Posted on 10/31/2012 11:30:10 AM PDT by ConservativeMan55
Say Obama loses the election and then these emails that Gingrich are talking about surface. And then eventually the videos come out.
Obama has LIED to the American people just like Clinton. Even though he wouldn't be around can elected officials still vote to impeach him? Even though it wouldn't be knocking him out of office per se? Just a mark on his record?
What are the ramifications of impeachment?
More to the point, conviction on an impeachment after his term was over would prevent him from running for Congress, running for the Senate, or doing a Grover Cleveland and running again in 2016.
Using 18th Century construction, it would also revoke his pension.
I’m for it.
That's not exactly how it works. The House tried and convicted Clinton, which is why he is called the impeached president. The Senate assesses penalties and they refused to assess any penalty on Clinton which was why he was never removed from office or assessed any other penalty as the result of being impeached.
The last part of your post is dead on!
We say the GOP will not allow him to be prosecuted. BUT this may change as more evidence begins to trickle out.
There could be some REAL damning stuff coming out.......
The Congress (House & Senate) can only impeach and convict a sitting president. The Constitution prohibits Congress from passing a Bill of Attainder which would amount to trial and conviction of a private citizen. That’s the role of the courts.
Yes, if an official is granted certain priveleges under the law, removal of those priveleges must be done through law.
We need to make it INEVITABLE that he faces prosecution.
If he’s going to be charged with treason, it better be done through impeachment though, because if it was done through law enforcement I think it would go to the Supreme Court, and we’ve already got 2 justices who should recuse themselves but won’t.
Perjury and fraud would be good things for him to be prosecuted for...
Here is what I understand about the process. If any of this is wrong or technically incorrect, feel free.
Nixon avoided jail when he was granted a full pardon by Ford and he was not impeached prior to his resignation.
A POTUS (Obama) is only impeachable while he or she is POTUS. If he is impeached and convicted, he can still be charged in a court of law where Congress has no vote (trial by judge and jury).
If Obama is not impeached, he can still be charged post-presidency if certain criteria are met and if there is sufficient evidence to warrant the charges just as Nixon would have been had Ford not pardoned him.
“Impeachment is an indictment for removal from office and nothing more”
You are wrong. It also results in permanent disqualification from future service, which in this case is probably a wise precaution.
Would his running for future office also depend on what the conviction was and the punishment?
Like the Alcee Hastings deal he ran for future office?
It demands on what he is asked to testfy about. For example, if he were required to testify about his citizenship, he would be compelled to answer. However, if he were asked to testify about matters that could be considered national security matters, the answer is most likely no. The exception would be if the courtroom were closed to the public and ONLY the Judge, Prosecutor, Defending Atorney and (maybe) the Jury could be present.
State law enforcement is supposed to be independent of the POTUS, though, so state prosecution wouldn’t/shouldn’t be affected by either impeachment or non-impeachment.
Agreed, constitutionally, how?
It depends on what he is asked to testfy about. For example, if he were required to testify about his citizenship, he would be compelled to answer. However, if he were asked to testify about matters that could be considered national security matters, the answer is most likely no. The exception would be if the courtroom were closed to the public and ONLY the Judge, Prosecutor, Defending Atorney and (maybe) the Jury could be present.
The Senate did not bar Hastings from future service. It’s discretionary.
I can’t see any situation in which President Romney would pardon Obama.
Hmmm
BINGO, We could hold the rats liable and indict Pelosi and Reid!
Wow that could be get VERY interesting........ discovery.
“That’s not exactly how it works. The House tried and convicted Clinton, which is why he is called the impeached president. The Senate assesses penalties and they refused to assess any penalty on Clinton”
This is not true. An impeachment is an indictment, an accusal, not a conviction. The same body would not indict and convict. That would be a violation of common law. It is up to the senate whether the accused is guilty or not guilty of the accusal. In the case of Clinton, they found him not guilty. Should 2/3rds have found him guilty, he would have been removed from office immediately.
In any case...I would very much like to see Obama end up in jail and/or at the very least, stripped of any government pension and benefits.
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.