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.
The House can impeach a ham sandwich. Convicting an impeached person in a Senate trial with 60 Republicans is a different story.
he wasn’t asked about impeachment...
This guy is the dictionary definition of a “dipshit.”
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.
Fine. Start with the House and Senate, eh?
Tucker Carlson SHREDS Adam Schiff On Russian Election Hack (View from the Left) [LANGUAGE]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAq9hgTLAZ8
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.
OLIVIA BEAVERS
- -
Sorry. Can’t take article seriously.
Si using the same tactics we look into the affairs of all the leadinh dems till we find something, then start impeachment proceeding
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.
That repulsive Schiff creep needs held down and slapped into unconsciousness.
Not that many would notice any difference . . .
The Dems are all looney like Dr. Fraud.
He’s just jealous Spartacus and Feinstein are getting all the attention. Cut into his CNN and MSNBC facetime.
Needs to get relevant again.
Obviously never heard of the first rule of holes
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.
Schitt head needs to be careful here. There’s also precedent for challenging offensive members of Congress, etc. challenging to a duel.
It must be hard to have Schiff for brains.
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?
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.
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.