit the Cornell Law Library. Word for word from the Cornell Law Library, Former United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey tells MSNBC that not only is Hillary Clinton’s private email server illegal, it “disqualifies” her from holding any federal office. Very specifically points to one federal law, Title 18. Section 2071.

For those of us who do not have United States Code[1] committed to memory, here’s exactly what it says:

“(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.” (Source: 18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally)

Yes, it explicitly states “shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.”

Shouldn’t voters know that? The media won’t tell them. So it’s up to us.

Can you help hold Hillary accountable?

Please pass this on to everyone you know!

[Preston Hamblin]

On 10/6/2016 10:08 PM, raykeller wrote:
> *U.S. CODE: Hillary R. Clinton is disqualified from holding any office
> in the United States*

No.

Fuck off.

[BigPol]

Eat shit sonny!
>


--
All of us have to stand up and control bama'sbig Government

[Just Wondering]

On 10/8/2016 9:11 AM, Winston_Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 22:08:30 -0700, "raykeller@looser_losers.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "(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,...
>>
>> (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 ...
>
> The trouble is that just your opinion doesn't count. The person needs
> to be charged and found guilty.
>
> Thanks to some favors changing hands when Bill Clinton meet Loretta
> Lynch in an secret meeting on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport,
> Hillary Clinton was never charged and therefore can never be
> convicted.
>
Just because Hiliary hasn't already been charged doesn't mean she CAN'T
be charged.

[RD Sandman]

Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:WZ9Kz.21403$RE2....@fx35.iad:

True. Can't be tried for the same crime twice but that doesn't mean that
one cannot be charged more than once.

--

RD Sandman

I once knew a girl who was so flat chested that she
had a tattoo on her stomach that read:

"In case of rape, please place this side up."

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 08 Oct 2016 13:48:18 -0500, RD Sandman <rdsa...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in
>news:WZ9Kz.21403$RE2....@fx35.iad:
>
>> On 10/8/2016 9:11 AM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 22:08:30 -0700, "raykeller@looser_losers.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "(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,...
>>>>
>>>> (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 ...
>>>
>>> The trouble is that just your opinion doesn't count. The person needs
>>> to be charged and found guilty.
>>>
>>> Thanks to some favors changing hands when Bill Clinton meet Loretta
>>> Lynch in an secret meeting on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport,
>>> Hillary Clinton was never charged and therefore can never be
>>> convicted.
>>>
>> Just because Hiliary hasn't already been charged doesn't mean she
>> CAN'T be charged.
>>
>>
>
>True. Can't be tried for the same crime twice but that doesn't mean that
>one cannot be charged more than once.

She hasn't been charged. She can be, and it would be the first time.
So there is no case of double jeopardy.

--
Ed Huntress

[RD Sandman]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in
news:vmiivbt7msma0edve...@4ax.com:

If charges aree pressed and then dropped with no trial or penalties, they
can be gone for again. It is being prosecuted twice for the same thing
that is protected not multiple times the charges may have been simply
dropped, AFAIK.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 08 Oct 2016 15:01:05 -0500, RD Sandman <rdsa...@comcast.net>

Right.

>It is being prosecuted twice for the same thing
>that is protected not multiple times the charges may have been simply
>dropped, AFAIK.

Right, or the same thing happens in the case of a mistrial. You can be
tried again for the same crime.

--
Ed Huntress

[Governor Swill]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2016 11:26:49 -0600, Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net>
wrote:

Perhaps, but she won't be.

Swill
--
Trump/Pence 2016 - Make America Hate Again!

#imwithher #strongertogether

"All the sinners are just Saints without sparks,
and it's getting harder to tell them apart." - Jamiroquai

[Just Wondering]

On 10/8/2016 12:48 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:WZ9Kz.21403$RE2....@fx35.iad:
>
>> On 10/8/2016 9:11 AM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 22:08:30 -0700, "raykeller@looser_losers.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "(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,...
>>>>
>>>> (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 ...
>>>
>>> The trouble is that just your opinion doesn't count. The person needs
>>> to be charged and found guilty.
>>>
>>> Thanks to some favors changing hands when Bill Clinton meet Loretta
>>> Lynch in an secret meeting on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport,
>>> Hillary Clinton was never charged and therefore can never be
>>> convicted.
>>>
>> Just because Hiliary hasn't already been charged doesn't mean she
>> CAN'T be charged.
>
> True. Can't be tried for the same crime twice but that doesn't mean that
> one cannot be charged more than once.
>

(I'm agreeing with you here.) By way of further explanation to those
who still don't get it (not you):
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/When+Jeopardy+Attaches
"The U.S. Supreme Court has held that jeopardy attaches during a jury
trial when the jury is empanelled. In criminal cases tried by a judge
without a jury, jeopardy attaches when the first witness is sworn."
So, prior to commencement of a trial, a criminal charge can be dismissed
and recharged again.

[RD Sandman]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in

news:l1oivbpbdjus8kkq9...@4ax.com:

Yep.

[RD Sandman]

Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in
news:nm7jvblkmkkvih3t6...@4ax.com:

> SNIP RESTORED:
>||-Thanks to the FBI honoring thier agreement with Hillary, they,
>||-themselves, destroyed a couple laptops in question as well as
>||-"interview" records, so the odds of a second investigation are almost
>||-zero.

>
>>Just because Hiliary hasn't already been charged doesn't mean she CAN'T
>>be charged.
>

> Of course. I cited the destroyed evidence and records as what makes it
> almost impossible to charge her now. She got the FBI to sanitize the
> crime scene for her.
>

Which his a different approach than simply being tried twice.

[RD Sandman]

Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4o8jvbpns3gamub09...@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 8 Oct 2016 11:26:49 -0600, Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On 10/8/2016 9:11 AM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 22:08:30 -0700, "raykeller@looser_losers.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "(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,...
>>>>
>>>> (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 ...
>>>
>>> The trouble is that just your opinion doesn't count. The person
>>> needs to be charged and found guilty.
>>>
>>> Thanks to some favors changing hands when Bill Clinton meet Loretta
>>> Lynch in an secret meeting on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport,
>>> Hillary Clinton was never charged and therefore can never be
>>> convicted.
>>>
>>Just because Hiliary hasn't already been charged doesn't mean she
>>CAN'T be charged.
>
> Perhaps, but she won't be.

:(

[RD Sandman]

Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in

news:IQnKz.24907$ZA2....@fx22.iad:

Yes, indeed.

[Rudy Canoza]

Who would do that? Her own attorney-general whom she'll appoint after
being sworn into the office of the presidency next January? Very doubtful.

[Just Wondering]

Trump says if he's elected, he'll appoint a special prosecutor to do it.
But regardless, the pragmatic "who would do it" is a different
question from "can it be done" ?

[Governor Swill]

On Sun, 09 Oct 2016 11:20:55 -0500, RD Sandman <rdsa...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:4o8jvbpns3gamub09...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 8 Oct 2016 11:26:49 -0600, Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 10/8/2016 9:11 AM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 22:08:30 -0700, "raykeller@looser_losers.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "(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,...
>>>>>
>>>>> (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 ...
>>>>
>>>> The trouble is that just your opinion doesn't count. The person
>>>> needs to be charged and found guilty.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to some favors changing hands when Bill Clinton meet Loretta
>>>> Lynch in an secret meeting on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport,
>>>> Hillary Clinton was never charged and therefore can never be
>>>> convicted.
>>>>
>>>Just because Hiliary hasn't already been charged doesn't mean she
>>>CAN'T be charged.
>>
>> Perhaps, but she won't be.
>
>:(

:)

Swill
--
Trump/Pence 2016
Make sexual assault great again!

#imwithher #strongertogether

"Grab them by the pussy? Sounds like what Hillary did
to him during the first debate." -- Bill Mahr

[Governor Swill]

On Mon, 10 Oct Just Wondering wrote:

>Trump says if he's elected, he'll appoint a special prosecutor to do it.
> But regardless, the pragmatic "who would do it" is a different
>question from "can it be done" ?

Hillary is safe then.

[Wayne]

On 10/11/2016 9:28 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Oct Just Wondering wrote:
>
>> Trump says if he's elected, he'll appoint a special prosecutor to do it.
>> But regardless, the pragmatic "who would do it" is a different
>> question from "can it be done" ?
>
> Hillary is safe then.
>

Yes, she is absolutely safe. The Clinton Crime Cartel is untouchable.

[Governor Swill]

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 09:50:30 -0700, Wayne <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:

She's safe because Trump isn't going to be President.