Posted on 10/15/2016 1:53:04 PM PDT by Windflier
The authority for the House to impeach the president is found in the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, impeachment is constitutional. I'm not sure where you're going with that.
She's guilty of having violated the above statute while she was an officer of the government, so is therefore LEGALLY ineligible to hold federal office again - per the statute.
The only qualifications for federal office are found in the U.S. Constitution. States may not add qualifications (see U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton - 1995). Congress may not add qualifications outside of the Constitution (see Powell v. McCormick - 1969). The only qualifications for federal office are found in the U.S. Constitution. Statutes, despite your insistence, do not override the U.S. Constitution.
Another reason why Comey and Lynch conspired to ensure she was not judged guilty by the legal/justice farce of a system....
If she had been tried and convicted you might have an argument. But she wasn't.
“If she had been tried and convicted you might have an argument. But she wasn’t.”
She’s guilty of having removed classified government documents from their secured place of custody. The Director of the FBI told the nation that she committed that offense.
That she broke the law is not in question. That the corrupt Obama administration let her off the hook in the face of such evidence, is not in question. The penalties for breaking the law are not in question.
The only question is, who will bring her to justice. Obviously, the American people will have to enforce the statute by denying her entry to the oval office.
Remember Comey's words, "There was no intent...blah, blah, blah"
“The only qualifications for federal office are found in the U.S. Constitution. Statutes, despite your insistence, do not override the U.S. Constitution.”
Hillary Clinton is guilty of literal espionage against the United States. She put our nation’s security at risk while she was employed in one of the highest offices in the land.
Any person, having so egregiously abused the trust of their country in such a heinous way, should forever be barred from being in such a position again.
That is precisely what the statute says.
In my view, there is no conflict between the Constitution and the U.S. Code. Clinton meets the constitutional requirements to hold office, but she is in violation of code 2071, which prohibits her from holding any government office.
“Remember Comey’s words, “There was no intent...blah, blah, blah”
Comey said that Hillary did not intend to break the law or harm the United States. That has nothing to do with willfully intending to remove classified government documents from their secured place of custody.
The statute says it’s a crime to willfully - with intent - remove classified government documents from their secured place of custody.
Did she intend to remove those documents or not? Don’t tell me that she looked up one morning and just happened to find them on her server. Someone caused those documents to move from the fedgov server to Hillary’s server. That, perforce, requires INTENT.
Cuck Fomey. He’s twisting semantics to let Rotten Criminal off the hook.
Did you read the SCOTUS cases in my previous post? The only qualifications for federal office are found in the U.S. Constitution. States may not add to the qualifications; Congress (outside of a Constitutional amendment) may not add to the Constitution qualifications. Statutes, despite your continued insistence, do not override the U.S. Constitution.
No offense, friend, but you’re stuck in an intellectual cul-de-sac.
Hillary Clinton is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, relating to her handling of classified information while acting as Secretary of State.
She broke the letter and spirit of the law, and the FBI investigation proved it. The Director stood before the nation and admitted as much.
What she did while serving in an official capacity, is tantamount to treason, as there is every chance that foreign powers hostile to the United States now possess some of our country’s most sensitive secrets.
Even the simplest reason and logic dictates that such a person should forever be barred from holding government office. That is precisely what the statute says.
I’m not interested in having a pointy headed, ivory tower argument with you about this. Common sense says that a people should bar traitors from doing further harm to their nation, by whatever reasonable barriers they can devise. Code 2071 is such a reasonable barrier.
Keep advocating for Hillary if you want. Just don’t expect to get much agreement around here.
To repeat, if Clinton had been tried and convicted then you would have a case. People saying that she is guilty isn't the same thing.
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.