|
For all you animal lovers out there. I are one too. :-)
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=228371620915221&id=100012271532337 Former United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey tells MSNBC that not only is Hillary Clinton's private email server illegal, it "disqualifies" her from holding any federal office. Very specifically points to one federal law, Title 18. Section 2071.
Here's what 18 USC § 2071 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." ~~~***~~~ Yes, it explicitly states "shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States." Last time I checked, the Office of the President is, in fact, an "office under the United States." Hillary is, in a word, unqualified for holding that (or any other) office. Period. The Espionage Act of 1918 makes no allowance for intent. Noodle on that. Whether or not Hillary intended to break the law, she did. Whether or not THE SMARTEST WOMAN IN THE WORLD™ had any desire, wish, hope, or dream to violate the law, the fact is that she did, flat-out, run afoul of the Espionage Act. Period. To argue otherwise is pure and unadulterated sophistry. (Can I use the word "unadulterated" in reference to the Clintons, I wonder? Without causing an uproar of laughter to erupt, that is?)
The fact is 18 USC 93, 793 and 1924 simply do not require intent. But even if intent is what you Hillary supporters require, consider that the latest Wikileaks revelations in this whole sordid mess—and more recently, the repulsive Anthony Weiner's part in all of this sordid, filth-filled brouhaha—proves that Hillary did have intent. See 18 U.S.C. ch. 37 (18 U.S.C. § 792 et seq.). For those of you who passionately support Hillary Clinton because you fervently assert that she's The Most Qualified Person Running for President™, I humbly ask you to consider:
Intensity of emotion isn't evidence. Activity isn't accomplishment. Grace and Peace. Cheers. To save time, for both you and for me, please go to my landing page at WesternFreePress.com by clicking here.
|
AuthorI am a happily married middle-aged man who served his country as a nuclear-trained US Navy sailor during the peacetime years of the late 1980s. I re-entered civilian life before the First Gulf War. Though I trained for war as part of my military duties, I saw no combat during my service. War games were as close to combat, and its perils, that I ever got. Archives
July 2017
Categories |
RSS Feed