Before The Dust Settles
Soon we'll know our next President. The only thing we know for sure right now is about half the country will be disappointed--indeed, many will be hysterical, some verging on suicidal.
It would be sort of nice if we could unify after the election, but it seems unlikely. (Only "sort of" because too much unification could lead to a bunch of bad laws being passed.) Instead, what I'm hearing, already, is talk of impeachment.
How would this happen? Well, if Hillary wins and the GOP holds Congress, there are any number of scandals they could investigate if they want to test the waters. And if Trump is elected, some feel there's enough bad blood between him and establishment Republicans that they might wait for him to slip up and--joined by the Democrats--try to force him out.
These scenarios are outrageous, but somehow feel less outrageous than usual. Really, though, while impeachment is a big deal, it's not much of a solution when you're mad at the other party, since what you'll get at best is the Veep kicked upstairs.
No matter what, I guess we'll muddle along. But will we learn anything from this election? Seems doubtful.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:04 AM
4 Comments:
Maybe someone else can chime in, but I thought impeachment was only available for crimes and misdemeanors committed while in office? Not sure if that even extends to during the campaign. I thought that is why the impeachment of Bill Clinton centered on his perjury during discovery related to claims based on actions before he became President.
Wouldn't we have to wait until one of these two did something while President. The wait might not be long in Trumps case, but I think Hillary has learned her lesson.
Hillary may have learned it will never be fair so double down on these lunkheads and keep embarrassing them
DG, the clause states, "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." So it doesn't seem limited to his/her time in office.
The President is immune from criminal prosecution in federal and state courts during his tenure, and this immunity applies also to prosecution for crimes committed before he was president. The purpose of this is to prevent a state or federal court from crippling a presidency: only Congress can do that. (The Constitution should have also given him immunity from lawsuits during his tenure, in my opinion; much as I detest Bill Clinton, the Paula Jones lawsuit posed the same logistical problems as a criminal case would have.)
So if a president committed, say, a bank robbery, then the House and Senate would have to proceed with impeachment (indictment) and trial just like a regular court -- summoning witnesses, presenting evidence, etc.
With Bill Clinton, IIRC, the reason they focused on perjury was that it was a clear-cut case (he was ultimately disbarred in Arkansas for it), whereas the sexual harrassment charges by Paula Jones would have required a long trial of the evidence in her case, which nobody wanted.
Sounds like LK's been reading Judge Posner . . .
Post a Comment
<< Home