Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Schiff: There is legal precedent for impeaching sitting officials over prior criminal conduct
The Hill ^ | 10/03/18 | OLIVIA BEAVERS

Posted on 10/03/2018 11:47:25 AM PDT by yesthatjallen

The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday said sitting officials can be impeached for prior criminal conduct, citing a recent legal precedent.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) made the remarks after he was asked at a Washington event at the Brookings Institution about whether a sitting president can be prosecuted for federal crimes that he or she committed before taking office.

Schiff pointed to a 2010 case in which the Senate voted to impeach Thomas Porteous Jr., who was a Louisiana federal district court judge at the time.

Schiff said the Senate convicted him on four articles of impeachment — articles he noted would be "relevant to modern times." The counts included one based purely on prior conduct and another for lying under oath during a Senate confirmation.

"On an overwhelming basis, the Senate convicted [him] on all those articles including those two," Schiff said. "We now by constitutional terms — in a country that rarely has impeachment trials — have a precedent that you can be impeached and removed from office both for prior crimes and for lying under oath," the California lawmaker added.

Schiff, who tried the Porteous impeachment case, emphasized that this particular notion of trying a sitting official for past criminal conduct is "not an open question," despite people claiming it is on television talk shows.

"This had me yelling me at the TV set, which I rarely do," he joked.

Porteous became the eighth federal judge to be impeached and removed from office in more than two decades.

The audience member who raised the question pointed to tax crimes as an example of prior conduct, a reference that comes one day after the The New York Times reported that President Trump had participated in "dubious" tax strategies in the 1990s.

The audience member also asked whether it would be possible to prosecute a sitting president for crimes that occurred after he is out of office in the event "he may pardon himself for those crimes."

Benjamin Wittes, co-founder of Brookings' Lawfare Blog, pointed out that many of these questions are contested.

"Whether the president can be indicted at all is a contested question. The application of a self-pardon is a contested question. And whether a president can be made answerable for pre-presidential conduct is itself a contested question," said Wittes, who was moderating the panel.

Despite Schiff's recent comments, Democrats have stayed away from talks of trying to impeach Trump.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has previously warned that Democrats could hurt their party's efforts to win seats during the November midterm elections if they pursue impeachment efforts against Trump.

“I don’t think we should be talking about impeachment. I’ve been very clear right from the start,” Pelosi said in April during a press briefing in the Capitol.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: abortion; adamschiff; botox; brettkavanaugh; california; diannefeinstein; louisiana; maga; nancypelosi; richardcblum; sanfrancisco; sanfrannan; schiff; schiffforbrains; scotus; thomasporteousjr; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 next last
To: yesthatjallen

The House can impeach a ham sandwich. Convicting an impeached person in a Senate trial with 60 Republicans is a different story.


21 posted on 10/03/2018 11:56:03 AM PDT by HenpeckedCon (Covfefe Trump!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

he wasn’t asked about impeachment...


22 posted on 10/03/2018 11:58:12 AM PDT by stylin19a ( Best.Election.Of.All.Times.Ever.In.The.History.Of.Ever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen
There's a precedent for dealing with people like Adam Schiff as well.


23 posted on 10/03/2018 11:58:16 AM PDT by thoughtomator (Number of arrested coup conspirators to date: 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen; All

This guy is the dictionary definition of a “dipshit.”


24 posted on 10/03/2018 11:59:18 AM PDT by Cobra64 (Common sense isnÂ’t common anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HenpeckedCon

They could impeach Trump but the Senate will never convict him.

This is really a bone tossed to their lunatic base for their failure to derail Kavanaugh.

Supposedly they can’t wait to even the score with Trump but the polls tell a different story.


25 posted on 10/03/2018 12:00:38 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

Fine. Start with the House and Senate, eh?


26 posted on 10/03/2018 12:01:34 PM PDT by metmom ( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

Tucker Carlson SHREDS Adam Schiff On Russian Election Hack (View from the Left) [LANGUAGE]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAq9hgTLAZ8


27 posted on 10/03/2018 12:02:11 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (You cannot invade the mainland US. There'd be a rifle behind every blade of grass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
The House can impeach, and the Senate can remove from office, for whatever reasons they please.

Yes they can. They can construe overdue library books as a high crime or misdemeanor and proceed to impeachment. But, impeachment is the only way to remove a sitting President, so Adam needs to get busy convincing his fellow members of the House to bring impeachment charges. I think that Adam Schiff will be indicted first.

28 posted on 10/03/2018 12:06:42 PM PDT by centurion316 (Back from exile from 4/2016 until 4/2018.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

OLIVIA BEAVERS

- -

Sorry. Can’t take article seriously.


29 posted on 10/03/2018 12:08:24 PM PDT by Flick Lives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

Si using the same tactics we look into the affairs of all the leadinh dems till we find something, then start impeachment proceeding


30 posted on 10/03/2018 12:09:05 PM PDT by South Dakota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

Well, I hate to say it, but he does have a point. Sitting Presidents can’t be indicted while in office, even for a crime they might have committed before taking office. The Constitutional remedy is to impeach and remove them, then they could be prosecuted.

If we could not impeach a President for crimes that happened before they took office, a President would be able to avoid justice in that situation, as there would be no remedy at all. They could possibly even escape prosecution altogether if the statute of limitations ran out before they left office.


31 posted on 10/03/2018 12:11:00 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

That repulsive Schiff creep needs held down and slapped into unconsciousness.

Not that many would notice any difference . . .


32 posted on 10/03/2018 12:11:11 PM PDT by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

The Dems are all looney like Dr. Fraud.


33 posted on 10/03/2018 12:11:17 PM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

He’s just jealous Spartacus and Feinstein are getting all the attention. Cut into his CNN and MSNBC facetime.

Needs to get relevant again.


34 posted on 10/03/2018 12:12:36 PM PDT by dan on the right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

Obviously never heard of the first rule of holes


35 posted on 10/03/2018 12:15:19 PM PDT by j.havenfarm ( 1,500 posts as of 8/10/18. A FReeper since 2000; never shutting up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

So, uh, Adam...being as how you went to school ‘bout the same time, wanna tell us about any chemical substances you mighta sampled at some of your parties?

Oh right. You were pure as the driven snow.

Gotit.


36 posted on 10/03/2018 12:18:26 PM PDT by Regulator (Uh Huh. Sure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

Schitt head needs to be careful here. There’s also precedent for challenging offensive members of Congress, etc. challenging to a duel.


37 posted on 10/03/2018 12:28:20 PM PDT by Vesparado (The American people know what they want and they deserve to get it good and hard --- HL Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

It must be hard to have Schiff for brains.


38 posted on 10/03/2018 12:30:47 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

So, does Schiff for brains plan to introduce impeachment articles against Justice Breyer for his under age drinking arrest while at Stanford?

All these holier than thou leftists should have to provide an answer to the question of Breyer’s youthful disregard for the law. How can such a person be allowed to sit in judgment on the highest court in the land?


39 posted on 10/03/2018 12:46:42 PM PDT by Will88 (The only people opposing voter ID are those benefiting from voter fraud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

What federal crimes, dipschiff?

Tax evasion on his own taxes? That’d be a neat trick, as the IRS audits him every year, and if there was tax evasion they’d have found it by now.

Tax evasion on his father’s Gift Tax Returns? Well, Fred Trump wasn’t a federal official, and I have it on good word that he simply isn’t going to testify. DJT isn’t responsible for what is on his father’s returns. Oh, and even if there was a material fraud on the father’s Estate Tax Return, and DJT was the Executor responsible for filing them, the statute of limitations expired after 6 years. Besides, THAT return was also audited, and the IRS had no issues with it.

Schiff-fer-brains should take Mazie Hirono’s advice and just shut up.


40 posted on 10/03/2018 12:51:25 PM PDT by Ancesthntr ("The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt, The Weapons Shops of Isher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson