Article

2016-01-30 Home Front: WoT

FBI's Hillary Investigation 'Far More Advanced' Than Public Knows

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Besoeker 2016-01-30 00:47|| || Front Page|| [11128 views ] Top

#1 "...and a much faster pace."

Now, now - give them some time. It takes a wile to write up a 3,700 count indictment.

Espionage is the pinnacle charge - high treason. Bring it on!!

Posted by Lone Ranger 2016-01-30 06:09|| 2016-01-30 06:09|| Front Page Top

#2 Ya'll know that, technically, she has to be impeached before she can be tried, right?

Posted by badanov 2016-01-30 07:09|| http://www.chriscovert.net 2016-01-30 07:09|| Front Page Top

#3 B., the purpose of impeachment is removal from office. After removal the person can be tried in the courts. No need to remove the beast from office so proceed directly to trial in the courts. No? Yes?

Posted by Sven the pelter 2016-01-30 08:24|| 2016-01-30 08:24|| Front Page Top

#4 She holds no public office, Bad. I'm curious about your reasoning?

Posted by Frank G 2016-01-30 09:11|| 2016-01-30 09:11|| Front Page Top

#5 She holds no public office, Bad. I'm curious about your reasoning?

Her alleged crimes were committed while she held office. If she is to be charged for those crimes, she should be impeached. It doesn't matter if she currently holds the office. It only matters if those alleged crimes were committed while she held office, and if a charge is pending.

Yes, under that reasoning, Nixon could still be impeached as could any number of other presidents including Bush 43.

If anyone tries to charge her for those crimes, I promise, this will come up in court.

Posted by badanov 2016-01-30 09:48|| http://www.chriscovert.net 2016-01-30 09:48|| Front Page Top

#6 They will argue, and the courts will agree, that she enjoyed limited immunity under the Constitution and that that immunity extends to her even as she left office.

The reasoning is if she committed those crimes in the course of her duties as SoS, the same immunity applies to her, so, ergo, she must be impeached.

Posted by badanov 2016-01-30 09:53|| http://www.chriscovert.net 2016-01-30 09:53|| Front Page Top

#7 I expect this will be carefully staged following the Iowa showing. If her numbers are down then 'JJ and Co.' will work to distance Clintons from the Damnocrats.

Posted by Skidmark 2016-01-30 10:30|| 2016-01-30 10:30|| Front Page Top

#8 , Article II of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that "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." Notice the CONVICTION is a separate legal issue from the IMPEACHMENT, and criminal conviction may precede impeachment. Or it may follow it. But in neither case does it require impeachment first.

Upon conviction, the official is automatically removed from office and may also be barred from holding future office. The removed official is also liable to criminal prosecution. The President may not grant a pardon in the impeachment case, but may in any resulting criminal case.

Although the subject of the charge is criminal action, it does not constitute a criminal trial; the only question under consideration is the removal of the individual from office, and the possibility of a subsequent vote preventing the removed official from ever again holding political office in the jurisdiction.

Impeachment is only about the office. Crimes are prosecuted by criminal courts. This is why you can still hold office after conviction. Impeachment is only about removal from office.

The indictment goes forward regardless of impeachment. Impeachment now since the accused is already removed from office can only concern itself with barring the accused from holding any office in federal government again.

As for immunity, that's a similar issue - the office is not a shield against criminal behavior.

Didnt Nixon teach you people anything?

Posted by Voldemort Glunter6011 2016-01-30 11:30|| 2016-01-30 11:30|| Front Page Top

#9 ..yeah, not to have a (R) behind your name when engaged in criminal behavior.

Posted by Procopius2k 2016-01-30 12:44|| 2016-01-30 12:44|| Front Page Top

#10 The case for the Biden/Warren "rescue the Democratic Party" strategy is more and more likely. If you are an Iranian Agent in the current administration's inner circle (ValJar) and you have used the tools of manipulation over a narcissistic child (Champ), and now see a way to insert an utter idiot (Biden) that you can run like the New York Central RR, and an ambitious communist feminist (Fauxcahontis) as President in waiting, you need to wring the nomination from the Clinton Global Criminal Enterprise carefully, so as not unleash the storm of nasty dirt she has on everything Democrat. So you slowly twist the vice of actual law enforcement until she agrees to fold, probably as an unforeseen medical condition, with the quid pro quo of a pardon and containment of the bleeding, and then rescue the nation from the egomaniacal fool you have fed the Republican/independent peasants (Trump) who scares the actual thinking people. Voila, 12 more years to loot, pillage, and destroy mankind's last best hope to stave off the next dark ages of Islamic/Chinese tyranny.

Posted by NoMoreBS 2016-01-30 13:11|| 2016-01-30 13:11|| Front Page Top

#11 N., I wish I could BS, but I can't. :-(

Posted by Sven the pelter 2016-01-30 13:16|| 2016-01-30 13:16|| Front Page Top

#12 ... could call BS ...

Posted by Sven the pelter 2016-01-30 13:17|| 2016-01-30 13:17|| Front Page Top

#13 No MoreBs, I'm thinking more Bloomberg?Biden.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2016-01-30 18:56|| 2016-01-30 18:56|| Front Page Top

#14 at this point, a Biden-Warren ticket is a fading possibility given the delegate selection rules

another month or so and will be essentially impossible under these rules

so I think this part of the NoMoreBS theory has a major problem

Posted by lord garth 2016-01-30 18:58|| 2016-01-30 18:58|| Front Page Top

#15 another month or so and will be essentially impossible under these rules

We don't need no stinking rules or laws (See - NJ SC overrule the law on late entry for Senator to keep the seat (D))
Power is self rationalizing and self justifying.

Posted by Procopius2k 2016-01-30 20:47|| 2016-01-30 20:47|| Front Page Top

23:43 Bov Flimbers
23:33 Bov Flimbers
23:16 Alaska Paul
22:56 newc
22:31 chris
22:27 chris
21:29 CrazyFool
21:27 swksvolFF
21:25 badanov
20:47 Procopius2k
19:41 Zenobia Floger6220
19:33 Zenobia Floger6220
19:13 Pappy
19:11 Pappy
19:04 USN, Ret.
19:00 Pappy
18:58 lord garth
18:56 Deacon Blues
18:54 Pappy
18:51 Deacon Blues
18:50 Deacon Blues
18:49 Deacon Blues
18:43 Pappy
18:18 Grunter