Wikileaks: Huma Abedin had direct access to HRCs email inbox

Does huma even have any clearance??

a reply to: EvillerBob

If you read some of Abedin's answers to FBI about the HRC emails, they are significantly less protective of HRC than I would have expected. It reads like somebody who once was 'inside' and has been burned by the boss.

I think the scandal is really simple. They were lovers once, and back then HRC promised to waive all sorts of rules so that Abedin could get paid much more from non-government sources than her (for this class) small official salary from State. Abedin obviously expected HRC to protect her from the consequences, but maybe that's not happening, HRC dropped her. There's a very quiet FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation activites, and it may be that Abedin is a #1 target, and HRC is leaving her out to rot.

She can't blab all back in spite, because that would get Trump elected so HRC has her by the ovaries.

a reply to: dragonridr

Assuming the decision of the electors is already ratified by Congress, there would be no election. The President would probably be administered the oath of office in jail nonetheless.

Presumably the Vice President would still take the oath of office as well, and then invoke the 25th Amendment, and with cabinet department heads, write to the Speaker of the House and President Pro tem of the Senate that the President-elect is unable to carry out his duties. If the President objects, he could argue back to Congress and the VP would need a 2/3rds vote to prevail.

If the decision of the electors is not already ratified by Congress, then the election may be decided by the House of Representatives, as they would not accept electors for a candidate who cannot carry out the duties. In the current environment, if the Democratic Presidential candidate were in jail, it would be a contest between Tim Kaine and Paul Ryan most likely. Given that the House is currently heavily Republican, Ryan becomes president with a very weak mandate.

a reply to: mbkennel

I just realized there's a huge shortcut. If the President is given the oath of office while in jail, then their first act is, "I am pardoned". And that's that.

It could be the SCOTUS would have to decide whether they would give the oath of office to somebody who in jail and can pardon themselves.

a reply to: mbkennel

No they would be unabe to take thr oath of office. So that scenario can't play out a clause in the constitution would prevent it.

The president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: EvillerBob

If you read some of Abedin's answers to FBI about the HRC emails, they are significantly less protective of HRC than I would have expected. It reads like somebody who once was 'inside' and has been burned by the boss.

I think the scandal is really simple. They were lovers once, and back then HRC promised to waive all sorts of rules so that Abedin could get paid much more from non-government sources than her (for this class) small official salary from State. Abedin obviously expected HRC to protect her from the consequences, but maybe that's not happening, HRC dropped her. There's a very quiet FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation activites, and it may be that Abedin is a #1 target, and HRC is leaving her out to rot.

She can't blab all back in spite, because that would get Trump elected so HRC has her by the ovaries.

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"

a reply to: dragonridr

That requires an impeachment vote and conviction in Senate, not a regular criminal or civil judgment.

The Supreme court could easily come to the conclusion that if a president elect is in jail then they are able to carry out their duties since they can pardon themselves. It may piss people off, but the only solution to that is impeachment which is not pardonable.