Should The Republicans Impeach Hillary Clinton if she becomes President.....

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by MMC, Aug 11, 2016.

  1. MMC

    MMC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    41,793
    Likes Received:
    14,697
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Cmon now.....lets not talk about what you are use to with your own kind. :laughing:
     
  2. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agnew was forced to resign because of cheating on his taxes before he became VP so there is some precedent. It will depend largely on whether or not the charges would hold up in court beyond a reasonable doubt. What the OP is flinging around is hyperbolic partisan mudslinging that would be laughed out of court IMO.
     
  3. AlphaOmega

    AlphaOmega Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2013
    Messages:
    28,747
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    dude really? Unless you have been in a coma, Hillarys latest email scandal has painted the entire picture clear enough for even children to follow. Shes been engaged in criminal pay to play at a government level that corralled even the fbi and our doj. This is the single most corrupt human being to ever set foot in politics. Blagojevich got 14 years for a single instance of what hillary has done at a national security level. Anyone supporting this filth is a straight up traitor. Clinton should be in a jail cell right now and you damn well know it.
     
  4. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So are you now saying that Trump is a corrupt serial liar who should be indicted for his fraudulent scamming of hardworking Americans?
     
  5. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,222
    Likes Received:
    12,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absolutely. Luckily he's never been in office. What's Unlucky is that Hillary Clinton is the same thing, with ACTUAL government corruption. Both should be barred from any type of public office.

    I'm glad you and I agree that America should be run by ANYONE other than these morons.
     
  6. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,268
    Likes Received:
    25,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good post. Trump is not a professional politician. Vs. Clinton is a sick, crooked liar - a professional politician.

    Trump does not need to do much to have an advantage, and he is not doing much
     
  7. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,222
    Likes Received:
    12,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And BTW when did I not say that? You said "So you are now saying"? I'm on the side of Truth. That debate about the 2A and Hillary was about what was actually said vs. what Hillary bots wanted to hear.
     
  8. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,222
    Likes Received:
    12,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly. Those are the words I was reaching for.
     
  9. MMC

    MMC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    41,793
    Likes Received:
    14,697
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then there is reality.

    A similar question came up recently on Quora,[8] with an important difference. The requester asked “Could Hillary Clinton’s mismanagement of highly classified information be grounds for Day One impeachment proceedings against her?” While it might be improper and unconstitutional to impeach Hillary now, as a private citizen, could she be impeached once she is re-established in federal service, even as President?

    In other words, are the actions sparking the impeachment linked in some way to the office the individual held or are they attached to the individual herself (in this case)?

    Most of the respondents on Quora said “No,” she couldn’t (or shouldn’t) be impeached. But they based their opinion on the fact that Hillary was not indicted by the Justice Department (acting on the recommendation of the FBI). No one approached the question from a Constitutional perspective.

    Constitutional impeachment is appropriate when “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” have been committed. “Crimes” are the violation of statute law and “misdemeanors” are maladministration or misconduct falling short of criminal activity. Either, committed by a “high” official, constitutes grounds for impeachment. The FBI decided only that Hillary was not guilty of criminal wrongdoing because she did not display criminal intent (mens rea). They did not address (because it wasn’t their responsibility) whether Hillary was guilty of committing a “high misdemeanor” in the context of impeachment.

    Given the sparse words of the Constitution and a compliant Court, Congress now has the power to do most anything it wants, and I’m sure the Supreme Court would find the impeachment of a President Hillary Clinton, for her failures as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to be non-justicable. So in the end, the judgment of propriety would fall on the owners of the Constitution: the people. For a Republican-dominated Congress to proceed this way would be political suicide.....snip~

    http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=5116



    Btw DT, McCarthy of the Repubs had a article up about Impeaching Hillary just a few days ago in National review Magazine. Online to. So to did Quora. I didn't notice you in with any of those Constitutionalists.
     
  10. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let's put this in context. Hillary wins the GE and is inaugurated and in her 1st 100 days "honeymoon" period you want to file impeachment charges after both the OIG and FBI decided NOT to file any charges because there was nothing to prosecute?

    The last time you tried to impeach a Clinton they ended up with high approval ratings after being acquitted in the Senate. Not in the wildest of wet dreams will the Senate vote to impeach Hillary for something as petty and partisan as what you are proposing in your OP.

    So the end result of this extremist rightwing exercise in self gratification will be to ensure that (a) Hillary has exceptionally high approval ratings, and (b) that the GOP is so discredited that it will lose heavily in both 2018 and 2020.

    Obviously no one has bothered to think through the consequences of something this unutterably stupid but that presupposes the ability to think when it is patently obvious that this is nothing more than kneejerk emoting on display.
     
  11. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As usual you missed the irony of your posting a massive pile of "partisan crap" (your own words) and then asked to be saved from "partisan crap".

    Happens all the time!
     
  12. Zorroaster

    Zorroaster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2016
    Messages:
    1,183
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Here's the thing.

    You, along with a substantial number of the current GOP membership, are no longer part of the loyal opposition. This makes you fundamentally different than the GOP of the Eisenhower era. You no longer accept the vote of the people - indeed, you believe 'liberals' should be rounded up and placed in camps (and don't try to pretend you don't want this). You believe you have the right, even the duty, to block operation of the government, when you disagree.

    Fine. You can believe what you believe. But don't be surprised when the rest of the country gets tired of your bs, and decides to pay you back in kind.
     
  13. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And your alternative to either of them would be? :confusion:

    - - - Updated - - -

    Trump has repeatedly advocated for violence throughout his campaign and everyone already knows what the "2nd amendment remedies" dog whistle is all about.
     
  14. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,268
    Likes Received:
    25,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I will always have your back Soldier. ;-)
     
  15. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,222
    Likes Received:
    12,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You. Me. Someone with a pulse. For the left I would have gone with O'Malley. I'm not liberal, and disagree with liberals, but at least the dude sticks to his values. No major problems. He's not Hillary...
    Pretty good senate Dems too. Surprised they didn't go after it.
     
  16. MMC

    MMC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    41,793
    Likes Received:
    14,697
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Correction the OIG and State hasn't come up with the Consequences yet. But the OIG decided she was in violation of federal law. He did report that to Congress did he not. Hint one.....he testified the same day Comey did. Hint two.....both OIG's State and IC reported to Congress Hillary mishandled Classified Emails. State OIG and IC OIG won the classification review that the State Dept fought so hard but to no avail, and lost. Findings were Hillary lied about sending and receiving Classified emails.

    Now what is the the OIG saying when he said Hillary failed to report hacking attempts or that none of her people did. That and not getting approval for her offgrid private server. Means she was caught in what?

    Its called Official Misconduct.

    Wrong again.....obviously those legal Constitutionalists did think it through. Plus showed how the Repubs could try and proceed. But they call it political suicide.

    Yet.....there is one caveat that shines thru in connection with the comment about political suicide. No one has ever tried it.....so they don't know what the real results would be. They could say there is such an advantage for it.....but with a party already divided up, and Repubs not sticking together and fighting each other. Then what matters about political suicide when they already are going thru it.
     
  17. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    By your own admission there is no "high crime" basis for this farcical impeachment.

    Instead you are basing everything on a potential "misdemeanor" that still has to pass the legal standard of beyond reasonable doubt to overcome the presumption of innocence.

    This is so specious as to be laughable.

    Professional prosecutors at the OIG, FBI and DoJ all passed on that since the odds of a conviction were slim and none and slim had already left the building.

    But you imagine that a political circus act of hyper partisan extremist rightwingers in the House are going to convince enough Senators to impeach the first female president before she has even finished putting a photo of her grandchild on the desk in the Oval office?

    But don't let reality or facts stop you (when has it ever?) but instead just go right ahead with this inanity. Let me take this a step further and double dare you to do you to impeach Madam President on these grounds. Make her day and mine too because there will be nothing funnier that watching this blow up in your faces in 2018 when you lose both the House and the Senate.

    If you are going to commit political suicide you might as well go out in style, right? Or have you just repainted the GOP clown car to look like a hearse instead?
     
  18. MMC

    MMC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    41,793
    Likes Received:
    14,697
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Again note DT. Yet there is misconduct. So the Repub could proceed. That is a given.

    “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” have been committed. “Crimes” are the violation of statute law and “misdemeanors” are maladministration or misconduct falling short of criminal activity.....snip~

    The OIG hasn't passed on anything. His findings are final.

    But now as to a DOJ is concerned....playing Politics and oath to party first. Its not much of a defense.

    Put it this way.....there will be a few less Repubs Senators that wont be returning to the Senate anyways. So they wont be able to help the Demos any more. So like Mark Kirk of Illinois. You can say....C-ya now.

    Beats giving up to a corrupt administration that won't follow the laws made for everybody.
     
  19. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    MMC is adorable. Delusional and incoherent are a winning combination.

    I also like how he doesnt understand the term "high crimes and misdemeanors", but thinks he does.

    Impeachment is essentially a political act. Congress can impeach a president for any reason or no reason. Every impeachment we have had except Nixon has been nakedly political, has failed, and has hurt the party trying it.

    So go ahead. Beclown yourself and your party some more. And help lock in a Democratic majority that will last decades.
     
  20. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Bush jr could have been impeached by the Dem House in 2006 because by then evidence of his illegal invasion of Iraq duplicity was becoming general knowledge but they refrained from doing so.

    Why?

    Because there was nothing to be gained from an exercise in futility. It would have been perceived as payback for impeaching Bill for a Bj in the Oval office. The Dems would have paid a political price that wasn't worth the cost.

    And yes, impeachment is a political tool, not a legal one. Nixon resigned because the legal evidence against him was overwhelming. Johnson and Bill were acquitted because their impeachments were partisan nonsense as opposed to actual crimes of any merit worthy of deposing them elected office.

    Whining that it meets the definition of a misdemeanor is irrelevant. It does not rise to the level necessary to remove Madam President from office.

    But let me reiterate, go ahead and impeach away and deal with the political fallout. It isn't as though the GOP actually has a future to throw away any longer.
     
  21. Zorroaster

    Zorroaster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2016
    Messages:
    1,183
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Many people on the left, myself included, disagree profoundly with this statement. I'm not saying that Nixon did not use his power of office in unethical ways. But I do say he did not do so in any more pronounced way than LBJ or FDR. The impeachment hearing were thoroughly political, and set a divisive precedent that survives to this day.

    Perhaps 'survives' is insufficient though. This precedent has been expanded and has consumed our entire civic life, to the point the nation is now ungovernable.
     
  22. MMC

    MMC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    41,793
    Likes Received:
    14,697
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yet.....Ray ray can't figure out about testimony before Congress about the maladministration or misconduct falling short of criminal activity that took place.

    The Clintons are done win or lose. They lost to Sanderism. That's the future of the Demo party. Socialism.....soon to be your new home.

    Oh and a party that's already in the death throws of political suicide. As Hillary said.....What difference would it make. [​IMG]
     
  23. MMC

    MMC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    41,793
    Likes Received:
    14,697
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Both ends can meet in the middle and grab the humiliation at the same time.

    Ryan and McConnells plan would be to obstruct for 4 years. Doing what they did to BO peep. While not doing much of anything. But giving into BO and the Demos wants. That's committing suicide in this time.

    The Demos have no Bench for 2020 or 2024. Redistricting and the Electoral will favor the GOP until the New Census after 2020 anyways.

    No one believes they will be able to block Hillary's SCOTUS picks for 4 years.

    But others have said it and yourself.....the House will Impeach and the Senate wont.

    Btw you do know there are a couple GOP Congressman saying they will seek impeachment, Right? So lets not deny what has been put out there.
     
  24. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are always wackadoodles threatening impeachment but no one takes them seriously.

    The odds of Tortoise McConnell remaining as Senate Majority leader are not good so that obstruction will probably come to an end.

    Ryan is not as spineless as Boehner and he won't stand for the extremist rightwing tail wagging the dog any longer. If his majority is reduced it will primarily be the extremists who will be gone making his job of reaching compromises with Madam President a great deal easier.

    Continuing the failed obstruction policy is probably DOA for 2017, it might even be gone in the lame duck session.

    The self inflicted damage to the GOP has been severe and it will be up to people like Ryan to try and pull it out of the gutter and breath some life into the corpse. Don't know if it will be possible but without the extremist right faction holding the party, and the nation, hostage any longer there is a small hope of survival.

    Personally I hope they can and in the process show the extremist rightwingers the way to the exit if they are unhappy with the new direction of the GOP to meet the challenges facing his nation in the coming decades.

    However if the inmates are still running the asylum and want to go down the impeachment route then we might as well all chip in for the RIP headstone.
     
  25. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I disagree. Nixon committed actual criminal activity and blatantly abused the power of his office.

    And the impeachment would have been a heavily bipartisan affair.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_of_Richard_Nixon#Articles_of_impeachment

    The articles of impeachment were drafted by a bipartisan group of Congressmen.

    The House Judiciary committee voted 27-11 to refer articles of impeachment, with 6 of the 18 Republicans on the committee joining all the Democrats -- even conservative Democrats from Nixon-leaning states who initially opposed impeachment.

    Nixon resigned because a group of Republican senators told him that the House would overwhelmingly vote for impeachment, and that no more than 15 Senators would vote to acquit.
     

Share This Page