Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Michael Mukasey, who was the Unites States Attorney General from 2007 to 2009, showed up on Morning Joe today to discuss the Hillary Clinton private server debacle and how it was going to play out. This wasn’t his first cable news hit on the subject and he’d been making the rounds, pointing out that this investigation “is not a witch hunt,” as he said on interviews over the weekend. Most of the information being discussed was nothing new. The panel talked about how Hillary’s decisions to not only have a private server, but to fail to properly classify the contents was a violation of department policy, if not the law. But then, in response to one question from Scarborough, Mukasey went a step further and said that Clinton may have disqualified herself from elected office if the allegations prove to be true.
Now, that’s a phrase we’ve heard before, but generally in a philosophical sense. “If you do this or that bad thing, you’ve essentially disqualified yourself as being the leader of the free world.” But when the former AG was pressed on the question, he informed the panel that he was speaking specifically of federal statute.
If she is found guilty of destroying government emails, (I am not even sure those have to be classified), under this statute, she cannot hold the office of President.
but she would have to be found guilty under this statute.
She will likely never be indicted.
If she is indicted, she will likely never go to trial.
If she does go to trial, she will likely never be convicted.
If she is convicted, she will likely never spend even one night in jail.
If she does go to jail, she will likely get a full Presidential Pardon.
THAT, IMO, is the way the system works.
She will likely never be indicted.
If she is indicted, she will likely never go to trial.
If she does go to trial, she will likely never be convicted.
If she is convicted, she will likely never spend even one night in jail.
If she does go to jail, she will likely get a full Presidential Pardon.
THAT, IMO, is the way the system works.
Found guilty or not, just the filing the charges will scuttle her campaign. This is why Biden is being actived this week.
I'm sure Obama's corrupt inJustice Department can just write a memo saying that the federal statute at issue doesn't apply to Democrats.
Or perhaps Mr. Mukasey (now serving Jeb Bush as a campaign adviser) will write a memo about how he thinks this particular legislation overrules what the Constitution says about eligibility to be President of the United States of America.
From Article II:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Now the 22nd Amendment:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term."
So! Apparently some think that Congress may simply pass legislation that adds more requirements than mandated by the Constitution? Perhaps only those with blue eyes, perhaps?
Odd that the late Ted Stevens, of Alaska, was even convicted of a felony, yet still won re-election to his seat. Why? Because the Constitution does not prohibit felons from running for a seat in Congress (although the House or Senate does have rules to expel such member, if desired).
I am not by any means for Ms. Clinton, but I still dislike false information being spread about.
Or perhaps Mr. Mukasey (now serving Jeb Bush as a campaign adviser) will write a memo about how he thinks this particular legislation overrules what the Constitution says about eligibility to be President of the United States of America.
From Article II:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Now the 22nd Amendment:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term."
So! Apparently some think that Congress may simply pass legislation that adds more requirements than mandated by the Constitution? Perhaps only those with blue eyes, perhaps?
Odd that the late Ted Stevens, of Alaska, was even convicted of a felony, yet still won re-election to his seat. Why? Because the Constitution does not prohibit felons from running for a seat in Congress (although the House or Senate does have rules to expel such member, if desired).
I am not by any means for Ms. Clinton, but I still dislike false information being spread about.
The information is not false. The statute was quoted accurately. The statute has never been declared unconstitutional. If Mukasey is telling lies then so are you by trying to pass off your legal opinion as a fact when it is not a fact.
And the Stevens case has zero to do with this situation or this statute. Stevens' felony conviction was not for the conduct addressed by the statute. But you know that; you are just trying to muddy the waters, just like the Clintons.
Odd that the late Ted Stevens, of Alaska, was even convicted of a felony, yet still won re-election to his seat. Why? Because the Constitution does not prohibit felons from running for a seat in Congress (although the House or Senate does have rules to expel such member, if desired).
I am not by any means for Ms. Clinton, but I still dislike false information being spread about.
You do understand that this is all a matter of public record ...... Right?
So who is spreading the "false information"?
Ted Stevens did NOT "win re-election to his seat". He was railroaded by Career DOJ lawyers and he lost his seat to the Democrat in the 2008 election. He appealed the case and won the appeal, but it was too late to "save" his seat. The Attack Dogs did a great job of character assassination.
District Judge Emmet Sullivan also appointed an independent, nongovernment attorney, Henry Schuelke III, to investigate possible misconduct by the government lawyers who prosecuted the 85-year-old former senator from Alaska.
"In nearly 25 years on the bench, I've never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I've seen in this case," Sullivan said.
In October, Stevens was found guilty of seven counts of lying on Senate ethics forms. He lost his bid for re-election in November to Democratic challenger Mark Begich, then mayor of Anchorage. Sen. Ted Stevens' conviction set aside |CNN April 7, 2009
It gave the Democrats a Senate Seat to increase their Majority ...... and that's all that really mattered to them. Ironically - it is the very same Federal Judge Andrew Sullivan that is handling one of the 3 FOIA cases against Hillary Clinton. Judge Sullivan has to be one of Clinton's biggest Nightmares. He forced Clinton to give an "Under Penalty of Perjury" Deposition and is forcing the US State Department to Cooperate with the FBI. Cheryl Mills & Huma Abedin have (so far) managed to Razzle-Dazzle their way out of an "Under Penalty of Perjury" deposition (with the help of State Department Lawyers .... but that won't last. The FBI will move slowly but surely to Investigate, Judge Sullivan (and the other 2 Judges) will move through the Courts to settle the FOIA cases. Not exactly a "vast right wing conspiracy" when ALL of these people - Inspector Generals, Federal Judges & Director of the FBI were appointed by President Obama. Perhaps Hillary will start saying any day now that it's a "Vast TeamObama Conspiracy".
There isn't a doubt in my mind that the Leftists would happily elect a Felon, even a Murderer/Thief, Traitor, Child Molester/YouNameIt - to the Office of the President - it wouldn't matter what they did. No end of Excuses, No Crime too Large, No LIE too Vile ...... it's all about the Party Animal and the Ends Justify the Means. The Corruption is Rampant - not just in the Donkey Party, but also the Elephant Party. People are FED UP with this garbage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maj
