No, there is no requirement that one be a lawyer to sit on the Supreme Court. See Sotomayor.

The biggest potential problem with the transcripts is that they divulge under what conditions he received student aid and scholarships. If he did accept any under the guise of a foreign national, it immediately makes a case for him being ineligible to serve as President. While this is most likely a pipe dream, it is the most damaging theory.

Or he is simply sick. :)

1 is easy. A pardon legally nullifies the conviction in all respects. (Or prevents it, if it hasn't happened yet.)

As for #2, I'd have to guess yes. They'd probably have to pin murder on her to prevent her base from voting for her.

What interests me more is another possible scenario: She picks somebody outrageous (Biden, or even Obama) as running mate. Then she is put on trial, and after November, convicted. Result: Obama gets a third term. I don't think the 22nd Amendment prevents this.

I think the information must allege that a crime occurred within the District. Since the Defendant commits the crime where she is at the time the alleged illegal activity took place, her location creates jurisdiction. There may be multiple instances of criminal activity alleged. If so, as you suggest there may be concurrent jurisdiction in multiple Districts. To the more aggressive U.S. Attorney goes the spoils (or the blame).

Weeds is fun, though. Now, depending whether the jurisdiction is where the server was, or where Hillary was, or where she worked from, when using the server, each of which could be Chappaqua, NY, or Huntsville, AL, or Manhattan, NY, or Washington, DC, the District Court for the relevant grand jury, would have to be either the Eastern District of New York, or Northern District of Alabama, or the Southern District of New York, or the District of Columbia itself, respectively. I wonder how they decide which district has jurisdiction. What a mess.

We've all said that...shaking our heads...

Hillary is evil and should not even be considered for president

Good points and I would "Point" out: that he just might enjoy a good "Borking" can't contain the laughter any more....

Thank you jabuttrick/mec4cdic for your imput.

Jabuttrick...I can hear that 3rd option now!
"What difference did it make"

I think the talk of Obama being nominated and approved for SCOTUS is more an emotional nightmare than a realistic fear.

Several points:

1. He may have graduated, but as far as I know his college transcripts (and maybe even high school) are still completely under wraps. I doubt if he were Magna Cum Laude that would be the case. There's smoke and fire there. And unlike the Presidency, where he could worm his way out of revealing them, that won't work for a judicial committee evaluating a SCOTUS nominee. No one could reasonably argue that his transcripts are not relevant in this case.

2. He may not even want it. Especially if SCOTUS members can't make the big bucks that an ex-President can, while they serve. There were rumors in 2012 that he almost didn't run in order to get the money machine cranking sooner.

3. As a complete narcissist and none too bright, really, I doubt he really has any passion, interest (or respect) for Constitutional Law. Another reason, beside #2, that he may not want it.

4. Assuming the Senate stays R, and here is where I have to bite my cynical, not naive tongue, there is precedent for them simply not confirming him. I believe the applicable verb is "to Bork" him.

Doesn't mean he won't pardon Hillary, or refuse to indict, of course, because I'm sure the Clinton money machine and contacts they can provide could provide many other incentives to him besides SCOTUS.

Not to go too far into the weeds (although I fear we have already passed that point), but the possible use of the information creates the option of the defendant exercising her right to request a preliminary hearing at which time the prosecution would have to lay out its case in an effort to get a judge to make a finding of probable cause. While this hearing is often waived, it might make for an entertaining diversion.

jabuttrick presents a different option for the prosecutor and with that option, we might note yet two other options, one of which belongs to the prosecutor. First, not only could the prosecutor charge the accused again in a new grand jury, but he/she could also use a different charge, called an "information" with which to take the accused directly to trial for some misdemeanor stuff, that is, for an offense with a less than one year prison penalty. That bypasses the need for a grand jury entirely. The second option belongs to the grand jury itself. After its investigation, the grand jury can present a case against the accused directly, called a "presentment." Of course presentments are usually buried by the courts because the courts, the executive and the congress all have hated this power that is held by the people. It has been termed "obsolete" and is even not provided for in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. But, there it is, right in the first clause of the fifth amendment. Go figure. Real power to the people: take a glance at the grand jury's 1992 presentment in the case of Rocky Flats - it is on line. A third option, beyond the two others just mentioned, is the "report" of a special grand jury - but reports are always buried by the court as far as I can tell. Good catch, though, jabuttrick.

I figured so Carl. I just started doubting if he ever was a "legal" lawyer. Your comment got me scared because one of the things little cute Miss Beastly giggled out a couple months ago, just after the death of Scalia, was when a new idiot (I can only guess he was a plant) blurted out the idea and she giggly said "what a great idea". Making me think the fix is in and done, or that she was publicly offering a deal. Either way, it was very crass. But not surprising from her. Shed sell Billy boy of she didn't need his teflon armor...

Second paragraph...That's exactly what I meant...the same goes for being a human being.

Also a very low IQ and very compartmentalized.

IQ only counts the amount of information one has assimilated, so his head is a bit hollow.

It is the level of integration, regardless of IQ, that makes one smart...I call that [Inter]lectual.

I also do not know if you even have to be a lawyer in any case, I am sure any criminal background would be sufficient.

Unfortunately, he is:

President Obama graduated from Harvard Law School in 1991 and was admitted as a lawyer by the Supreme Court of Illinois on Dec. 17, 1991. Prior to being elected to the Illinois state Senate in 1996, he worked as a civil rights lawyer at the firm formerly known as Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Four days after Obama announced that he would run for president in February 2007, he voluntarily elected to have his law license placed on “inactive” status, according to Grogan. Then, after becoming president, he elected to change his status to “retired” in February 2009.

FactCheck.org.

Now, if you meant "he's no lawyer despite having a law degree and having done a little bit of practice" yes indeed. He also does not know crap about the constitution, but my view of SCOTUS is they sold out 10-20 years ago and their rulings are so nebulous and based on all kinds of "precedent, rulings, and fantasy" that he would probably fit right in and be worth 500 million by the time he either died or quit. Yes, I do believe you can by a SCOTUS ruling now. I also believe your rocks are much smarter than you paint them as. Especially with the Obamanation yardstick.

If that happens then we know for sure they are all retarded...he's no lawyer, knows nothing of the constitution and is dumber than the rocks in my yard.

If she offered him SCOTUS, he may well relent. Self serving slime that he is. Along with the rest of his nasty gang of thieves.

If we are lucky, maybe enough there to impeach her in her first year?

Bernie is a manipulative old curmudgeon who is as manipulative and corrupt as HillaryBeast, who just pretends to be the Peoples Savior. He just doesn't have the huge blackmail material I think the Beastie has (or think she does).

I'm with you, the frustration of seeing the daily roll call of corruption, and knowing it is of no meaning to the vast sheeple population is very disturbing.

That is a good point, this may all be smoke and mirrors, OR it may be a signal by the FBI to their masters that they are not going to let this go by to suit their needs. Hope it is the former.

Yes sir. Indeed.

"What if Hillary is indicted, and then pardoned, before the election?"
I cannot speak for all Hillary supporters, but the indictment for mishandling classified docs would not bother me. What I would look for, though, is what unclassified things was she trying to hide? If a pardon or other maneuver were used to stop people from finding the answer to this question, I would have a hard time. If I thought it were going to be close and voting Libertarian would help a Republican be elected, I don't know. I hope that scenario doesn't happen.