I did some digging to get a somewhat cogent answer to that question, and , in brief, here is what I found so far:

First, while there is a consensus that there are sufficient grounds for the FBI to recommend indictment, the chances of the Lynch-Obama duumverate permitting indictment is, at best and for purely political reasons, slim.

Second, if the charges are sufficiently egregious (multiple felonies), and if the Justice Department does not refer the matter to a grand jury for review and possible prosecution, it is generally believed that there will be electrifying high-profile resignations from and sensitive leaks by the FBI, the intelligence community and the Justice Department which, presumably, would adversely affect Hillary’s ability to win at the convention or in a general election.  

Third, from a constitutional standpoint there is no legal reason for Hillary to withdraw her candidacy before the convention, and Hillary, with the assistance of the media, would draw upon “the court of public opinion” to get elected and to see her through to inauguration in January.  (Note: the Constitution only lists qualifications for a president, not disqualifications; adding ex post facto disqualifiers would be unconstitutional.)

Fourth, since it’s a near certainty that Hillary will not withdraw even if indicted before the convention,  a “brokered convention”  might well ensue which could force her out. Though her delegates are committed to supporting her on the first round of balloting, the 712 super delegates could easily bolt and rally around another candidate if they felt the chances of her election had been seriously jeopardized. Party loyalty could well trump loyalty to Hillary.

Fifth, if Hillary is indicted, there is no constitutional requirement for her to withdraw. Period.

Sixth, if Hillary is indicted, wins the general election and delays the trial until after inauguration in January, per Art II Sec 4 only impeachment by a majority in the House and conviction by 2/3 vote in the Senate can remove her from office. (Note: indictment is not an impeachable offense;  and an impeachable offense is not necessarily an indictable offense; impeachment is a political process.) And if she’s not convicted by the Senate, which is the most likely scenario, Hillary skates free—at least while she’s president. If she leaves office before the 5-year statute of limitation which begins ticking from date of indictment is met--in other words, she’s not elected to a second term--she can still be tried. (Note: for terrorism and financial crimes the statute of limitations is 8 and 10 years respectively.)

Seventh, a sitting president can order the AG to drop all charges, or to not either pursue prosecution or to enforce any sentence imposed. Such an action would surely place into question her constitutional responsibility to “faithfully execute the laws” of the United States and would be, therefore, an impeachable offense.

Eighth, since there is no limit on a president’s pardoning authority, but as no president or governor has ever attempted to pardon himself/herself in the past, Hillary’s pardoning herself would be unprecedented and could easily be construed by the public and Congress as morally—not legally—reprehensible.  The repugnancy of a self-pardon might well be sufficient for an otherwise reluctant Congress to impeach, try and remove her  from office.

Conclusions: my guess is that a narcissistic Hillary Clinton would be more than willing to put the country through the wringer to achieve political power--public interest, traditional standards of rectitude and moral conduct be damned.

If nothing else, these unseemly developments should spark renewed interest in an Art V Convention of States to tighten up qualifications for presidential candidates, to say nothing of limiting the constitutional authority of an increasingly imperial Executive Branch. These acrid developments should also both incur the moral outrage of the People and encourage individual States to  review their election standards as well.

If the charges are as substantive, well-founded and egregious as many on both the left and right agree they are, and if 1) Hillary wins the general election and, 2)  Congress abdicates is constitutional responsibility to impeach and remove her from office, then all bets are off as to the viability of this once venerable constitutional republic. If massive marches on the White House to force her resignation are not attempted or don't succeed, then secession or rebellion can be Americans' only salvation.

Opinerlog.blogspot.com

Views: 26

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comment by M-AR-15-5.56X45! on July 4, 2016 at 6:08am

We need our representatives in Congress to stand up and do their jobs. Rally behind the likes of Ghomert, stood up against the shittydiapered dems on their sit in.

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Mike LesterPolitical Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Pat Cross

ALERT ALERT

New York's Green Light Law - Allows Illegal Aliens To Get Driver’s Licenses

New York passed a law to allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses earlier this year but it was held up by challenges.

Now it is set to take effect this week.

In typical leftist fashion, supporters claim this is going to somehow make New York’s roads safer for everyone.

Could it really be about voting?

FOX News reports:

Illegal immigrants to be able to get driver’s licenses in NY after legal challenge fails.

Illegal immigrants in New York will able to obtain driver’s licenses starting next week after a last-minute legal challenge was dismissed — making it the 13th state to allow the practice, but one that critics say is unconstitutional.

The Green Light Law, signed by Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo earlier this year, allows anyone to apply for a driver’s license regardless of immigration status and does not require a Social Security number.

Illegal immigrants can use a combination of documents that include a valid passport from a foreign country and a valid foreign driver’s license, as long as it has been expired for less than two years.

“After waiting 18 years to have their right to drive restored, thanks to our legislature, New York can now officially join 12 other states in making driver’s licenses legally available to all residents,” New York Immigration Coalition Executive Director Steve Choi said in a statement this week, arguing that it will make roads safer and the economy stronger.

County clerks in New York have concerns and are sounding an alarm.

CBS News in Albany reports:

County clerks concerned by loopholes in Green Light law.

Undocumented immigrants now have the green light to get a driver’s license in New York…but several county clerks in the Capital Region are concerned.

Saratoga County Clerk Craig Hayner said, “We found that everything we were concerned about as far as fraud and all sorts of other things are in that bill, in that regulation and we’re very concerned.”

Hayner tells CBS6’s Lynsey Smith there are a few loopholes in the Green Light Law.

Loopholes, such as a person coming in to get their license and not having to provide their social security number.

“That could lead to criminals coming from other states, coming in and use that as a way to defraud by just simply saying they don’t have a social security number…and that’s a very dangerous loophole,” replied Hayner.

Does anyone believe this is going to make New York safer or that this is really about driving?

Delusional Democrats

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service