Impeach Clinton to Bar Her from Holding Federal Office. It’s Constitutional.

nationalreview.com ^ | September 6, 2016 | Andrew C. McCarthy

[Sasparilla]

...Kind of a dumb article. A) she’s not Secretary of State anymore....

Nor, does she curr!ntly hold any office that would be subject to Impeachment.

As impossible as development of warp drive by the end of the month.

[Liz]

Hillary's high crimes and misdemeanors include:

<><>the e-mail scandal;

<><> compromising L/E to evade prosecution;

<><> the reckless mishandling of classified information

<><> exposing our national-defense secrets to hostile powers;

<><>the mass destruction of 1000's of government records after Congress requested them;

<><>the obstruction of government investigations;

<><>the serial lies to Congress and to the public;

<><>the shocking failure to provide security for Americans stationed in Benghazi;

<><> making no attempt to rescue Americans during the terrorist siege in Benghazi;

<><>lying to Americans and to murdered Americans' families about the attack's cause;

<><> inventing a video story to cover inaction in Benghazi;

<><> the trumping up of a prosecution against the video producer;

<><> unbecoming conduct by scapegoating a video producer;

<><>the Clinton Foundation corruption visited on the State Dept;

<><> the sale of State Dept influence for foundation donations;

<><> perks, privileges and favors for shady donors at the expense of national security,

<><> the use of the State Department as an arm of the Clinton pay-to-play enterprise;

<><> profiting by stealing State Dept data belonging to the citizenry.

<><> rampant cronysism;

<><> using the State Dept budget as a personal ATM;

<><> turning the State Dept into a racketeering enterprise;

<><> conducting political activites on govt time.

[Sasparilla]

Here is the legal definition of Impeachment...

Impeachment
A process that is used to charge, try, and REMOVE public officials for misconduct while in

[Carriage Hill]

In other news, Teddy K got his 7yr AA pin recently.

[be-baw]

Actually, Nixon was never impeached. He resigned because he was threatened with impeachment.

[Cboldt]

-- My gut reaction to this headline was that it was a stupid idea. But on considering it a moment, it's a stupid idea. --

Yep. Academically interesting, but the government is no longer honorable, and pretending it is so or acting like it is so is not in the cards. A majority of the public is fundamentally dishonest and immoral, and will resist all attempts at correction.

[sargon]

It's impossible to impeach Hillary Clinton for anything due to the composition the United States Senate. There simply aren't enough votes to garner a conviction.

Vote Trump!

[goodnesswins]

It’s a little late, Andy

[Enchante]

It is a pointless discussion unless a 2/3 vote in the Senate is a plausible possibility. Unfortunately, with partisan treasonous Democrats who put party above country, that is never going to happen.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Bookmark

[TomGuy]

By the time the House finished holding committee meetings to determine whether the House should hold an impeachment hearing, the election would be over.

If Clinton loses, the question is moot.

If Clinton wins, the Senate does not have the votes to remove her, but they would be committing political suicide — for them, not her.

Recall who lost jobs after the BJ impeachment — 2 consecutive Republican Speakers of the House. How many Democrats lost jobs? ZERO.

[Ann Archy]

I said that he was a stalking horse for Hilliary when he got in the race.....I have since changed my mind!

[Malsua]

From the article:

>>>>The Constitution does not limit impeachment to incumbent officials. Article I endows the House of Representatives with the “sole Power of Impeachment” — i.e., the power to file articles of impeachment. It further empowers the Senate with “the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” Significantly, in prescribing the standard for conviction in the Senate, Article I, Section 3 states that “no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present” (emphasis added).

Note carefully: The Constitution does not say the impeached person must be a current officeholder. As we shall see, that makes perfect sense: The point of impeachment is to deny power to any person — not necessarily an incumbent official — whose high crimes and misdemeanors have demonstrated unfitness for a high public trust.

The constitutional standard for impeachment also elucidates that incumbency is not necessary. The standard, prescribed by Article II, Section 4, is the commission of “Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Obviously, one need not be in office to commit treason or bribery; but if one has at any time committed these heinous offenses, one is unsuitable for public office. The same is true, by definition, of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a term of art the Framers borrowed from the law of England.

[TangoLimaSierra]

How do you impeach someone who is not a government official?

I believe that's the point of the article.

[TangoLimaSierra]

What’s all that got to do with the article?

[Milton Miteybad]

Primarily because the word impeach means "to accuse of wrongdoing." It doesn't mean "to throw out of office." As the author quite lucidly explained:

The Constitution does not limit impeachment to incumbent officials. Article I endows the House of Representatives with the “sole Power of Impeachment” — i.e., the power to file articles of impeachment. It further empowers the Senate with “the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” Significantly, in prescribing the standard for conviction in the Senate, Article I, Section 3 states that “no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present” (emphasis added). Note carefully: The Constitution does not say the impeached person must be a current officeholder. As we shall see, that makes perfect sense: The point of impeachment is to deny power to any person — not necessarily an incumbent official — whose high crimes and misdemeanors have demonstrated unfitness for a high public trust.





The barriers to the impeachment and trial for Hillary Clinton aren't legal or constitutional; she can be impeached, even though she is not currently in office. Rather, the arguments are logistical, in that there just isn't time enough to impeach and try the criminal prior to the election.

[stremba]

Not true. The Senate has nothing to do with impeaching a gfederal office holder. Impeachment is done by the House alone. The confusion is that impeachment is NOT removal from office. Impeachment is analogous to indictment in the criminal justice system; it is a formal accusation of wrongdoing. Once impeached, a trial is held by the Senate to determine if the impeached is removed from office. That’s where the Senate enters the process.

That’s the problem with this idea. Impeaching Hillary would do no good; only removal from office would. It’s almost impossible to believe that enough Rats in the Senate would vote to remove (67 votes are needed) so this idea’s a non starter.

[Buckeye McFrog]

It would take an opposition party with b@lls.... which is sadly something we don’t have.

[kalt]

The legal arguments about the impeachability of former officials are complicated and do not clearly point to one conclusion or the other. This law-review article makes the case in favor of impeachability, in case anyone is interested.

[b4its2late]

Andy is about the only one still there that is sane.