Frank T wrote:
Wow, You must be really upset that Trump doesn't recall grabbing someone's vagina without her permission.
Talk about a bad memory.
But his victims remember well, and he remembered well enough to brag about it on tape!
The fix is in.
For those of us who do not have United States Code committed to memory, here's what it says:
“(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b) 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. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.”
Yes, it explicitly states "shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."
One Rude Dawg wrote:
The fix is in.
For those of us who do not have United States Code committed to memory, here's what it says:
“(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b) 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. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.”
Yes, it explicitly states "shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."
The fix is in. br br For those of us who do not h... (
show quote)
Ah Rude one, there is one thing that you forget. Those alleged emails were on a private server, thus were never filed with the clerk or officer of the court. Thus this section does not apply.
Good try though.
One Rude Dawg wrote:
The fix is in.
For those of us who do not have United States Code committed to memory, here's what it says:
“(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b) 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. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.”
Yes, it explicitly states "shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."
The fix is in. br br For those of us who do not h... (
show quote)
This sounds so complete and finished, but it means little. Read up on it before you invest too much emotion in it.
No matter, now Trump is setting the stage for a rigged election--before he even loses. The man will do anything-no scruples.
rgrenaderphoto wrote:
What? The voices in your little head pleading with you to defend the Constitution?
In your head there is ABSOLUTELY nothing
phcaan
Loc: Willow Springs, MO
Frank T wrote:
Wow, You must be really upset that Trump doesn't recall grabbing someone's vagina without her permission.
Talk about a bad memory.
Great deflection, not surprising however.
boberic
Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander
Frank T wrote:
Ah Rude one, there is one thing that you forget. Those alleged emails were on a private server, thus were never filed with the clerk or officer of the court. Thus this section does not apply.
Good try though.
Makes no difference, her mere possesion, while secretary of State, makes any communication government property. Intent is not a an issue. The simple fact of mishandeling classified documents is a felony. Intent is of no consequence. If you kill a pedestrian with your car you are guilty of a crime, unless you can prove you were not responsible. It's called criminally negligent homicide.
boberic wrote:
I have the answer that will absolve me of any felony that I might commit in the future.
"on the advice of my "consigliere" I respectfully ...." You know the usual BS from the left when they are against the wall ?? Just asking !!
boberic wrote:
Makes no difference, her mere possesion, while secretary of State, makes any communication government property. Intent is not a an issue. The simple fact of mishandeling classified documents is a felony. Intent is of no consequence. If you kill a pedestrian with your car you are guilty of a crime, unless you can prove you were not responsible. It's called criminally negligent homicide.
Well you're obviously not a lawyer. If you kill someone with your car, the state has to prove your guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You have no responsibility to prove you're innocent.
boberic
Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander
Frank T wrote:
Well you're obviously not a lawyer. If you kill someone with your car, the state has to prove your guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You have no responsibility to prove you're innocent.
I will use another example--so maybe you will understand. A man jumps off a tall building, in an attempt to kill himself. While he is falling. someone fires a gun out the window. with no attempt to kill anyone. but the bullet hits the man as he goes by the window, and kills him as he falls. Is the shooiter guilty of a crime? Yes. Again criminally negligent homicide. Intent has nothing to do with it he is still guilty. Another example-- you are going 70 miles an hour on a road with a speed limit of 50mph. Are you breaking the law. even if you did not intend to go 70mph. YES and you get a summons and plead not guilty at court. Will the judge throw out the ticket. NO.. Intent has nothing to do with it.
boberic wrote:
I will use another example--so maybe you will understand. A man jumps off a tall building, in an attempt to kill himself. While he is falling. someone fires a gun out the window. with no attempt to kill anyone. but the bullet hits the man as he goes by the window, and kills him as he falls. Is the shooiter guilty of a crime? Yes. Again criminally negligent homicide. Intent has nothing to do with it he is still guilty. Another example-- you are going 70 miles an hour on a road with a speed limit of 50mph. Are you breaking the law. even if you did not intend to go 70mph. YES and you get a summons and plead not guilty at court. Will the judge throw out the ticket. NO.. Intent has nothing to do with it.
I will use another example--so maybe you will unde... (
show quote)
Truly a ridiculous example but it still doesn't translate to you having to prove you're innocent. Again, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty. Although the presumption of innocence is not specifically mentioned in the constitution, it is mentioned in most states and in the Doctrine of Human Rights. In other words, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.
phcaan
Loc: Willow Springs, MO
Frank T wrote:
Truly a ridiculous example but it still doesn't translate to you having to prove you're innocent. Again, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty. Although the presumption of innocence is not specifically mentioned in the constitution, it is mentioned in most states and in the Doctrine of Human Rights. In other words, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.
The patriot act pretty much throws that out the window.
boberic
Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander
Frank T wrote:
Truly a ridiculous example but it still doesn't translate to you having to prove you're innocent. Again, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty. Although the presumption of innocence is not specifically mentioned in the constitution, it is mentioned in most states and in the Doctrine of Human Rights. In other words, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.
Hillary flat out violated federal law. All the Gov.nas to prove that she had classified e-mails on her private server. The FBI found that she did. They proved it. It should have gone to indictment,
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.