Posted on 10/13/2016 12:43:46 AM PDT by UMCRevMom@aol.com
Does anyone know if this law is applicable to Hillary?
Sarbanes-Oxley Act Section 802
This section is listed within Title VIII of the act (Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability), and pertains to 'Criminal Penalties for Altering Documents'.
Summary of Section 802
This section imposes penalties of fines and/or up to 20 years imprisonment for altering, destroying, mutilating, concealing, falsifying records, documents or tangible objects with the intent to obstruct, impede or influence a legal investigation.
This section also imposes penalties of fines and/or imprisonment up to 10 years on any accountant who knowingly and wilfully violates the requirements of maintenance of all audit or review papers for a period of 5 years
It doesn't apply. (1) It's Hillary, and no laws apply to her. (2) FBI Director Comey said there is no evidence of intent, and we all know Hillary will deny intent forever.
One does not have to admit intent, intent simply must be proven to a jury regardless of what a defendant says or does not say.
However, Hillary isn’t capable of intent, intent is impossible to prove when Hillary is involved, in fact, intent literally does not exist within her, and jury trials do not apply to Hillary Clinton.
SOX applies only to officers and management of publicly traded corporations. Hillary is not one of those.
That's the difference between the law and the real world. The law does not apply when it's Hillary.
So many legal technicalities :
MISSING—
The DNA evidence in the Kathy Sheldon rape case. It went missing when H took the rest of the garment for testing (Think access/chain of possession)
MISSING—
The records of the Rose Law Firm when needed as evidence against the Clintons (Think access/chain of possession)
MISSING—
33,000 emails connecting ClintonFoundation and pay to play. (Think access/chain of possession)
Are we seeing a pattern? What laws cover that pattern?
No, that would be a law.
Laws don ‘t apply to Hellary.
All she has to do is claim there was no ill intent. At some point she must be held accountable!
Is intent necessary? Well that depends entirely on what the meaning of "is" is.
No word has any specific or set meaning when it comes to America’s royal trailer trash, the Clintons.
Billy the Rapist and his buck toothed dyke wife and their various love children...
Wow.
Wasn’t Hillary on the Board of Directors for Lafarge which I believe has an ADR that trades publicly in the United States as well as trading abroad. She may or may not also be on the boards of other companies and possibly private companies dealing with public companies.
Wasn’t Hillary on the Board of Directors for Lafarge which I believe has an ADR that trades publicly in the United States as well as trading abroad. She may or may not also be on the boards of other companies and possibly private companies dealing with public companies.
SOX only applies when the officer or manager makes false statements about the company they work for that has a substantial effect on that company's value. Since Hillary's lies are not on those company's (as far as we know) SOX would not apply.
If we could find a lie that did have an effect on the value of those companies, then possibly she could be fined or jailed for that false statement.
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.