2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThey think it's nothing...but it is something....very damaging I would think:
"By Federal law, according to 18 U.S.C. § 2071(b), which states:"
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.
Seems she is in trouble.
Response to bkkyosemite (Original post)
Press Virginia This message was self-deleted by its author.
Renew Deal
(81,852 posts)Better brush up your honor
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744
Response to Renew Deal (Reply #4)
Press Virginia This message was self-deleted by its author.
Renew Deal
(81,852 posts)Response to Renew Deal (Reply #9)
Press Virginia This message was self-deleted by its author.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Hillary has already begun to build her defense around that word.
The IG report, though, shows some things were definitely willfully done that may fall under the reach of the statute.
She's in a lot of trouble.
Response to BillZBubb (Reply #5)
Press Virginia This message was self-deleted by its author.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Renew Deal
(81,852 posts)According to this article
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I think it will, unfortunately, be glossed over.
But, in a rational world, if she took responsibility for that server, she took responsibility for preserving and securing everything that passed through it.
TeamPooka
(24,217 posts)A Response to Michael B. Mukasey and Cause of Action
Seth Barrett Tillman**
Michael B. Mukasey, a former Attorney General of the United States (and former Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York), has stated that if former Secretary of State (and former Senator) Hillary Clinton is convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2071,[1] then she is disqualified from holding the presidency.[2] Likewise, a Washington, DC think tank has just published a white paper taking the same position.[3] Mukaseys and Cause of Actions position is fundamentally misconceived; indeed, neither puts forward any authority for the position that Section 2071 or any other federal statute creates or could create a disqualification in regard to any elected federal position, including the presidency.
It is widely accepted that the Supreme Courts decisions in Powell v. McCormack[4] and U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton[5] have come to stand for the proposition that neither Congress nor the States can add to the express textual qualifications for House and Senate seats in Article I. Importantly, the rationale of Powell and U.S. Term Limits i.e., the primacy of the written Constitutions express provisions setting fixed textual qualifications equally applies to the qualifications for the presidency (and vice presidency) in Article II.[6] Indeed, this extension of Powell and U.S. Term Limits appears uncontroversial. For example, Chief Judge Posner opined:
The democratic presumption is that any adult member of the polity is eligible to run for office . The requirement in the U.S. Constitution that the President be at least 35 years old and Senators at least 30 is unusual and reflects the felt importance of mature judgment to the effective discharge of the duties of these important offices; nor, as the cases we have just cited hold, may Congress or the states supplement these requirements.[7]
Federal district courts, including those outside of Chief Judge Posners Seventh Circuit, have taken a similar stance.[8] So has persuasive scholarly authority.[9]
As a matter of constitutional structure, the case for exclusivity in regard to the Constitutions express textual qualifications for the presidency is stronger than the coordinate case for exclusivity in regard to qualifications for House and Senate seats. The power to judge members qualifications is expressly and unambiguously committed to each house of Congress, but no such express power is unambiguously committed to Congress in regard to adjudicating a presidents (or presidential candidates or president-elects) qualifications. It would seem to follow that if Congress has no power to add to the standing qualifications of its own members, it cannot add to the standing qualifications for the other elected constitutional positions,[10] i.e., the President and Vice President. Any other result risks congressional aggrandizement at the expense of the presidency; any other result risks Congresss manipulating qualifications for the presidency so that Congress chooses the President, rather than the People of the United States.