HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Oh No! Not a Special Pros... » Reply #33
In the discussion thread: Oh No! Not a Special Prosecutor [View all]

Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Mon May 9, 2016, 10:54 PM

33. Why did you say this? I am interested because that is also where I believe this is going

A special prosecutor takes Loretta Lynch off the hook. It will also delay a finding for probably two years. If Hillary wins the Democratic primary and should triumph over Trump, sitting in the Oval Office as President will give her a certain protection she does not now have. While the talk of a Republican impeachment rattles around, perhaps those spreading this do not realize a President can only be impeached for conviction of crimes committed during his or her term in office. A President cannot be impeached for a crime committed during the time frame before he or she took office. That is not to say a President cannot be forced out via other means; for instance, Nixon was talked into resigning based on the fact if he did not, the votes were there to impeach him. Nixon's crimes however were committed while he was in office.

The point is Hillary once she assumes her role as President (if she does in fact) cannot be impeached over crimes committed prior to her presidency. I do not see how a Special Prosecutor's investigation would be concluded before Inauguration Day. In other words, appointing a Special Prosecutor would be a stall tactic by the DOJ to drag this matter out so long it would simply fizzle from a lack of gas.

I heard the info from a Constitutional expert about the crime must have been committed during the President's term in office, not before. It was an interview some time ago, and I believe it was Jonathan Turley. I have found this which seems to back that up:

Relating to the Presidentís Official Duties


The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply "maldministration." This view is buttresses in part by an analysis of the entire phrase "high crimes or misdemeanors" which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.
- See more at: http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html#sthash.GuEPMiqj.dpuf


litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html

In other words, this is a wordy way of saying what is a simple concept: drag the thing out until it dies on its own.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 98 replies Author Time Post
RobertEarl May 2016 OP
hrmjustin May 2016 #1
George II May 2016 #49
uponit7771 May 2016 #71
awake May 2016 #2
RobertEarl May 2016 #4
SFnomad May 2016 #15
RobertEarl May 2016 #18
SFnomad May 2016 #24
amborin May 2016 #79
leveymg May 2016 #27
RobertEarl May 2016 #31
leveymg May 2016 #34
RobertEarl May 2016 #36
leveymg May 2016 #41
RobertEarl May 2016 #42
leveymg May 2016 #51
Bob41213 May 2016 #66
George II May 2016 #52
Bill USA May 2016 #98
George II May 2016 #47
msongs May 2016 #3
rjsquirrel May 2016 #5
Fawke Em May 2016 #6
RobertEarl May 2016 #8
Stallion May 2016 #12
dchill May 2016 #77
Betty Karlson May 2016 #78
jberryhill May 2016 #7
RobertEarl May 2016 #11
Demsrule86 May 2016 #17
Art_from_Ark May 2016 #58
JDPriestly May 2016 #81
SFnomad May 2016 #23
RobertEarl May 2016 #28
SFnomad May 2016 #30
hrmjustin May 2016 #26
JDPriestly May 2016 #80
hrmjustin May 2016 #25
Hoyt May 2016 #9
AgingAmerican May 2016 #22
Hoyt May 2016 #60
AgingAmerican May 2016 #72
MrMickeysMom May 2016 #75
Hoyt May 2016 #88
MrMickeysMom May 2016 #90
Hoyt May 2016 #91
MrMickeysMom May 2016 #92
left-of-center2012 May 2016 #10
RobertEarl May 2016 #13
tularetom May 2016 #14
Art_from_Ark May 2016 #63
RobertEarl May 2016 #65
HereSince1628 May 2016 #85
JDPriestly May 2016 #82
Demsrule86 May 2016 #16
Demsrule86 May 2016 #19
Dem2 May 2016 #20
JoePhilly May 2016 #38
Demsrule86 May 2016 #21
MFM008 May 2016 #29
Trust Buster May 2016 #32
LineReply Why did you say this? I am interested because that is also where I believe this is going
Samantha May 2016 #33
RobertEarl May 2016 #40
Samantha May 2016 #54
RobertEarl May 2016 #61
Samantha May 2016 #69
JDPriestly May 2016 #83
hrmjustin May 2016 #35
rusty fender May 2016 #73
Recursion May 2016 #37
SidDithers May 2016 #39
George II May 2016 #43
Andy823 May 2016 #59
JDPriestly May 2016 #84
George II May 2016 #87
JTFrog May 2016 #44
RobertEarl May 2016 #46
JTFrog May 2016 #50
whatchamacallit May 2016 #45
RobertEarl May 2016 #48
bigwillq May 2016 #53
Samantha May 2016 #55
RobertEarl May 2016 #56
LineLineLineReply .
hrmjustin May 2016 #57
grasswire May 2016 #62
RobertEarl May 2016 #64
grasswire May 2016 #95
okasha May 2016 #67
hrmjustin May 2016 #68
okasha May 2016 #70
RobertEarl May 2016 #94
okasha May 2016 #96
RobertEarl May 2016 #97
LexVegas May 2016 #74
mikehiggins May 2016 #76
NCTraveler May 2016 #86
hobbit709 May 2016 #89
pdsimdars May 2016 #93
Please login to view edit histories.