Posted on 09/07/2016 5:31:24 AM PDT by TangoLimaSierra
For months, I have been arguing that Hillary Clinton should be impeached. It is all well and good to prosecute a former government official for any crimes she has committed. Indeed, the Constitution expressly provides for criminal prosecution in addition to impeachment. Nevertheless, for the Framers — and, if we had common sense, for us — the imperative was to deprive a corrupt person of any further opportunity to abuse government power. Whether the official should also be convicted and sent to prison was not unimportant but, in the greater scheme of things, decidedly secondary.
Interestingly, the main pushback I received upon positing this argument was not that Mrs. Clinton is undeserving of impeachment. That, of course, is a measure of the seriousness of her high crimes and misdemeanors: the e-mail scandal; the reckless mishandling of classified information that has surely exposed our national-defense secrets to hostile powers; the mass destruction of thousands of government records after Congress asked for them; the obstruction of government investigations; the serial lies to Congress and the public; the shocking failure to provide security for Americans stationed in Benghazi and the failure to attempt to rescue them during a terrorist siege; the lies to the American people and to the families of murdered American officials about the cause of the attack; the trumping up of a prosecution against the video producer scapegoated for the Benghazi attack; the Clinton Foundation corruption involving the sale of influence for donations, the favors done for shady benefactors at the expense of national security, and the use of the State Department as an arm of the Clinton pay-to-play enterprise.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
“Impeach” would be relatively easy.
But “convict” would be impossible.
>> Read the article. <<
What? Isn’t that against the rules around here?
Not going to happen... should.. but won’t.
Clinton win or lose will be pardoned by Obama before he leaves office... She’ll never face any consequences for her actions.
I wish McCarthy explained the difference between Impeachment and sentencing a little better. She would be the second Clinton to be Impeached by the House but not sentenced by the Senate, the 2/3 requirement being an impossible hurdle. So what does that give us? Would Impeachment by the House be sufficient to accomplish his aim, to bar her from holding office? Or would the failure of the Senate to sentence act as a “not guilty” verdict?
The evidence of Hillary’s criminality is clear. What is lacking is the Justice Department’s willingness to take action.
The people to impeach are President Obama, Attorney General Lynch and FBI Director Comey.
Why add the confusion of trying to convince the people and the courts that a non-office holder can also be impeached?
A case for stretching the definition of “impeachment” to include everyday people who do not hold public office may be somewhat technically correct but is far out of the understood meaning and common usage of the term.
It ranks right alongside of Bill Clinton’s attempt to parse the word “is” and his even more ludicrous attempt to define “sex” as limited to man/woman/missionary position.
Why go through the rigamarole of trying to impeach such a person? Before you could press the case you would have to convince the courts that the process is legitimate, constitutionally.
If you have the evidence just charge them with their crimes in a criminal or civil court.
As we all know, the generally accepted meanining of “impeachment” is ‘A formal accusation of wrongdoing against a public official’ with the purpose of removing them from office and limiting their future ability to do so.
Imagine the turmoil, confusion, accusations and lawsuits that would ensue if congress did try to apply their power to impeach against someone not in office.
The action would be tied up in the courts for years.
yes.
Bill Clinton has been Impeached.
Doesn’t that prevent him from taking office as first lady?
Who ever thought that silly CHILD was ready for The Presidency? High School government day maybe...
But we need to be crystal clear, here. Not sentenced by the Senate does not remove the fact that the subject was Impeached. Is the bar against holding future office contained within the Impeachment itself (by the House) or is it a sentencing option available to the Senate?
For a smart guy, McCartney sure has a dumb idea...
In 1988, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. He was then convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate becoming the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate. The Senate, in two hours of roll calls, voted on 11 of the 17 articles of impeachment. It convicted Hastings of eight of the 11 articles. The vote on the first article was 69 for and 26 opposed.The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so.
I wasn't aware that the punishment was optional. The Constitution says
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Where does it say that the Senate can choose not to bar the convicted from future office?
-PJ
Only for the correct party. I'm sure it's mandatory for Repubs.
Hillary Clinton, with a legacy void of accomplishment but rich in abuse of power, is more unworthy of public trust than anyone who has ever sought federal office. That, of course, is why the polls show that the public does not trust her. She should be impeached — both to reflect history’s judgment of her disgraceful tenure as secretary of state and to disqualify her from wielding the awesome powers of the presidency.Sure. But it takes a supermajority in the Senate to convict - as if that were going to happen in Hillary’s lifetime.But there is a much more serious option:
That is, each state has plenary power over the selection process for Electors. The implication is that the states do not have to say, “Mother, may I?” to the feds - including SCOTUS - when passing their laws for selecting electors (Note that the “Nebraska Plan” - election of only two, rather than all, Electors at large in the state - with the remainder being elected one per Congressional District. This plan is in effect in two states, with 48 others electing all Electors at large statewide).
- Article II Section 1:
- Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The point being that every state has the authority, effectively, to “impeach” Clinton. They don’t even have to call her out by name to do it. Or to achieve a supermajority vote. And it wouldn’t require unanimity among the states in order to accomplish it. All that’s needed - not that there is now time to accomplish it - would be for a critical mass of “purple” states to adopt a law forbidding the selection of electors pledged to a candidate who has been simultaneously an officer in the federal government and a principal in an organization which accepted more than $10,000 from foreign governments without the explicit consent of both houses of Congress.
Result: Hillary off the ballot in must-win states, by state action enforcing a provision of the US Constitution. I proposed such legislation to my state legislator about a year ago . . .
BTW, you could sweeten the pill by preventing either candidate from winning the “purple” state EV, and still get Trump elected; the House would elect Trump even if the Democrats win a majority in the House. That is because the vote for POTUS would be by state delegation, one state one vote. And the Republicans win more state delegations than Democrats do.
The Senate doesn't usually bother to disqualify people. It is also highly disputed whether being a U.S. Rep. even counts as an office of honor, trust, or profit--many legal experts believe that they are two distinct categories. See, e.g., Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 ("no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector"). As such, disqualifying Hastings might have precluded him from serving in the executive or judicial branches, but not the legislative branch.
“A majority of the public is fundamentally dishonest and immoral, and will resist all attempts at correction.”
Americans own about 7 trillion rounds of ammo to correct any and all deficiencies in the recalcitrant left wing crazies. But I’d bet the farm that showing any intent to use those rounds against them will make these fat-ass, precious snowflakes very compliant and amenable to any requests, so a single round need not be used.
It is not an option. It is a specific penalty under the Constitution -- but it applies only if the Senate renders a guilty verdict.
The Constitution, Article I, Section 3:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.Judgment in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishmnet, according to Law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.