Posted on 11/03/2016 12:14:45 AM PDT by Beautiful_Gracious_Skies
The 2016 Presidential election is rapidly approaching, and the FBI just announced that they are reopening their investigation into Hillary Clinton‘s private email system. With the Democratic candidate once again the subject of a criminal investigation, it raises many questions as to what happens if she is indicted or relinquishes her candidacy before the election, or even after. The law is hazy in some of these situations, so let’s tackle them one by one.
1. If Clinton is indicted before the election
The FBI merely said that they are reopening their investigation to examine new emails that came to light. They have yet to even determine whether the emails are actually evidence of criminal activity, let alone decide whether or not to prosecute. Therefore, it’s highly unlikely that an indictment would come before November 8. If it did, the indictment itself wouldn’t mean that Clinton could no longer run, as an indictment is only an accusation, not a conviction.
.... Clinton could theoretically hope that voters hate Trump enough that they still vote for her (and hope that she isn’t convicted before taking office).Of course, even if she wins on November 8, the nature of our electoral system makes it so that the members of the Electoral College could theoretically go rogue and not vote for Clinton, even if their states tell them to. George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf wrote recently that only 30 states have laws on the books prohibiting this from happening, and that those laws have never been enforced and might be unconstitutional.
More likely, however, is that she would be pressured — by herself, the public, or the Democratic party — to give up her candidacy.
2. If Clinton steps down before the election
Should Clinton relinquish her candidacy before the election, the Democratic National Committee has rules in place for what happens next. Article 2, Section 7 of the DNC Bylaws says that if there is a vacancy on the national ticket, a special meeting of the Committee “shall be held on the call of the Chairperson,” where they would choose a new candidate. Such meetings make decisions based on a majority of those in attendance. Since we are exactly so close to election, there is one major problem: The ballot deadlines have passed in nearly every state. For example, in West Virginia, the law says a candidate must withdraw “no later than eighty-four days before the general election.” So the Democratic leadership would likely have to wage a public campaign to tell voters that if you vote for Clinton/Kaine, you are really voting for Biden (or whoever it maybe)/Kaine. Then the electors would have to change their vote for the new ticket when they meet on December 19th, 2016.
3. If Clinton wins the election and is indicted before the inauguration
Here’s where it starts getting tricky.
As mentioned earlier, an indictment is far different from a conviction. An indictment does not disqualify a person from being eligible for the presidency (neither does a conviction, technically, but being in jail would probably get in the way). Should Clinton be indicted after winning the election but before officially taking office, she could try to play beat-the-clock and hope to take office before her case concludes. Once a person is in office as President, it gets even more complicated, as we’ll see later. Should Clinton be indicted and convicted prior to her inauguration, and end up in jail, she may be deemed incapacitated, in which case Section 3 of the 20th Amendment kicks in and the Vice President-Elect, in this case Tim Kaine, would become President. (though that seems unlikely as the wheels of justice do not turn that fast)
4. If Clinton wins the election and steps down before the inauguration
If Clinton becomes President-Elect and decides to step down before her inauguration, either due to being indicted or out of fear that an indictment may be imminent, it would be similar to the situation just described, and Kaine would become President. However in a situation where a candidate steps down after the general election, but before the Electoral College chooses the winner, federal law says the electors would be able to vote for whomever they want, although states may pass their own laws controlling this situation.
5. If the investigation continues after the election and Clinton wins and is inaugurated before a decision is made. Could Clinton be indicted when she becomes President?
The law is unsettled when it comes to this situation, but most opinions tend to believe Clinton would luck out, due to the philosophy that Presidents — and only Presidents — are immune from prosecution while in office..............[snip]
......Long story short, the Department of Justice can very well affect who our next President is. If they move swiftly to indict, or if Clinton believes she’s in trouble, she could drop out before November 8. Alternatively, if an indictment comes soon after Clinton wins the election, she could still feel pressure to step down before she takes office. It all depends on what the FBI finds in these emails, what they decide to do about it, and when. But the clock’s ticking.
Good into and thanks, but, frankly, who really gives crap what happens to those crap weasels and their candidate? They chose the crooked bitch.
Frustrating, indeed. There’s a huge disconnect between the nightly news & reports that follow and the morning news, at least on FoX.
The media is completely complicit in all of this by design. They need to be held to accountability. Aside from people occasionally jumping in and trespassing on their sets to yell the news, I don’t see a way.
The media is all bribed by corporate sponsors and are under no legal obligation to report a darned thing. They could run cartoons as news, they might as well.
Did Berger steal any docs from the national archives related to the bombing of the Murrah building, Oklahoma? just curious
And Bill & Sandy got by with this crime.
chapter and verse, please
+ Yes, all this CGI, State Department, and other criminal acts have not transpired in a vacuum.
Most of the republicans have knowledge and have been complicit in screwing the American people.
Their cumulative silence the past few days shouts volumes.
Where’s the outrage?
The Uranium deal with CGI required a Senate committee, National Park Service, NSA and other departments that include republicans.
The Constitution states “during attendance at session” not “while in session” as you claim
You should read what you cite: “The clause, therefore, does not provide Congress with any immunity from criminal prosecution.”
You’re mincing words because you didn’t even think there was a clause about it. Moreover, what I said was it did not stop civil proceedings - only arrest - the “in session” part was assumed to be that they were “in attendance.”
Nice try.
> You’re mincing words because you didn’t even think there was a clause about it.
Please point out where I've said that.
And you can go back to what I actually said and it will specifically say “exceptions are for treason, felony, breach of peace.” Go look for it.
I gave your the Constitution cite, summarized it and you carp back at me with mincing and elaborations I already provided you.
And, no you didn’t say anything about the clause. Regardless of whether you know or not (you do now), all you said was “Traficant” in reply to something I posted to someone else. I only provided you the Constitutional cite.
Go argue with it, not me.
If Trump wins, the indictment will be quashed by Obama’s pardon on his way out the door.
Nice try.
What you said: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3488518/posts?page=37#37
You made a blanket statement that is inaccurate.
Also, don’t think I don’t notice your attempts to change the topic.
Go ahead and obfuscate and minimize. Why don’t you cite me the posts I gave you right after?
Go away.
Because you modified your original claim.
It was an IIRC....what would you expect when some doofus comes back with “Traficant?”
I then gave you the full link to the specific Constitutional reference and you. I also mentioned the exceptions. And you decided to keep on being obtuse and contrarian and started parsing, etc.
I gave you the information - more than you ever gave me in your original reply to something I said to someone else.
You can kibutz all you want, but you can take a leap for all I care. It isn’t worth arguing with someone not equipped for it.
There you go again.
I did not post to you until you posted to me. (post 37)
They way you make things up... and then start with the ad hominem remarks.
Go look at your post #42. That was YOUR first post to ME. You’ve got a selective memory my friend.
Ok I see. I posted to you an “IIRC”. My bad.
You still are argumentative and not worth arguing with.
Get a grip. 37 comes before 42.
The entertainment value is exhausted.
Enjoy your day
It’s a fine line.
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.