Hillary Clinton

She may have committed treason and conspiracy to murder, but, and this is the important part, she has yet to be convicted in a court of law. Unfortunately, that may never happen. I don't condone or commend her behaviour, but the whole truth must be told

Here's what it says according to
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Treason like colluding with a communist foreign power and asking them to hack his competitor's website?

That's hyperbole at best, willful ignorance at worst. Anyone who watched that without an ideologically driven motive knew that was sarcasm.

18 US code, section 793:

The improper storage of classified government material is punishable by 10 years in federal prison

Honestly, I fail.
Not reading the instructions
Regarding replies.

Not to rain on your parade but the Constitution is quite clear that the only requirements for holding the office of President are age (35) and natural born citizenship. In fact, there is no criminal offense that legally bars a person from the specific office of President.

Dstone, the post by socrates is correct. Rebellion or treason would bar somebody from holding any elected office, including President. While Hitlery is certainly a felon, and in my personal opinion has committed treason, treason is a very high bar to clear. Better to simply convict her of the felonies she has clearly committed, stick her in a hole, and forget about her. Same with BJ.

Well first of all she isn't a felon. She hasn't been convicted of a crime. Second, the use of a private email server isn't insurrection or rebellion. Ya'll have some seriously skewed ideas about how the law works. And thirdly, the XIV amendment does NOT override the US Constitution, Article II, Section 1 which lays out the qualifications for president.
Electors of President is not President. The 14th amendment was written to prevent the leadership of the rebellion from returning to Congress or federal offices but, and this is a big but, if Jefferson Davis had successfully run for President of the United States - the 14th would NOT have barred him from that, and ONLY THAT, office.

Except it doesn't override the qualifications for President in the amendment. At all. It only precludes being chosen as an elector - not the office of President. And they say I can't read ...

Oh look another person that's can't read. I wrote " the XIV amendment does NOT override the US Constitution, Article II, Section 1 which lays out the qualifications for president. "
Read it again monkey sniffer

I forgot that liberals can't read plain english. I didn't say using a private email server is treason. That's one of about a hundred scandals with that bitch. IMHO approving the sale of 20% of our strategic uranium reserves to an aggressive nuclear superpower counts in my book, but may not hold up in a trial. You are correct that she hasn't been convicted. Of course, I clearly indicated that when I said "Better to simply convict her..." Learn to read simple English and then maybe we can have a conversation.

Ah so you're of the "I'll just insult them when they're right" debate crowd.
Assertions that she is guilty because of "about a hundred scandals" are not proof.
The fact that you bring up the uranium deal as if we gave up actual uranium from our own stocks (we didn't) - which was begun before she was SecState and which she had no power to veto - shows that you rely on certain 'sources' for your information.
Obviously, no point in talking to you further as you were proven wrong on the main point - that she is qualified for that office no matter what. Even if convicted of treason. Which she is not. And will not be. Bye now

"Clinton "gave up 20 percent of America's uranium supply to Russia."

The reference is to Russia’s nuclear power agency buying a controlling interest in a Toronto-based company. That company has mines, mills and tracts of land in Wyoming, Utah and other U.S. states equal to about 20 percent of U.S. uranium production capacity (not produced uranium).

Clinton was secretary of state at the time, but she didn’t have the power to approve or reject the deal. The State Department was only one of nine federal agencies that signed off on the deal, and only Obama had the power to veto it.

For a statement that contains only an element of truth, our rating is Mostly False."

She deleted evidence after being indicted. Something the left, and apparently the FBI, keeps forgetting.

So did Donald Trump. Something the alt right apparently forgets
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/13/trump-accused-destroying-email-evidence-lawsuit-10-years-ago-republican-hillary-president/85795082/

Speculation that he must have deleted them on purpose and disbelief in the IT diretor's testimony isn't the same as what Hillary did. She admitted to deleting them and not just doing so as part of a regular maintenance schedule. She had special software used to make sur the deleted emails could not be recovered.
Even if Trump is guilty of deleting evidence, are you saying that justifies what Hillary did?

We're better off with Donald Trump than with that witch

Trump wasn't holding public offices or trust at the time. You are quite correct, btw. She has to be tried first. No one is a felon until convicted. However, the DOJ was broken on several levels.
1) not appointing an individual council after the tarmac incident.
2) Comey's original claim that she was negligent without intent. Negligence has no intent. Intent does not need to be proven in cases were negligence is a factor of guilt

The statute says "gross negligence" which does require intent or at least willful and conscious violation. Something that would have been probably impossible to prove.
And, again, even if she were convicted - the 14th amendment would not preclude her from serving in the office of President.

No, I agree with you about the 14th, I doubt the assertion about it being impossible to prove. Hampered? Yes. However, certain lines of evidence weren't sought and the deal handing over the laptops after interviews that weren't under oath has its own paths of inquiry.

Depends on how you look. I, for one, think this is a politically dead end...dead horse and all, however, going full on with racketeering angles is where I'd go.

Speaking of Racketeering - Trump's RICO court date is in 2 weeks. ;)

Ya. Best he can hope for is a stay until after his term(s). Same thing Clinton would have done if the FBI found any reasonable means to prosecute a Rico charge before or during her term. It's all pretty interesting.

Uh huh. I love how butthurt you guys are. Nothing like a sore winner.

This meme has not aged very gracefully. XD