Republicans Talking About Impeaching Clinton Should She Win

[c.d.]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-growing-republican-chorus-if-clinton-wins-she-should-be-impeached/ar-AAjMtMT?li=BBnb7Kz

c.d.

[Pcdunn]

Sadly, doesn't surprise me, some Republicans have hated Hilary since she was merely The First Lady. One fellow on another forum routinely refers to her as "The Hag" (which is more polite than how he referred to President Obama.)

Impeachment, correct me if I'm wrong, is only for malfeasance committed by a President while in office, so anything that she may be accused of doing while she was Secretary of State would not qualify, surely?

[c.d.]

Hello Pat,

I am sure that they will attempt to launch a series of investigations in order to cripple her presidency while hoping to find something, anything that they can use to impeach her. I hope the Democratic leadership says hey if you want to play that game so can we as soon as a Republican becomes president. It always amazes me that so many people think they can act with impunity. Life doesn't work that way. There are always consequences.

c.d.

[Mayerling]

Sadly, doesn't surprise me, some Republicans have hated Hilary since she was merely The First Lady. One fellow on another forum routinely refers to her as "The Hag" (which is more polite than how he referred to President Obama.)

Impeachment, correct me if I'm wrong, is only for malfeasance committed by a President while in office, so anything that she may be accused of doing while she was Secretary of State would not qualify, surely?

If, while she was Secretary of State, she committed an act of malfeasance, and is still Secretary of State when it is uncovered, charges for impeachment can be brought by the House of Representatives (removal from office is by the Senate). The entire idea is that the party so-charged (if they are guilty) should be gotten rid of as quickly as possible. However, as most people who are so charged know if they are guilty or not, or contest the process because of hidden (or not-so-hidden) secret agendas by the proponents of the process, they will act according to their own feelings. Both Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton realized that the reasons behind the actions were spurred on by a specific coterie of opponents in Congress* (Johnson realizing the Radical Republicans were doing it to him due to his anti-Liberal feelings towards African-Americans and anti-punishment feelings towards his native South; Clinton realizing that there was a major power play by Republicans led by men like Speaker of the House Gingrich to reverse two Democratic Presidential Victories in a row) that they fought it. Please read the asterix before any replies. Both Presidents did lose in the House (i.e., both were impeached, which is like being indicted), but both won acquittal in the Senate.

[*This is not arguing about any basis in legality for the charges used in the impeachment - Johnson had tried to remove his Secretary of War, the sneaky Edwin Stanton who'd been giving information to the Radicals about cabinet meetings. Stanton had been one of the cabinet members Johnson inherited when he became President (April 15, 1865) upon the death of Abraham Lincoln - Lincoln had appointed Stanton to that post. But the Radicals had been pursuing anti-Johnson policies since 1866, and one action was to pass the "Tenure of Office Act" which would ham-strung Presidents from removing cabinet members at will without the permission of Congress, and would certainly be needed if the cabinet figure had not been appointed by the President but by a predecessor. Johnson had violated this idiotic law, and that was the peg that his impeachment was hung on. It almost worked but for the votes of seven Republican Senators who refused to remove him for violating it. Coda for this: from 1868 until 1885 every one of the Presidents after Johnson (Grant, Hayes, Garfield, and Arthur - all Republicans mind you) had this idiocy over their heads, and could only act without fear if the cabinet member willingly resigned or Congress allowed the removal to occur. Then in 1884 the Arthur administration brought a case to United States Supreme Court about the Tenure of Office Act. The Court decided that this piece of legislation was unconstitutional. Thus the first of the two impeachments was based on what was actually an illegal power-grabbing act by Congress at the expense of the Executive Branch!

With Clinton, he was under investigation (with Hillary) about their work regarding the Arkansas "Whitewater" Scandal of the 1980s, and possible bribery. Note though, it was while Clinton was not President, but Governor - however it was felt that the actions went into his Presidency regarding the treatment of those in Whitewater regarding prison sentences. Had the special prosecutor stuck to that (which he claimed he tried to do) and found a smoking gun, he would have been doing his job. Instead he learned of Bill fooling around with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office from Lewinsky's "friend", Linda Tripp. There had been extra-marital affairs earlier. Questioned about Lewinsky, Clinton lied to the Congressional investigators (though he came up with a sophistic rationale for the lie). Thus he committed perjury before Congress, a Federal Crime (it is what Alger Hiss was convicted of in the late 1940s).

However, the issue is was what he lied about truly of such national importance (as opposed to say corruption connected to a land scandal earlier in his career, while he was President) that he merited being impeached and removed. Most people would say he behaved like a male sexual pig, but would say that was not grounds for removing him from office - especially as Gingrich and two Republican successors to the House seat turned out to also have lousy sexual histories regarding wives and girlfriends. Gingrich and Livingston both had to resign in the backlash. The House did impeach, but the Senate (with far more Senators crossing party lines) rejected the removal, and well they should have.

Oh, and the special prosecutor is being studied now for his share in a scandal at the Texas college/law school he was President of afterwards, regarding him shielding the football players there who raped girls. He's lost his Presidency of the college/law school, lost his seat on the Board of Trustees, and lost his law school professorship there. A real legal treasure that one - they are looking at disbarment.]

Now, I should add that while impeachment/removal has occurred (in 1913 the state of New York impeached and removed Governor William Sulzer - though the evidence may have been manufactured against Sulzer by Tammany Hall chief Charley Murphy, and he was exonerated almost a century later by the first Governor Cuomo), no cabinet member of the national executive branch has been removed. In 1876 Grant's Secretary of War, General William Belknap, was shown to have been involved in the sale of Indian trading posts on reservations for bribes. Belknap was facing impeachment when he resigned the office. The House decided to vote for his impeachment anyway, and did so. His lawyers kicked up a fuss, and the matter was given to the U.S. Supreme Court - who pointed out that once a suspected individual actually resigns the office the process is no longer valid (how do you have grounds to impeach (indict for the purpose of removal) someone whom you no longer can remove?!).

Jeff

[ChrisGeorge]

Somebody on Twitter wrote that if Trump wins, Obama might pardon Clinton on his way out the door. Won't that set the cat among the pigeons.

[c.d.]

I hope this is just "red meat" talk to Republican supporters at this point. If Hillary wins then that means that the Republicans will have lost three presidential elections in a row. So what would be gained by this strategy? Tim Kaine the elected Democratic Vice President would then become President and you would piss off all of the people who voted for Hillary. Not to mention that the stock market would probably nose dive. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail because this strategy would be suicide.

c.d.

[Robert]

If they couldn't impeach Nixon, they won't impeach Clinton.

[Svensson]

Somebody on Twitter wrote that if Trump wins, Obama might pardon Clinton on his way out the door. Won't that set the cat among the pigeons.

Fox news MELTDOWN, lol

[Harry D]

Hilary, Trump... Does it even matter?

Do people think anything will change in the grand scheme of things?

The world will keep spinning, us normal schlubs will keep working 9-5, and the true puppetmasters will keep pulling the strings.

[Mayerling]

If they couldn't impeach Nixon, they won't impeach Clinton.

They didn't have the chance to impeach Nixon because he resigned. And impeachment is simply the House of Representatives deciding there is sufficient evidence to bring a charge against the President meriting possible removal by the United States Senate. The Senate saved both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, but both those Presidents were impeached by the House of Representatives.

Nixon was kept abreast of events on Capitol Hill by Republican Senators and allies. He was aware the House (then under Democratic Party majority control) was going to vote positively for articles of impeachment. He was banking on the U.S. Senate to support him like it had previously supported Andrew Johnson. But he was visited a day or so earlier by Barry Goldwater, then one of the leading Republican Senators (and a former Presidential Candidate against Lyndon Johnson in 1964). Goldwater became for the Republican Party what George McGovern became for the Democratic Party - a voice of conscience. Although a Conservative Republican (and a role model for future President Ronald Reagan), Goldwater was actually a very honest public official. He told Nixon, that if the articles of impeachment passed the House, as they appeared to be about to do, then the Senate would not save Nixon, but would overwhelmingly vote to remove him from office. As a result of this word from Goldwater, Nixon decided to resign.

As mentioned by me on another thread, in 1876 Secretary of War General William Belknap was facing impeachment and removal for his part in taking bribes for the sale of rights to trading posts on Indian reservations. Belknap resigned before the House had voted to impeach or not. After his resignation, the House voted to impeach him. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that once a subject for impeachment proceedings resigns his or her office, the rationale for impeachment articles (to present to the upper House of Congress for removal voting) is gone, and therefore you cannot vote for impeachment against a subject who made a timely resignation.

Therefore Nixon was never impeached, nor removed. Had he stayed to fight it, he would have been impeached, and most likely removed.

As you can see here - it becomes a kind of game of "chicken" between the President and Congress regarding the process.

Jeff

[Pcdunn]

You've got to BE the change you want to see, Harry.

Or are you a believer in grand conspiracies?

[Robert]

Hi Jeff

Ah, right, so it's only operative while the President is in office.

Do you know if any President has been convicted of criminal charges in connection with his Presidency, after leaving office? What happened to Belknap?

[Harry D]

You've got to BE the change you want to see, Harry.

Or are you a believer in grand conspiracies?

I don't believe that US Presidents are much more than figureheads, let's put it that way.

[Pcdunn]

I don't believe that US Presidents are much more than figureheads, let's put it that way.

I disagree, but I see why some would think so. And you at entitled to your opinion.

[Abby Normal]

Somebody on Twitter wrote that if Trump wins, Obama might pardon Clinton on his way out the door. Won't that set the cat among the pigeons.

OMG. LOL.would it! people would lose there minds!!!

actually woulnt shock me though. The amount of political corruption in this country right now is truly astounding. and sickening.