Might the emails be grounds for impeachment?

[Motown_Johnny]

Yes, I know it takes two thirds of the Senate voting to remove the President from office and that is very unlikely to happen.

It only takes a simple majority of The House, and a House committee, to send it to the Senate.


It seems safe to assume that the (R)s will still have a majority in The House. Why would they not mar the first hundred days (or so) of a Pres. H. Clinton's administration with Impeachment hearings? I doubt there will be any political backlash since their base will love it and they will be as far removed from the mid term election as possible if they do it as soon as the new Congress starts.

There are 22 emails that are classified top secret right now. Either those will all need to be declassified to prove they did not pose a security risk or it is going to look like she mishandled sensitive information.


Isn't this really the very best any Clinton supporter can hope for? No indictment, Hillary wins the nomination and goes on to win the General. Then she is greeted with this.

[Agschmid]

1. With this congress almost anything is grounds for impeachment.

[PoliticAverse]

2. Last I checked they haven't impeached anybody. n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

4. They didn't try it with Pres. Obama

but I think they might try it with her.

The FBI investigation seems like it gives them cover to do it.

[PoliticAverse]

3. Maybe Obama will pardon her as one of his last acts and render the whole matter moot. n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

11. Umm....

I believe that to receive a pardon you must first admit guilt and I doubt that will ever happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States

^snip^

A pardoned person must introduce the pardon into court proceedings, otherwise the pardon must be disregarded by the court.

To do this, the pardoned person must accept the pardon. If a pardon is rejected, it cannot be forced upon its subject.

A pardon carries an "imputation of guilt", and accepting a pardon is "an admission of guilt".



Also:

http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html

^snip^

The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and punish officials if they have committed crimes.

[NobodyHere]

19. I don't think the President can pardon away an impeachment anyways.

[FreedomRain]

20. not necessarily

while there certainly suspicion around it, pardons for procedural reasons are common enough. I admit I did not read the case, but your excerpt does not support the idea one must admit anything. I don't think Nixon admitted anything to get his pardon from Ford.

[leftynyc]

23. You're wrong

Nixon never admitted wrongdoing.

[SFnomad]

55. Caspar Weinberger

Daddy Bush pardoned Caspar after he was indicted, but before trial and he never admitted guilt. It also probably saved Bush from an impeachment himself.

[PoliticAverse]

62. What Burdick v US actually established was the right to reject a pardon

given to you.

You are right that the impeachment process is political not criminal however
as a pardon removes all criminal liability it is extremely unlikely any
impeachment process would succeed (that is remove Clinton from office)
as it is very unlikely that any Democrat would vote to Impeach Clinton if
there was no possibility of any criminal charges from the email issue and
Republicans won't have the necessary votes for an impeachment conviction.

[SCantiGOP]

5. Probably the biggest stretch yet

By a Sanders supporter on DU.

[tularetom]

6. Actually she could be impeached before she ever takes office

Congress is seated right after New Years Day 2017. President is inaugurated on Jan. 20.

Congress has 2 weeks to get the job done.

[merrily]

7. Impeach Obama because Hillary had a private server and wiped it?

I don't see that happening at all.

[Motown_Johnny]

21. No, Impeach a President H. Clinton as soon as she takes office.

This would have nothing to do with Pres. Obama and would not happen until after he leaves office.

[merrily]

29. Oh, sorry! I completely missed what you were getting at.

If the FBI investigation clears her, attempting impeachment would be pointless and Republicans remember what happened to them when they impeached a Cliinton for indisputably lying under oath to a grand jury, which is a crime.

If the FBI doesn't clear her and she is the nominee and gets elected, yes, they may well impeach. And Castro doesn't have enough experience to take over, IMO.

[Motown_Johnny]

31. Yes, the last time they impeached a Clinton we got Shrub right afterwards.

They remember alright.

[merrily]

36. Very different issues, IMO.

Impeachment sent Clinton's ratings up and theirs down.

Gore was defeated--or close enough to steal--whichever--for reasons other than the impeachment, I think.

[Motown_Johnny]

48. Gore distanced himself from Clinton because of the damage

he had taken.

Besides, this is a very different Republican party. The House (R)s really have no reason to not vote to impeach. There are no moderates left now anyways.

[merrily]

53. Clinton did not take damage. His ratings went up, he could not seek re-election and he is still

very much beloved by many. Some even claim to this day that Gore would have done better if he had not distanced himself from Bubby. That's why he's the Teflon President.

Gore, however, probably did suffer damage. When I first saw Bush announce, it was not on CNN, but on the Trinity Broadcasting Network and he was talking about bringing dignity back to the Oval Office. That was a reference to the bjs Bill got in the Oval Office, IMO, not to the impeachment.

[karynnj]

69. I agree it hurt Gore - remember Bush had a slogan to bring back honor and decency

This even though it was known he was a mean drunk into his 40s and he was running against an Eagle Scout, picked for VP partly because he was squeaky clean.

I suspect that some of those who "approved" did so out of disgust with the impeachment process. I know had I been called I would have said approve even though I was also disgusted that Clinton acted as he did.

As to Clinton or Sanders, for that matter, I think what we learned in 1998 is that it is up to the Congress to determine what is high crimes and misdemeanors. The cost of over reaching is a deterent. I think anything that happened before someone took office especially if known might easily be rejected on the grounds that the country elected her knowing this.

[merrily]

91. That was my point in mentioning that I first saw Bush announce on the Trinity Broadcasting Network.

Turned out the @#$$% was not even a churchgoer and his faith-based initiative (FBI) office was a joke, something we learned only because David Kuo got a brain tumor.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/j-david-kuo-onetime-leader-of-bushs-faith-based-initiative-dies-at-44/2013/04/06/24e9cd6a-987e-11e2-97cd-3d8c1afe4f0f_story.html

PBS, which got a bit subversive after Bush took office, did a program about Italian-Americans. Out of nowhere (or so it seemed to me as I watched, Danny Aiello is in it, saying he switched from Democrat to Republican because of Bubba's behavior.

It was an issue, no doubt. I am sure it cost Gore with a certain demographic, just as being LBJ's VP cost Humphrey. A lot of other things cost both of them, too, though. And, on the flip side, being Clinton's VP and LBJ's VP probably helped both of them with other demographics.

It just occurred to me: most modern politicians try not to lose votes and run accordingly. Others, like Bernie, try to win votes.

[karynnj]

92. Your last sentence is fantastic!

I agree that Gore did win the nomination because he was the loyal VP. When he had earlier tried running on his own in 1988, he was pretty unsuccessful and I doubt - without becoming VP - he ever would have even been the nominee. He was a good VP and would have likely have been a good President - and he did not even have to be good to be better than Bush!

[merrily]

94. Thank you so much, karynnj.

Was Gore serious in 1988, or was that part of the plan for 1992 and beyond, to begin to get Gore known nationally and perceived nationally as Presidential timber?

With Bubba, Hillary, Lieberman and others, Gore had been a founding member of the DLC. This anecdote may (or may not) have been about something that happened in 1989, but I believe that Bubba was always supposed to be the first DLC POTUS. Gore, with a famous political and liberal surname, and a Senator from Tennessee in his own right, was a near perfect running mate for the Governor of Arkansas, including from the standpoint of a Southern Strategy, which Democrats desperately needed by then.

A little after four o’clock on the afternoon of April 6, 1989, I walked into the office of Governor Bill Clinton on the second floor of the Arkansas State Capitol in Little Rock.

“I’ve got a deal for you,” I told Clinton after a few minutes of political chitchat. “If you agree to become chairman of the DLC, we’ll pay for your travel around the country, we’ll work together on an agenda, and I think you’ll be president one day and we’ll both be important.” With that proposition, Clinton agreed to become chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, and our partnership was born. With Clinton as its leader, the New Democrat movement that sprung from the DLC over the next decade would change the course of the Democratic Party in the United States and of progressive center-left parties around the world.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/recruiting-bill-clinton/281946/

My personal opinion is that this is spin, at least as to timing, if nothing else The DLC, which was founded in 1985 as a conservadem organization, did not just have an epiphany after the 1988 election to decide that being a conservadem was the way to go. Bill Clinton, a founding member of the DLC, hardly needed to be recruited in 1989, whether it was to head any political organization of which he had been a member since about 1985, or to be President, which his own words tell us he wanted to be since he went to Washington as a high schooler and shook JFK's hand.

Then again, I don't trust Al From as far as I can throw him.

Anyway, my point is, I don't know how seriously Gore was running for POTUS in 1988. I think the agenda all along was for Clinton to be the first DLC President. After all, being Senator Fulbright's mentee since high school and working in the Democratic Party for decades, it was his turn.

I don't like to speculate about what imaginary or dead Presidents would have done. Ironically, Democrats who were in office at the start of World War I, World War II, the Korean "Police Action," the Bay of Pigs, and the Vietnam "Era," have, since at least the anti-Vietnam movement, been defensive about being weak on defense. They have taken measures to counter that, including appointing Republicans as Secretaries of Defense, as did both Bubba and Obama.

After having been drawn into the Bay of Pigs, JFK became leery of the CIA and the Pentagon and had his brother to weave him through potentially mutually assured destruction during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Democrats, starting with Johnson seemed to have forgotten all those lessons and, thanks to some turd, we lost RFK and no one has replaced him.

Anyway, the inexplicable defensiveness of Democrats on the (snort) "defense" issue may have led Gore to do something precipitous after 911, rather than avoiding war, nas most seem to assume he would have. Heck, even Sanders voted for the Afghanistan War. That'll teach those tribal farmers to go into Pakistan and turn Ben Laden over to the US!

Anyway, we'll never know. And, as nice as it is to imagine that Gore would most certainly done better after 911, I also think it's potentially dangerous to America to assume that we know exactly how imaginary (even real) will behave. Inasmuch as it's moot anyway, I don't see a reason to engage in a way of daydreaming that I consider potentially dangerous.

Sorry. As must be obvious, the imaginary President thing is a pet issue of mine. That's my only excuse, such as it is, for rambling about it. Come to think of it, the DLC is also a pet issue, so you were smack between Scylla and Charybdis, you poor thing.

[NCTraveler]

8. I wouldn't put anything past the right wing morons.

It will also backfire if they tried. They have attempted to distort this to the point it isn't even recognizable any more. The only success they have had to this point is some minor ratfucking online. LIV's eat this shit up.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

9. Technical point:

The house votes to impeach the President. If the house vote passes, it goes to the Senate for trial. So both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached, but neither was convicted.

[Motown_Johnny]

17. My point exactly

I think The House would be willing to impeach but The Senate would not remove her from office.

[Le Taz Hot]

25. And in both cases,

it 100% crippled their presidency.

[merrily]

32. Bill claimed he "compartmentalized." The CIA and Pentagon might say he was not

entirely successful at that.

[ladjf]

10. They tried to impeach Bill on charges that seemed to be less serious than

ignoring strict security protocols.

[Motown_Johnny]

14. They did impeach him.

The House sending it to The Senate counts as being impeached. He was not removed from office.



http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/05/09/why-bill-clinton-was-impeached/


^snip^

Why Bill Clinton Was Impeached

To say that Republicans hated Mr. Clinton so much they impeached him for his philandering is like saying that Democrats hated Richard Nixon so much they impeached him for a two-bit burglary. It was what Mr. Nixon did after the Watergate break-in that led to his resignation.

Now, this doesn’t mean that Republicans didn’t overreach in impeaching President Clinton, and that decision certainly seems to have backfired politically. But those are separate matters. Reasonable people can concede that it is a serious issue when a president commits perjury and obstructs justice. (In 1999 a federal judge held President Clinton in contempt of court for giving “false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process” in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.)

[ladjf]

18. Apparently, I misused-used the word impeached. Thanks for the correction. nt

[merrily]

38. A sitting President lying under oath to a grand jury is relatively serious, IMO.

[ladjf]

42. You are very correct. But, I was the considering email security to be a

direct threat to the security of the Nation. Either offense seems to merit impeachment.

edited by author

[merrily]

50. I also very much mind the lies and half truths around the email issue, such as

Powell and Rice had private email accounts. (Duh, so do I. So does almost every American adult. I have about 6 of them in fact. I don't have a private server though and defnitely not one I wiped after receiving an FOIA request.) Another: Nothing was marked classified when received or sent. First, that's irrelevant and, second, the evidence is showing the classified markings were removed in some cases.

Why anyone wants to elect a President who has intentionally deceived the American public with falsehoods and half truths on this and other issues is beyond me.

[ladjf]

52. Agreed. nt

[leftynyc]

58. How are they going to impeach

her for something she didn't do while President? You can't impeach a SOS.

[ladjf]

60. Well, that's a killer good point. I don't know the answer. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

70. Where is it required the act had to occur while in office as president?

[leftynyc]

71. First line in the wikipedia entry for impeachment

Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature that allows for formal charges against a civil officer of government for crimes committed in office.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

73. Well, according to that article cabinet secretaries can and have been impeached.

[leftynyc]

74. So what?

Was it for actions taken when they weren't in the cabinet? That's what we're talking about.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

75. The email scandal is very much a matter of when she was in the cabinet.

[leftynyc]

76. Knock yourselves out

Last done for Secy of War under Grant. The desperation is getting smelly.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

80. In Post #58 you wrote, "You can't impeach a SOS."

Now you admit that cabinet secretaries can be impeached but seem to think that because a secretary hasn't been impeached since the Grant administration somehow matters.

"Sure, she's guilty as hell but -- 1876!"

Smelly desperation, indeed.

[leftynyc]

81. And I was wrong

So I did the research and found it was last done in the 1860s. If you think you can get it done, knock yourself out. I mean you've already tried and convicted her so go ahead. I'll be there when they laugh you out of court AND congress.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

83. Facts be damned, it's all about "how much can we get away with?"

Don't worry; I'm betting the GOP would be more than happy to allow Hillary to "buy" her way out of an impeachment in exchange for the corporatist and war-making agenda. Much in the same way the Roman Catholic church used to sell indulgences to allow people to escape their sins.

[leftynyc]

84. Like I said

Already tried and convicted in your eyes which, as far as I'm concerned, makes your argument un-American and meaningless.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

85. Ah, patriotism. The last refuge of scoundrels.

By the way, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove called to say, "Thanks."

I always enjoy the ol' don't-investigate-unless-you-know argument when it's paired with the you-can't-know-unless-you-investigate argument. That's almost as good as we're-not-guilty-but-that-guy-did-it-too and yeah-we-did-it-but-we're-politically-immune.

If this is how corrupt and debased the party has become we deserve to lose rather than win as successful goons.

[leftynyc]

87. Ah - fascism

Where the notion of innocent until proven guilty is nothing but a joke. Perhaps you'd prefer Iran or Saudi Arabia for a justice system - it sure sounds like it from here.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

88. Fascism? lol

That's all you have.

Any word on the fact Clinton kept a private server on a non-government network with no security, received and transmitted classified materials, wiped the server to avoid legal FOIA requests, stonewalled investigations and was only brought to light after a hacker outted the fact unauthorized people were receiving correspondence from her?

Stomping your feet won't make it go away -- especially not in the GE where you won't have the luxury of a moderated partisan forum.

[leftynyc]

89. LOL - no security?

That's adorable....so are your right wing talking points for Hillary doing the same exact thing as Powell and Rice. But adorable nonetheless.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

90. "They did it too!" is just an admission Hillary did it too.

[EffieBlack]

105. Impeachment is the mechanism for removing someone from office because of high crimes & misdemeanors

committed while they were in office.

Aside from the fact that Hillary Clinton did nothing that even remotely qualifies as an impeachable offense, there are two reasons she could not be impeached over the emails:

1. She is no longer holding the position she was holding when the supposed wrongdoing that is the subject of the impeachment, therefore, she cannot be removed from that position; and

2. The alleged wrongdoing was not committed when she was President, therefore she cannot be impeached and removed from the office of the presidency because of it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

107. Where is it written that your point are even valid?

I have not seen anything anywhere that would indicate someone cannot be impeached for previous misdeeds or that attaining a new office insulates them from impeachment.

[DCBob]

12. The investigation will likely be complete by then which will probably exonerate her.

So why would they have any case for impeachment? I know they are crazy but that's really out there.

[Motown_Johnny]

16. If those top secret emails are still top secret

then there is a basis for claiming she mishandled classified information.

[DCBob]

22. Once the investigation is over and she is cleared of any nefarious activities..

this whole mess will die a rapid deserved death. FBI Director Comey is well respected on both sides of the aisle.. if his report says she's clean.. that's it. The Republicans will look like desperate fools tying to impeach her over this.

[Motown_Johnny]

27. They will argue that the Obama administration covered for her.

Trump has already been trying out his "she is being protected" line of attack at some of his rallies and interviews.

[DCBob]

37. You really are grasping now.

It does no good trying to predict what those lunatics will or will not do and in fact I really dont care. Because it wont work.. she is ten times smarter than them.

[Motown_Johnny]

41. Smart enough to call for a no fly zone in Syria.

Smart enough to call marriage a Sacred bond between a man and a woman.

Smart enough to spend 19 minutes on the floor of The Senate parroting Shrub's talking points about why we should go to war in Iraq.


BRILLIANT!!!

[merrily]

40. "Likely" and "probably" are your speculation. I wouldn't bet an election on either of them.

[DCBob]

49. Just hedging a bit but I would give her a 95% chance of being cleared.

That's good enough for me.

[merrily]

54. Not surprising that your sheer speculation and a % you pulled out of your ear are good enough for

you. Still not a reason to bet an election.

[Lizzie Poppet]

13. If so, the GOP will be desperate to delay the FBI investigation.

Can't think of how they could possibly pull that off, though. Purely an Exec Branch thing at this point...

On the other hand, stalling by the Executive Branch clearly helps the establishment Democrat, holding off any shitstorm until after the convention. I don't expect this investigation to move quickly (unless it really does look to exonerate her).

[randome]

15. The 'revolution' seems a little frayed.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Le Taz Hot]

24. The Republicans made oral sex

grounds for impeachment -- and succeeded. What do you think?

[merrily]

44. They didn't make a sitting President lie under oath to a grand jury.

Much as some Democrats want to claim he got impeached for a private, consensual act that only Chelsea and Hillary should have had anything to say about, that simply is not so.

(I realize your wording in your post is correct. I've seen a lot of bs on this board and elsewhere though. )

[leftynyc]

26. I'm no lawyer

but can you impeach a president for things they did BEFORE they were in office? This is the very first line in wikipedia's page on impeachment:

Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature that allows for formal charges against a civil officer of government for crimes committed in office.

[Motown_Johnny]

28. That is an interesting point.

She was Sec. of State at the time.

I don't know if impeachment would be possible or not based on that.

[PoliticAverse]

65. That's a good question as it appears the consensus is the official's action...

must have occur ed while in office. The issue concerning the presidency
though is does this mean the President is free from any criminal liability
for crimes committed before taking office while in office? Suppose it is
discovered that a President had murdered several people before taking
office. Would there be any constitutional way to remove the President
before their 4 year term is up?

[leftynyc]

66. I would guess the state

the murder allegedly occurred in could always charge him for any murder that occurred before he/she took office - why not? Again, I would guess that President would step down but I guess he/she could conceivably stay in office until the case is adjudicated.

[PoliticAverse]

67. It's widely believe that a President can't be criminally prosecuted while in office. That is why

Richard Nixon was listed as an "un-indicted co-conspirator" during the Watergate prosecutions.

( For an argument as to why Presidents are so immune, see...
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1887&context=fss_papers ).

[leftynyc]

68. But that was a crime done

WHILE in office. We were discussing one done before taking office.

[cwydro]

30. LOL! So the premise of your OP is that she's already been elected!

Which means you think she's got the nomination.

Too funny.

But I agree with you on the nomination and the election.

The impeachment? Nah, not so much.

[Motown_Johnny]

34. It is a hypothetical best case scenario for Clinton.

No indictment

Wins nomination

Wins GE

Faces impeachment as soon as she takes office if, and only IF, the emails would constitute grounds for impeachment.

I am simply exploring the possibility.

[cwydro]

47. Aha.

I see.

[amborin]

33. the republians will certainly try; but Hillary will NEVER get elected president

[mmonk]

35. To be determined.

Should the House engage in that, it alone is impeachment whether or not the Senate convicts. Since impeachment is political rather than legal, you're guess is good as mine without further knowledge.

[Motown_Johnny]

39. you need 2/3 of the Senate to convict

Unless there is something terribly damning, I don't see that happening.

If evidence that bad existed she would get indicted.

[mmonk]

43. I believe the term impeached does not require conviction.

[Motown_Johnny]

45. Sorry, "Remove from office" is the correct term, not "convict"

my bad.

[mmonk]

51. No problem. Many of us had the same discussions here

concerning Bush|Cheney during those years until Pelosi said it was off the table.

[SFnomad]

57. Convict is the correct term.

Impeachment is done in the House.

The trial is done in the Senate and they either convict or acquit based upon the charges delivered from the House.

Article I, Section 3:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Article II, Section 4:
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.

[Vinca]

46. If Hillary is elected, toenail fungus will be a cause for impeachment.

Peanut butter on toast will be a cause for impeachment. Tuesday will be a cause for impeachment. It will be one impeachment after the other and nothing will get done for yet another 4 years.

[LonePirate]

56. Congress will not impeach a newly elected first term president.

Will they try it in 2018 to gin up mid-year election support? Who knows. However, there will be no way impeachment in 2017 as the public will deem it sour grapes over losing the election.

[Bleacher Creature]

59. Only in your dreams.

But feel free to keep the dream alive (although I'm not sure DU is going to be your best place to do it).

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. We hace considered that

yes

[Samantha]

63. No, if you want to go so far as to call this a crime (at this stage of the game)

a President can only be impeached for "events" that happen while he or she is in office.

Sam

[brooklynite]

64. No if I were going to fantasize, I'd imagine her being impeached for BENGHAZI!

Just as unlikely.

[msanthrope]

72. I'm waiting for someone to start shooting melons in their backyard, and breathlessly

reporting the results here.

[chillfactor]

77. no n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

78. Hillary could always "buy" her way out of impeachment with support for the TPP, fracking, etc.

If that makes you feel any better.

[peacebird]

79. Of course they will begin impeqchment hearings on day one, were she ever elected.

She & Bill would make History as first married couple to both be impeached.

[monicaangela]

82. How bad would this look for the people of the U.S.

Just imagine, voting to elect another Clinton and that one gets impeached also. What harm this would do to the democratic party? I say tremendous harm, not to mention the millions if not billions it would cost us as a nation to impeach her. This would make all of us look stupid in this nation, and rightly so IMHO.

[magical thyme]

86. It doesn't matter. The simple fact is that with a Clinton in the WH, scandals and impeachment will

rule the day. All day, every day for however long.

The good news is, it might force the GOP to vote against TPP, any changes to SS, and anything else she tries to do, just in principle.

[pat_k]

93. Don't put anything past republican congress.

They wanted to impeach Obama for no reason. (But, heaven forbid impeacing Bush for war crimes.)

[Attorney in Texas]

95. I think this misses the point. The "scandal" is right-wing bullshit. But the content of the emails

shows Clinton saying and doing things privately that are contrary to what she was saying publicly and reinforces Clinton's fatal weakness of untrustworthiness.

This won't lead to anyone's impeachment, but if we are foolish enough to nominate her, it will lead to the Republican winning because the emails reinforce what independent voters already believe about Clinton's untrustworthiness.

[Motown_Johnny]

96. It isn't bullshit. She never should have done it.

one more little drip to add to the list....


http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevemorgan/2016/03/05/new-name-surfaces-in-clintons-email-scandal/#61194b601116



^snip^

Did Posner ask Norton for an introduction to Clinton? Did Clinton know that Posner was on the board at SECNAP – and CEO at eChinaCash – when she did business with them? What role, if any, did Posner have in connection with Clinton’s private email server? Did Posner provide anyone in China with access to SECNAP’s technology – which could have led to the cyber attacks on Clinton’s server? Did Posner or anyone else in China have access to some or all of Hillary Clinton’s emails?

[Attorney in Texas]

97. I agree it was an error, and I agree that she was godawful about admitting her error, but it is an

error that many Republican figures have committed.

[Motown_Johnny]

98. Not true. Nobody else had 22 top secret emails on a private server.

Nothing even close to this has been done by anyone else of any party.

[Attorney in Texas]

99. We're on the same side here so don't take this as an attack, but didn't Colin Powell do this, too?

State Dept. Concludes Past Secretaries Of State "Definitively" Handled Classified Information On Private Email

[Motown_Johnny]

103. A couple classified emails. None top secret

Not the same thing at all.

[itsrobert]

100. And Bill Clinton runs as the VP

and once Hillary resigns than it is President Bill Clinton for 4 more years!!!

[amborin]

101. yes, but she won't be elected so it won't matter

[beachbum bob]

102. was hillary president when the email and servers were an issue?

don't think so, the answer is no as impeachment has to be based on the "president" doing the action...but good try any ways....luckily if bernie was elected, he couldn't be impeached for being a CO....just saying

[EffieBlack]

104. No.

[randome]

106. Three years from now, in the middle of Clinton's first term as President...

...we will still be hearing how the FBI is going to indict her. Any. Day. Now.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]