[Talisker]

Because she did those things, as the FBI investigation showed, the statute applies - court ruling or no.

In reality, yes. In law, no.

It's a statute. You have to apply it. That invokes a judicial proceeding. The conviction - not just the accusation - has to be produced, or that particular statute can't be applied, by definition, because that statute references a conviction in its own definition of itself. Hillary's defense would be that simple: she rejects Comey's "opinion."

[gopno1]

In reality, yes. In law, no.

It's a statute. You have to apply it. That invokes a judicial proceeding. The conviction - not just the accusation - has to be produced, or that particular statute can't be applied, by definition, because that statute references a conviction in its own definition of itself. Hillary's defense would be that simple: she rejects Comey's "opinion."

You are absolutely correct. She has to be indicted or presented with a criminal information first, and found guilty by plea or trial, and convicted in a United States District Court before the statute means anything. The burden of proof doesn't change. Law enforcement can accuse or state that laws were broken all of the time, but the individual must be convicted in court before any of the statutory provisions apply. End of discussion.

[Windflier]

It's a statute. You have to apply it. That invokes a judicial proceeding.

U.S. law is full of thousands of statutes that forbid all kinds of things. There are penalties for violating those statutes. Hillary was proven to have violated part (a) of the statute, so part (b) applies.

What this actually takes, is enforcement.

The government obviously isn't going to do that, so it's up to the people. The first step is to make everyone aware that she's broken a LAW, and that that law forbids her from ever holding federal office again.