Should The Republicans Impeach Hillary Clinton if she becomes President.....

It certainly wont change with Hillary and as we get closer I think the Poll goes even Higher. As more demo failure becomes evident.

 

Its never a stupid point, when its talking about Demos and their failures.

Sounds like you are mad at even the concept of the Repubs Impeaching. So touchy.....so emo. What happened?

 

And still no sourcing.

Please point to where I've insisted anyone should do something simply because I KNOW something to be true, despite the evidence of lack thereof.

 

A guy who KNOWS HILLARY" IS GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY due to Fox News saying so thousands of times has NO business throwing the sheep slur around.

 

Yeah they worry about that perception. With Hillary in Office.....the rest of the planet will think that's just what we have become.

We will have a far worse one with a corrupt politician who had to be protected by her party in Government to stop Indictments from taking place.

The rest of the planet will be like who do you think you are tricking.

 

The question that needs to be asked is whether the Congress can impeach a President for acts that took place prior to assuming office. Unless the unlawful activity was not relating to the election campaign itself, I can not see where the Congress could issue Articles of Impeachment. They would have to wait until she committed an impeachable act(s) as President before they could act.

 

If Clinton is elected she will be an accurate reflection of the US electorate.

 

No sourcing on Predictions that there will be low voter turn out?

Please point to me and show me where you weren't born a victim and I'll point how, about your emo.

 

LOL. That response doesn't make any sense.

 

That were corrupt.....wont help us much, huh?

 

Yeah I am sure the part on the question about predictions of low voter turn out. Totally confused you.

Are you saying you have a problem or have limitations?

 

Nice crystal ball you have there to see in the future. Other than that, it is opinion. If Hillary is Obama, Obama was Bush, then why aren't you guys voting for her since most GOPers voted for Bush?

 

We can't go with the OIG decided and what Sullivan has down in a Court Record?

- - - Updated - - -

You ask why vote for Neo Cons who are Democrats that infiltrated the Repubs?

 

No, you don't. The conviction is the second part of the impeachment.

 

You have added a step to the process . There is no need to be charged and convicted before impeachment. The process works as follows: the person being impeached does a crime and there is evidence for it. The House then votes to impeach (this is analogous in a court of law to indictment). If they successfully impeach (which they have been in two times in terms of Presidents, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton), then the next phase is analogous to conviction, which is the Senate. That is where the actual "trial" takes place. No President has been removed from office by the Senate.

 

You mean Andrew Johnson and Clinton. Please get your facts straight.

The Senate is the "conviction" part of the impeachment, or the part that results in removal from office. Clinton and Johnson were impeached, those impeachments were not overturned, they just didn't result in removal from office. That said, I agree that it's unwise to start impeachment proceedings unless you have a good chance of winning them in the Senate. That's why Bill Clinton's impeachment was foolish, and is why Hillary Clinton's impeachment won't occur.

 

You are Correct.....there doesn't need to be a conviction. Either way its political suicide. Yet still McCarthy has a piece up on it with National Review Magazine.


In 1876, the Secretary of War, William W. Belknap, was accused of graft and corruption. As articles of impeachment were being prepared in the House of Representatives, Belknap, knowing this, tendered his resignation to President Grant, literally hours before the House was scheduled to vote. Instead of dropping the matter, as later Congresses would do when the accused party resigned,[4] the 1876 Congress continued with their impeachment. Belknap was acquitted in his Senate trial.

I hesitate to point out that just because Congress does a thing doesn’t make it Constitutional. I hope we can all agree on that point. Just because the 1876 Congress failed to view impeachment correctly (in my opinion) and continued with a proceeding intended to discover, apparently, if now-citizen Belknap should be “removed from office,” this doesn’t make their action constitutional.

But let’s recall that there are actually two penalties connected to impeachment in our Constitution: removal from office, AND “disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” (Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7). As written, imposition of the first penalty is clearly intended to precede imposition of the second. But can an impeachment proceed for the sole purpose of imposing the second penalty? The Constitution is silent on this question, so I’ll admit it resides in a gray area. But I believe it would violate the whole tenor of impeachment to proceed on the basis of the “disqualification” penalty alone.

A similar question came up recently on Quora,[8] with an important difference. The requester asked “Could Hillary Clinton’s mismanagement of highly classified information be grounds for Day One impeachment proceedings against her?” While it might be improper and unconstitutional to impeach Hillary now, as a private citizen, could she be impeached once she is re-established in federal service, even as President?

In other words, are the actions sparking the impeachment linked in some way to the office the individual held or are they attached to the individual herself (in this case)?

Most of the respondents on Quora said “No,” she couldn’t (or shouldn’t) be impeached. But they based their opinion on the fact that Hillary was not indicted by the Justice Department (acting on the recommendation of the FBI). No one approached the question from a Constitutional perspective.

Constitutional impeachment is appropriate when “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” have been committed. “Crimes” are the violation of statute law and “misdemeanors” are maladministration or misconduct falling short of criminal activity. Either, committed by a “high” official, constitutes grounds for impeachment. The FBI decided only that Hillary was not guilty of criminal wrongdoing because she did not display criminal intent (mens rea). They did not address (because it wasn’t their responsibility) whether Hillary was guilty of committing a “high misdemeanor” in the context of impeachment.

Given the sparse words of the Constitution and a compliant Court, Congress now has the power to do most anything it wants, and I’m sure the Supreme Court would find the impeachment of a President Hillary Clinton, for her failures as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to be non-justicable. So in the end, the judgment of propriety would fall on the owners of the Constitution: the people. For a Republican-dominated Congress to proceed this way would be political suicide.....snip~

http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=5116

 

The person has to be in office first. Then there has to be evidence of a crime, while in office. Yes, the House can proceed with impeachment, even without proving there was a crime committed, but the trial takes place in the Senate and the person isn't removed from office unless the Senate convicts. What good is an impeachment, if the person isn't removed from office?

In this country, innocence is assumed and guilt must be proven. The only times impeachment has happened, it's been overturned.

 

Yes, you are correct. I did mean Johnson, not Jackson. Thanks for pointing out that error.

We may be arguing semantics here, but if the Senate doesn't vote to convict, they are not agreeing with the House, and therefore not removing the person from office. What is the point of an impeachment, if the person isn't removed from office?

We agree on it being a bad idea, unless there is sufficient evidence to convict. We also agree that Hillary Clinton's impeachment won't likely occur, at least not as soon as she is elected over something that happened before she was elected President.

 

If Americans elect Clinton it will mean that Trump failed to communicate a compelling reason to vote for him.
At the moment Trump is doing very well on vacation tweets and frequent flyer mileage.

 

When did winning the GE become a "high crime or misdemeanor"?

Oh wait, this is an extremist right lalaland fantasy thread, right?

Nevermind, forget I asked!

 

Ironic!

 

Ironic coming from a supporter of Trump who just advocated a "2nd amendment remedy".

 

Who here supports Trump? Because I hate Trump. He's much dumber than Hillary. Did you reply to the wrong person? Or are you one of those geniuses that thinks everyone against Hildabeast is a 'trump lovin con'? lol.

The 2nd Amendment quote I will stick up for him for however. As nothing the moron said advocated violence. I'm mainly blaming the idiot left and the media for making this huge deal out of nothing. Anyway, thanks for not disagreeing about Hilda-crook. Invite me to a trump thread, happy to bash him with ya

(try not to feel too embarrassed)

 

Constitutional impeachment is appropriate when “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” have been committed. “Crimes” are the violation of statute law and “misdemeanors” are maladministration or misconduct falling short of criminal activity. Either, committed by a “high” official, constitutes grounds for impeachment. The FBI decided only that Hillary was not guilty of criminal wrongdoing because she did not display criminal intent (mens rea). They did not address (because it wasn’t their responsibility) whether Hillary was guilty of committing a “high misdemeanor” in the context of impeachment.....snip~

What....reading isn't your strong suit DT, now is it.