Disqualifying Clinton.com?

If Hillary is shown to have violated the law on the email scandal, is she disqualified from being President.

Hillary Clinton, a former Secretary of State and former Senator, is a prominent candidate in the upcoming Democratic Party primary elections. These primaries select delegates to a national convention which will choose the Democratic Party’s candidate for the November 2016 popular presidential election. It has been alleged that, during her term of service as Secretary of State, Clinton violated a provision of the federal statute mandating government record keeping. Section 2071 of Title 18 of the United States Code provides:

"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."

Section 2071’s language poses two interesting interpretive challenges.

First, what is the scope of the statute? In other words, does Section 2071’s generally worded "office under the United States" language extend to the presidency?

Second, if Section 2071’s general "office under the United States" language fairly encompasses the presidency, is the statute constitutional? In other words, does Congress have the power to create additional qualifications for the presidency beyond those already expressly stated in the Constitution’s text?

Sounds like it could go 4-4 in the Supreme Court. The Hillary loving Washington Post effectively concedes that she broke law, but that there's Scant evidence that Clinton had malicious intent in handling of emails. That's a damn low bar; she wasn't actively acting against US interests, she was just violating the law to avoid transparency, and to make it convenient for her Blackberry addiction.

Huma in the hot seat: AP Source: Clinton aide interviewed in email investigation. Is Hillary coming up next?

Why Did NBC News Sit on Explosive Story About Clinton’s Alleged Hacked Email Server For Weeks? To ask the question is to answer it; they only reveal negative information about democrats when it's clear it's coming out somewhere else.

Via Wombat-socho's "In the Mailbox: 05.05.16", Hillary Clinton suffers convenient memory loss during interview with Anderson Cooper

I'm pretty sure Donald will have an entry in a ledger somewhere. . . He didn't get where he is by keeping sloppy records.

Question for Josh Earnest: Are Hillary and Trump seriously going to get classified briefings?

Typically the two nominees start getting briefed after the conventions so that they can hit the ground running once one of them is elected president, but … maybe that’s a tradition worth reconsidering. After all, says Yuval Levin, the choice this year is between “a woman who is clearly guilty of gross failures to protect classified information and a man who seems less trustworthy and disciplined about what he allows out of his mouth than almost everyone in America.” How would you like your state secrets leaked? By the blue clown sticking them on a private server where any foreign cyberspy agency in the world can hack them? Or by the red clown mentioning something offhandedly during one of his patented stream-of-consciousness rants at a rally with 20,000 people?

Here’s an idea: Cancel the pre-election briefings and have Clapper and his deputies spend a solid week with the president-elect in November. How about it, Josh Earnest?

“The decision about how and whether and when to brief to the presidential nominees is a decision that will be made by our intelligence professionals,” Earnest said.
President Obama has “full confidence in [National Intelligence] Director [James] Clapper and the professionals in his office to carry out these responsibilities appropriately,” Earnest said.

He said he “expects” the tradition of briefing candidates will continue this year but he’s punting the decision to the IC, which is prudent. Consider this another small way in which nominating Trump helps Democrats, though. With a more conscientious GOP nominee, the White House would be taking flak from Republicans now about looping in Hillary on the latest intel after we’ve learned how grossly irresponsibly she handled it during her last stint in government. As it is, what can the GOP say? Hillary’s too much of a security risk for secrets but our loose-cannon nominee, who’s known for rambling endlessly whenever a mic is stuck in his face, would be a vault?

At least Trump has not yet proven to be a threat to national security. Is Donald Trump a Security Risk? Compared to what?

The fact is, the Obama administration might as well have simply published all its classified information online, so porous are its security protocols and so little does it care. Mrs. Clinton would continue the same insouciant attitude to such things; and when confronted, the donkey would simply bray and then waddle along.

And now on the the horse race, clarified by Trump effectively claiming the Republican nomination. Can Clinton Make Good on Her Opportunity?

Now the Democrats’ likely nominee faces a dilemma of her own: Run as a centrist and try to pile up a huge majority—at risk of enraging Sanders voters? Or continue the left turn she’s executed through these primaries, preserve Democratic party unity—at the risk of pushing Trump-averse Republicans back to The Donald as the lesser evil?

Why would either group believe her? As President, I'm sure "Job 1" will be to continue piling up a fortune for Clinton.com; actual administration will be left to loyal and trusted aides, chosen to ride the sea of politics, and not draw any attention to the real goal.

Ann Althouse had a series of Trump vs. Hillary posts yesterday:  That supposedly "brutal" ad from Hillary shows "Trump being opposed by… a bunch of useless losers on the Republican side. Trump annihilated every one of them. And it wasn’t even hard." You can see the ad here. I think it was Insty who commented that not only would Mexico pay for the wall, Hillary will pay for the Trump ads.

"Although we remain convinced that Hillary Clinton is very vulnerable and would probably lose to most other Republicans..."

"Donald Trump's historic unpopularity with wide swaths of the electorate - women, millennials, independents and Latinos - make him the initial November underdog. As a result, we are shifting 13 ratings on our Electoral Vote scorecard, almost all of them favoring Democrats."

About the only thing you can say for sure about political predictions and Trump, is that so far, they've been very poor. Dana Milbank, the Washington Post hack has said he will keep his promise promise to literally eat "an entire column, newsprint and ink" in which he predicted Donald Trump would never win the nomination. Hillary could offer him some hot sauce out of her bag to make that a bit more palatable.

A Harvard political theorist gives Hillary Clinton some ludicrous advice about how not to walk into Donald Trump's "trap."

Third, and most important, Clinton needs to force Trump to fight on the ground he has claimed as his own. No one has yet forced him to do that. She needs to challenge him on the terrain he is seeking to defend. Rather than simply fighting for women and children, Clinton needs to fight Trump for the votes of men. His slogan is, “Make America Great Again.” Hers should be, “Make America Fair Again.”
Can we be great without being fair? No we cannot.
Do women want fairness? Yes. Do men want fairness? Yes. Do African American, Latino and Muslim Americans want fairness? Yes. Do white Americans want fairness? Yes. Do religious Americans want fairness? Yes. Do gay, lesbian and transgender Americans want fairness? Yes.. . .

I had to laugh. "Make America Fair Again" is not going to beat "Make America Great Again." It's a terrible response for Hillary. It may please some people who already support her (though that "again" points to the When was America fair? detour). But it's not going to win over the men (or women) who are drawn to Trump. They're going to hear "fair" to mean: You've had enough, time for other people to get their share.

Which, to be fair, is pretty much the line democrats take for anyone not in their coalition.

Gloria Steinem hopes Donald Trump will lose "in a very definitive and humiliating way." Fair enough. I want Hillary humiliated.

Shocked, I'm shocked Norman Lear Calls on Hollywood Democrats to Unite Behind Hillary Clinton, while Meat Head Rob Reiner melts down in Trump hating frenzy on Morning Joe. I'm only a little more shocked that a Top McCain Aide Says He Would Back Clinton Over Trump.

Trump vs. Clinton is a verdict on America

Hillary Clinton was on a path to become the most widely and deeply disliked major party candidate in recent U.S. history. Then Donald Trump came along and beat her to it.

I'm glad they are unpopular. Their names read together are a verdict on American society. They are a reflection of our self-hatred. The Clinton-Trump election is like history dragging our country across the carpet and putting our nose in our own filth. Breathe deep.

Clinton is a maximally corrupt figure. Her great fortune in this election is that hers is a conventional sort of corruption that does not seem to directly threaten law and order in the United States, or destabilize the world order. She is loose about the security of her private email server on which she conducts the business of state, but just try to get the transcript of the speech she delivered to Goldman Sachs for a hefty fee.

Although she's happy to take six-figure paychecks from American public colleges for her speeches, Clinton's main business has been the globalist do-gooding grifter circuit. The outlines of it are simple enough. Give to the Clinton global outfits and get favorable treatment in return. The Clintons get to travel around the world for more networking and buck-raking opportunities, and keep their staff of flunkeys and friends well-paid. It's a family business. Try to imagine Clinton being tough on financial services, when its firms have paid her husband nearly $20 million to speak to them since his presidency ended.

Clinton is a political coward. See her perfectly calibrated zero-courage shift on same-sex marriage over the last two decades. She embodies the sick American culture of exaggerated victimhood. See her response to every political criticism, or her active imagination about being shot at by snipers in Bosnia.

And she is fantastically incompetent. Obama defeated her by asking, "Who got the single most important foreign policy decision since the end of the Cold War right, and who got it wrong?" Then he inexplicably made her secretary of state and she made the worst foreign policy decision since Iraq, knocking over Libya's government and making another safe harbor for ISIS. . .

And he still hates Trump more. . .