McCaul: Clinton could be impeached if she wins

[TomSea]

McCaul: Clinton could be impeached if she wins

Hillary Clinton could be impeached if she’s elected president, Texas Rep. Mike McCaul said Wednesday.

“This investigation will continue whether she wins or not,” the Republican lawmaker told Fox News. “But assuming she wins and the investigation comes forward and it looks like an indictment is pending, at that point in time under the Constitution, the House of Representatives would engage in an impeachment trial. It would go to the Senate and impeachment proceedings and removal would take place.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/mike-mccaul-hillary-clinton-impeach-230648#ixzz4Ox05exQi
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

[sinkspur]

So the House would impeach Clinton for actions not related to the exercise of the office of president?

A closely-divided Senate wouldn't come close to convicting in any case.

[TomSea]

So the House would impeach Clinton for actions not related to the exercise of the office of president?

A closely-divided Senate wouldn't come close to convicting in any case.

Said like a Democrat, oh sure!  Very chivalrous to defend Hillary Rotten Clinton.

 

[sinkspur]

Said like a Democrat, oh sure!  Very chivalrous to defend Hillary Rotten Clinton.

 

As usual, you don't come close to answering the main question:  would the House impeach Clinton  for actions done before she was president?  Since there would be zero chance of a conviction, what's the point?

[driftdiver]

So the House would impeach Clinton for actions not related to the exercise of the office of president?

A closely-divided Senate wouldn't come close to convicting in any case.

High Crimes and all that ya know

[sinkspur]

High Crimes and all that ya know

I'd wager the odds close to zero that Ryan would give the go ahead to impeachment.

[guitar4jesus]

[Oceander]

Said like a Democrat, oh sure!  Very chivalrous to defend Hillary Rotten Clinton.

 

Would you shut up with the childish, asinine comments that everyone you disagree with is a democrat or in the soup for Clinton.  Nobody here is a democrat or a Clinton operative - certainly not sinkspur whose been around here for almost the entire life of the forum. 

It's the nature of your candidate that he is extremely divisive.  If you don't like it, you should not have nominated him.  Since you did, you have to deal with the divisiveness you knew or should have known he would sow. 

[TomSea]

We aren't talking just about the possible impeachment of Clinton, she's going to be indicted and chances are, convicted and sent to the big house, as would happen to any other American.

[Oceander]

It's an interesting question whether impeachment would lie for actions done prior to becoming president.  So far as I know, there isn't any real precedent, and the term high crimes and misdemeanors doesn't really imply any such limit.  Since impeachment is the only way to remove a sitting president (leaving aside the rules relating to the presidents incapacity), it seems that it would lie for something done before election, but not known until after election, that makes the person unfit.  As a simple example, suppose an individual committed treason before being elected and that fact wasn't discovered until six months later.  Would anyone seriously think the Founders intended for such a person to remain in office simply because the treasonous acts took place before election?

My gut sense is that impeachment would lie as a legal matter.  Whether the Congress would have the political will is another matter entirely. 

[Oceander]

We aren't talking just about the possible impeachment of Clinton, she's going to be indicted and chances are, convicted and sent to the big house, as would happen to any other American.

In your wet dreams.  She is not going to be indicted, nor convicted, nor sent to prison.  Others around her, such as Abedin, most likely will, but she will not. 

[Night Hides Not]

In your wet dreams.  She is not going to be indicted, nor convicted, nor sent to prison.  Others around her, such as Abedin, most likely will, but she will not.

The script is right out of the movie "Casino". The underlings are buried in the desert of Nevada, to save the hides of the bosses in Kansas City.

How many times has Fox or Rush breathlessly reported, "NOW we have them!", only to see them get off scot-free? Hell, Billy Jeff was a freaking draft dodger, and he survived that.

Don't forget the Clintons still have those 900 FBI files, and their minions at Justice and the FBI have undoubtedly passed on dirt over the past 20 years. Isn't it striking that no Democrat of any substance has opposed Hillary in her quests for the Senate and Oval Office? O'Malley and Bernie...are you kidding me?

[HAPPY2BME]

 On November 2, Fox News anchor Bret Baier said two sources, reportedly with “intimate knowledge” of the FBI’s Clinton Foundation probe, indicated one or more indictments are likely ahead - claiming “a lot of evidence.”

Whether Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton are vulnerable remains to be seen.The FBI’s White Collar Crime Division is handling the investigation, with lots of indictable evidence aside from what WikiLeaks revealed.

According to one unnamed source, “(t)here is an avalanche of new information coming in every day.” FBI agents are “actively and aggressively pursuing this case,” conducting extensive interviews.

According to Baier, barring obstruction, one or more indictments are likely. Ongoing for around a year, Attorney General Loretta Lynch reportedly tried shutting the probe down.

Deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe refused, calling it a “validly predicted investigation.” Senior Trump communications advisor Jason Miller issued a statement, saying:

“Today’s reports that the FBI has an open investigation into the Clinton Foundation shows the true extent of the corrupt Clinton cash machine.”

“Even more concerning than that is the fact that the Obama Department of Justice is refusing to allow an overt investigation until after the election.”

“Not only is it completely disqualifying for a candidate for president to be facing two separate FBI investigations less than a week before the election, but the fact that the Obama Administration is so blatantly trying to tip the scales of justice toward Clinton should give every American pause.”

On November 2, the Wall Street Journal said “(a)gents, using informants and recordings from unrelated corruption investigations, thought they had found enough material to merit aggressively pursuing the investigation into the (Clinton) foundation that started in summer 2015 based on claims made in a book by a conservative author called ‘Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.’ “

Days ahead of November 8, little more is likely to come out until after Obama’s successor is known. If Hillary, as seems likely, it’ll be the first time a president-elect, shortly to be inaugurated, will be facing multiple investigations for criminal wrongdoing, subject to possible indictment.

What does that say about America’s political system too debauched to fix.

Wednesday on my blog site, I posted images of Richard Nixon and Hillary Clinton - with attribution to others for posting it on my Facebook page. It states the following:

Nixon: I deleted 18 minutes of recordings and had to resign as president.

Hillary: I deleted 30,000 e-mails and I’m running for president.

[Doug Loss]

It's an interesting question whether impeachment would lie for actions done prior to becoming president.  So far as I know, there isn't any real precedent, and the term high crimes and misdemeanors doesn't really imply any such limit.  Since impeachment is the only way to remove a sitting president (leaving aside the rules relating to the presidents incapacity), it seems that it would lie for something done before election, but not known until after election, that makes the person unfit.  As a simple example, suppose an individual committed treason before being elected and that fact wasn't discovered until six months later.  Would anyone seriously think the Founders intended for such a person to remain in office simply because the treasonous acts took place before election?

My gut sense is that impeachment would lie as a legal matter.  Whether the Congress would have the political will is another matter entirely.

Your last paragraph gets to the general misunderstanding about impeachment.  Impeachment is not a legal operation, it is a political one.  All a conviction after impeachment can do is to remove the convicted person from office and forbid her to hold any other office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.  Legal proceedings can be brought after that, but impeachment isn't a legal proceeding.  Now would they actually convict her?  It's hard to believe, seeing that the Democrats in DC don't really view treason and corruption as high crimes.

[kevindavis007]

Said like a Democrat, oh sure!  Very chivalrous to defend Hillary Rotten Clinton.

 

On what planet makes you think that 2/3 OF THE SENATE will vote to remove Hillary from office.. Especially if the Senate is under Democrat control.

[montanajoe]

I really don't think the GOP has a clue how to win a national election. They seem to think pandering to the base will bring in the independent's and the those on the fence to their side. 

[GtHawk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6El3gdv2ek

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Impeaching "the first woman president" would be just as popular as impeaching "the first black president". Hillary if she wins will have carte blanche do what she wants; impeachment will be no threat to her. We couldn't even take down Billzebubba all those years ago.