Posted on 05/05/2016 3:04:38 PM PDT by DrDude
“So the leaks favor Hillary. Surprise.”
The article is from CNN, so it should be taken with a grain of salt.
She's already the next president as far as everyone in the establishment is concerned.
I don’t think there is any Supreme Court case that says it, but when Clinton was President, that was the argument that was made about what had to take place. Impeachment first, then prosecution. I suspect the Supreme Court would agree.
The only wild card I see here is that the criminal act occurred before she would have become President. Maybe that makes a difference.
Why would the supreme court agree? Where does the constitution or federal law give the executive branch immunity from prosecution?
New low standard. It now takes “willfull” violation of a law to be criminal?
ICBW, but I don’t think Congress can charge him with anything. That would have to come from DoJ which has already granted him immunity.
Yes...it is turning into Kabuki theatre.
I think the argument would be that the Constitution provides for impeachment pursuant to a particular procedure. If you want to upset the decision of the people, then you need to follow that procedure. You can also see that adventurous prosecutors might use their power to conduct politically motivated criminal prosecutions of the President if that were not the rule. It’s not a slam dunk, but the Obamunists are probably putting their chips on that result in order to protect Hillary.
And if she loses, then they will not care so much if she’s indicted. They will hope that the rest of us won’t care so much if she’s not indicted.
The Constitution provides impeachment as the vehicle to remove someone from office. It it says nothing about providing immunity for anybody from any prosecution. If you can find an article or section that says otherwise please point it out to me.
Hillary just lost to Bernie Sanders.....again.
She is destroying the Democrat Party.
The Democrat leaders are calling the FBI and begging them to cart her off.
Our girl has done some bad things.
ALLEGEDLY, the FBI ordered the State Dept. NOT to release one particular email whereby it is alleged Team Hillary discussed the illegality of what they were doing relating to classification-stripping for purposes of emailing to her private server. This one email is the smoking gun, if true. I think Greta talked about this a couple months ago although the exact text of the email is unknown. There is mention on the Internet of ONE particular email that the FBI ordered State NOT to release due to its importance to the investigation.
If what you write is correct, then the President of the United States could murder someone on live TV and if the Congress refused to impeach, the president would be able to continue to rule as a known murder. I cannot fathom any Supreme Court that would agree with that assessment.
So that's the official MSM/Obama spin. Hillary didn't willfully break the law.
Never mind that she knowingly set up a private server that violated US intelligence laws.
Never mind that she disclosed classified information to persons lacking clearance.
Never mind that as a condition of employment she was expected to recognize classified information and handle it appropriately.
Never mind that "intent" does not matter in intelligence issues.
They are trying to figure out a way to package this mess to allow the DOJ to ignore the FBI findings. This is going to get ugly. Honest, informed Americans know she broke the law in a multitude of ways.
But she will never pay for her crimes.
That’s the counter argument. And a pretty good one, but at the same time you can see the problems that would occur if you allowed the President to be indicted without first being impeached. The Democrats have a long history of using criminal charges for political purposes. A lone prosecutor could bring the entire government down even if the Congress refused to impeach.
We are contemporaries and in agreement.
Have they really or have they pled the 5th?..........
YOU HAVE TO POST THE ACTUAL TITLE OF THE ARTICLE!
I don’t get excited because Mrs Clinton would end up with a pardon from Obozo.
Whether I can see a problem or not is not the issue. The issue is what the constitution and federal law says. I still have seen no evidence whatsoever of any suggestion that it is impossible to prosecute a sitting president without impeachment. I have heard a lot of blathering by talking heads who want to protect people like Hillary Clinton, but again, no evidence whatsoever.
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.