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.