Source: http://thefederalreview.com/hillary-not-eligible-president-law/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 21:59:37+00:00

Document:
Why Hillary Is Not Eligible To Be President | It’s The Law!
Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.
The purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 is to prohibit deceptive practices aimed at frustrating or impeding the legitimate functions of government departments or agencies. See United States v. Tobon-Builes, 706 F.2d 1092, 1101 (11th Cir. 1983); Bryson v. United States, 396 U.S. 64 (1969) (statute prohibits the “perversion which might result from the deceptive practices described”). The statute is viewed as seeking to protect both the operation and the integrity of the government, and “covers all matters confided to the authority of an agency or department.” United States v. Rogers, 466 U.S. 475, 479 (1984). The pre-1996 version of section 1001, however, may be limited by case law to the executive branch. In 1995, the Supreme Court reversed long-settled precedent in Hubbard v. United States, 115 S.Ct. 1754 (1995), and held that a court is neither a “department” nor an “agency” under § 1001. Although the Court’s opinion left open the possibility that a judicial or legislative entity might still be considered an “agency” under section 1001, several courts have interpreted Hubbard broadly to mean that section 1001 applies only to false statements made to the executive branch. See, e.g., United States v. Dean, 55 F.3d 640 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1288 (1996); United States v. Rostenkowski, 59 F.3d 1291, 1301 (D.C. Cir. 1995). As of this writing, there is still pending in the District of Columbia Circuit an interlocutory appeal concerning whether the old version of section 1001, even after Hubbard, still applies to financial disclosure statements that Members of Congress filed, pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act, with the Clerk of the House of Representatives before October 11, 1996. See United States v. Oakar, No. 96-3084 (D.C. Cir.). Prosecutors therefore should not concede, in any pleadings or arguments presented in federal courts, that the old section 1001 does not apply to such statements, at least until the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decides this case.
Comey Re-opens E-mail Investigation | I Don’t Think So!
Clinton Foundation Transfers $1.8 Billion To Qatar Central Bank | Running Away, Fleeing?

References: § 1001
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1001
 v. 
 v. 
 v.