Posted on 06/04/2018 12:31:54 PM PDT by cotton1706
Towards the end of April and into early May, several news outlets ran reports (citing anonymous sources) that the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail was expected to be wrapped in the coming weeks. However, a few weeks later, FBI Director James Comey met with reporters and indicated the Bureau had no set timeline for completing the investigation. He even stated that the upcoming political conventions and general election would not factor into when the investigation would be completed.
So, lets take Comey at his word and imagine this scenario:
It is Friday, January 20, 2017 and Hillary Clinton has just been sworn in as the 45th President of the United States after narrowly defeating Donald Trump in November. Republicans managed to hold both the House of Representatives and the Senate. A few weeks after winning the election, however, the Department of Justice handed down a multi-count indictment against Clinton over her handling of classified information and her involvement in an alleged pay for play scandal with the Clinton Foundationduring her time as Secretary of State. It is a scenario that several of our commentators, and twitter followers have asked us to analyze.
(Excerpt) Read more at lawandcrime.com ...
Yes, but then that is exactly what an impeachment entails.
The House serves more or less like a grand jury. They decide if the “culprit” should be brought up on charges or not. Then they refer their findings to the Senate with specific charges.
In the Senate, the trial takes place where they find the “culprit” guilty or innocent of the charges. Guilty, your out... innocent, you remain in office.
With Clinton, the House came up with such flimsy charges, that the Senate decided to take a pass on a trial. Most folks who were against Clinton, think the House severely under-preformed. There was plenty of serious charges against Clinton, but they picked lesser charges.
“Well if a pardon can not block impeachment then it means impeachment requires a crime and it’s not just a political process”
You have it 180 degrees backwards. If a pardon does not block impeachment...THAT means impeachment is a political process, not a crime.
And impeachment does not require a crime. There is absolutely no check at all on the power of Congress to impeach. They argue about what he has or hasn’t done that makes him unfit. If 2/3s agree, he is removed and that is beyond any review.
If she was the pResident she wouldn’t have to worry about it.
It would have already been covered up. And the media would have made sure of it.
Notice the date—originally published in May 2016, before the election.
She was in office as Secy of State and also as U.S. Senator.
And it’s not like she would suddenly stop committing felonies once in office
“So it’s very rare that you can accurately say...”and congress would be helpless to act”.”
They must be talking about the Republican controlled congress.
A president can be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. But the left-leaning judicial big shots were talking about dragging the President into the judicial system with an indictment (which is wrong).
Anyway, a president who did something wrong (e.g., Hillary in a fantasy world) would most likely be convicted by the Senate after the end of their term. No pardon then, unless the next president does the pardoning.
The best way to protect President Trump is to vote in the congressional elections this year! The very, very few Republicans in Congress who would impeach or convict the President are leaving, so we need a majority of Republicans in both houses. They’re riding the Trump wave.
Anyway, vote!
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.