Posted on 10/04/2019 5:31:37 AM PDT by luke1825
President Donald Trump should hire Hillary Clinton as an impeachment consultant.
After all, who knows more about impeachment than the wife of a president who was impeached.
Not only that, Hillary Clinton served as a committee staffer on the House committee that sought to impeach Republican President Richard Nixon over the Watergate scandal. Nixon resigned in 1974 and was not impeached.
That impeached president, her husband, was Democrat Bill Clinton. Although he was impeached by a Republican-controlled U. S. House in 1998 for obstruction of justice and lying to a grand jury, he was later acquitted by a Democrat-dominated U. S. Senate
(Excerpt) Read more at lowellsun.ma.newsmemory.com ...
Impeachment is a political activity, not a legal endeaver.
Why not? She should be very familiar with the Impeachment process, since her husband was actually Impeached.
I doubt it. She will not close her political career until she is president, or dead.
What impeachment, did I miss the vote? Right now it’s a Democrat campaign strategy, nothing more.
It would be like Eisenhower hiring Goering as an Invasion Advisor in early 1944.
“Hillary Clinton served as a committee staffer on the House committee that sought to impeach Republican President Richard Nixon over the Watergate scandal.”
Until she was fired for legal malfeasance. Thanks for giving us the whole story!
Being an impeachment consultant would be a fine prison-job, sort of like stamping out license plates.
Strange that the author would note cankle’s role in the Nixon impeachment, but not her being tossed off the committee for her own corrupt behavior as a member.
Since Hillary was fired from the Nixon impeachment process for lying, she will bring nothing of credible substance to the issue
Trump will eat her alive
Hillary would take the job if she wasn’t so busy.
There are children to be sacrificed to Satan so she simply has no time.
I recall a co-worker saying, after working with her during after the Watergate stuff that they Hillary was shifty and dishonest. I know it is all in jest, but pretty sure Trump doesn’t want anyone like that around.
Just no. Resoundingly no.
It's a mix of both. Even "pure" political activity inevitably intersects law here and there. Campaign finance law, making law, delegating legal power, and so on.
The conduct of an impeachment is described in the constitution, a form of law. There are precedents, some on procedure in general.
Victoria Toensing made a remark last night that I never considered, but she;s right. When in impeachment, the House is not acting as a legislative body. What rules govern its (the whole House) conduct?
I do agree that the standard for conviction is not the same as the standard for finding a criminal offense. As a matter of law, the president has unfettered power to snoop without a warrant, as long as seeking foreign intelligence. He might abuse the hell out of that, and no way it is a crime. But he might be so reckless with that that the people demand his removal from office.
“Not only that, Hillary Clinton served as a committee staffer on the House committee that sought to impeach Republican President Richard Nixon over the Watergate scandal.”
No mention of this in the article:
Jerome Zeifman, chief Democratic counsel on the House Judiciary Committee in 1974: “If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her,” he said.
Related?
https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2019/03/10/hillary-clintons-arkansas-law-license-reinstated
Hillary Clinton’s Arkansas law license reinstated
March 10, 2019
IMO,Nancy will NOT bring impeachment to the floor for a vote. The Prez will not cooperate with Nancy until she brings impeachment to the floor for a vote. The current inquiry will go on and on....
Does that excuse Obama using government resources to spy on an opposing campaign? IOW, if Obama happened to get information on Trump while trying to protect the US from foreign campaign interference, then it's ok?
The height of cover thy ass!
A few points. One, in law, the answer is nearly always "it depends" (on the fact pattern). If Trump was really a foreign agent, anti-American, then sure, it would be ok.
The other point is that "it's ok" is indefinite. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean "not criminal"? IOW, if it's not a crime, it's ok? Or does that mean a higher standard, ethical, moral, justified in the eyes of all objective observers.
The point I was making in what you blockquoted from me was that a president could act in a way that was legal (not criminal, but 4th amendment violation), and so wildly unethical that everybody would want to kick the bum out of office. And the constitution has a mechanism to do so, even if the president argues the Senate has to find a crime to support removal from office. He can argue whatever he wants, but the Senate decision is final and not appealable.
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.