Yup1 happens to many of themszh wrote:Looks like the scandals caught up with this person ... finally.
Z
Yup!szh wrote:Corruption in politics knows no bounds: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/07/us/me ... arges.html
Z
Hillary’s Emails and the Law
It is a crime—obstruction of justice—to destroy even one message to prevent it from being subpoenaed.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ronald-d-ro ... 1426547356
Whether or not Mrs. Clinton violated a State Department rule, her admitted destruction of more than 30,000 emails sure looks like obstruction of justice—a serious violation of the criminal law.
By her own admission, Mrs. Clinton destroyed more than 30,000 emails once the subpoenas started coming in.
The law says that no one has to use email, but it is a crime (18 U.S.C. section 1519) to destroy even one message to prevent it from being subpoenaed. Prosecutors charging someone with obstruction don’t even have to establish that any investigation was pending or under way when the deletion took place. As T. Markus Funk explained in a journal article for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the prosecutor “need only prove that the defendant shredded the documents, at least in part, to make life more difficult for future investigators, if and when they eventually appear.”
Legal commentators call this “anticipatory obstruction of justice,” and the law punishes it with up to 20 years imprisonment.
Will Hillary Break The Criminal Conduct Glass Ceiling?
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... z3UgJIXX9p
While criminal conduct, and even convicted felons, have darkened the US Capitol and numerous state houses, and two modern presidents have been stung by their criminal conduct in office -- one resigned in disgrace, the other was impeached -- we have been spared having to face a major party presidential candidate with a criminal record.
Will Hillary Clinton break the glass ceiling as the first felon to be the Democratic Party’s nominee to be president?
Imagine Hillary, the Democrats’ champion awaiting indictment, or facing a trial if her email irregularities explode, as teased by Andrew McCarthy.
It all revolves around a seemingly simple form, the OF-109 Separation Statement, that requires a departing State Department employee to declare that he/she has surrendered any and all documents.
If Hillary signed the Form OF-109 she violated its terms by both destroying classified and unclassified documents and failing to turn them over. If she never signed OF-109, it would be a willful evasion of an affirmative duty.
Turned out to be a blessing for democrats and women.szh wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/14/us/ki ... regon.html
Looks like the scandals caught up with this person ... finally.
Z