[Iron Munro]

The evidence of Hillary’s criminality is clear. What is lacking is the Justice Department’s willingness to take action.

The people to impeach are President Obama, Attorney General Lynch and FBI Director Comey.

Why add the confusion of trying to convince the people and the courts that a non-office holder can also be impeached?

A case for stretching the definition of “impeachment” to include everyday people who do not hold public office may be somewhat technically correct but is far out of the understood meaning and common usage of the term.

It ranks right alongside of Bill Clinton’s attempt to parse the word “is” and his even more ludicrous attempt to define “sex” as limited to man/woman/missionary position.

Why go through the rigamarole of trying to impeach such a person? Before you could press the case you would have to convince the courts that the process is legitimate, constitutionally.

If you have the evidence just charge them with their crimes in a criminal or civil court.

As we all know, the generally accepted meanining of “impeachment” is ‘A formal accusation of wrongdoing against a public official’ with the purpose of removing them from office and limiting their future ability to do so.

Imagine the turmoil, confusion, accusations and lawsuits that would ensue if congress did try to apply their power to impeach against someone not in office.

The action would be tied up in the courts for years.

[Milton Miteybad]

Why go through the rigamarole of trying to impeach such a person? Before you could press the case you would have to convince the courts that the process is legitimate, constitutionally.

She would be impeached by the House, and tried in the Senate. The impeachment proceedings against her husband took roughly one year. The impeachment and conviction (assuming one is forthcoming) could be achieved long before any challenge thereto hit the docket of an appeals court. The point being that there is no necessity to ask a court's leave to conduct this completely constitutional procedure beforehand, a point McCarthy makes quite ably. Congress already possesses this vested power, and there are few practical limits on it. Congress could justify its action by pointing to the failure of the Department of Justice to prosecute flagrantly obvious criminal activity on Hitlery's part.

Sure...Hitlery might be able to appeal her conviction in the Senate to some court, but that would occur well after the fact. By the time she finds a court of competent jurisdiction and the appeal is heard and adjudicated, it's three to four years after this particular election. Given the questionable state of her health, there is absolutely no guarantee that she would still be here on earth to pursue the matter to its conclusion.

The greatest obstacle in McCarthy's scenario would be obtaining a conviction by a 2/3rds vote in the Senate, and that is a considerable impediment, to be sure. The impeachment process is a "lay-down" by comparison.