This is an angle I hadn’t really thought of before. I guess they got OJ on a civil case.
Isn’t a President shielded from cases for the duration, if Hillary wins?
Why a Civil Case Over Emails Could Hurt Hillary Clinton More Than the FBI
. . .
Clinton may have violated civil law if she intentionally thwarted FOIA or the Federal Records Act, which requires public officials to take a number of steps to preserve and make public their work related documents, according to experts and judges handling the matter in the courts. Which means that for many voters it will be Clinton’s trustworthiness that is on trial in the FOIA case.
Because the superdelegates of the D party will ensure she gets the D nomination, and the media will ensure every stupid thing that Trump has ever done (and that list is long) gets constantly dredged up and exaggerated (see recent NYTimes story), meanwhile minimizing (or downright ignoring) all the illegal, unethical, and immoral things that Hillary has done (which is just as long of a list).
Bill Clinton wasn’t shielded from the Paula Jones case, nor the Whitewater case, during his term as President. The Whitewater case (which stemmed from Bill’s term as governor of AR, and dealt with Hillary’s brother-in-law?) got the Ken Starr appointment as special counsel. Ken Starr went beyond the case, and found out about Paula Jones, who sued Bill over something (no one even knows what). Paula was friends with Monica Lewinski, and got Lewinski to spill the beans about a sexual encounter she had had with Bill during the government shutdown of late 1995/early 1996. The encounter was written about in “The Starr Report”, and brought up during the Paula Jones case (even though it probably wasn’t germaine to the trial). Bill, instead of asking about the relevance of the question, asked what the dictionary definition of “sex” was (along with the definition of “is”). As the dictionary definition omitted oral sex, he stated that he had not had sex with Monica Lewinski. Of course, a few weeks later, he admitted that he had had a “inappropriate relationship” with Ms. Lewinski.
The House Judiciary Committee then wrote up impeachment charges, primarily listing “perjury”. The House of Representatives then impeached Mr. Clinton. He was then tried in the Senate, who voted along strict party lines, thus acquitting him (all GOPers voted “guilty”; all Dems voted “not guilty”, but since the GOP needed 67 votes and there were far fewer than 67 GOPers, acquittal was pretty much a foregone conclusion).
So, no… unless the law was changed under Dubya, the President is not immune to civil suits nor criminal charges while sitting as President. Bill Clinton was nearly brought down because of several civil suits (btw, the Whitewater and Paula Jones cases were merely the politically most important cases filed against Bill Clinton as President; he had many others filed against him). But the Bill Clinton case also proved something else - unless it is agreed upon by both parties that the President has almost definitively done something illegal (and egregiously illegal at that), filing impeachment charges and having an impeachment trial are a waste of taxpayer money, as the Senators will vote along Party lines and the President will be acquitted. And if it’s that egregious - obvious that the President will be convicted by the Senate and removed from office - he’ll probably pull a Nixon and resign.
Good history lesson. But I somewhat disagree with the last part of your last paragraph. Nixon resigning gave the same result as if he were impeached and convicted (removed)…he got out of the office. If a Republican President did such things, I would expect the Republican lawmakers to remove him/her from office through impeachment.
I do not expect such honesty from Democratic lawmakers.
My point actually was that if conviction was imminent through impeachment, the President would remove himself to avoid the indignity of being removed. But, like Nixon, he’d probably make a deal with his replacement to avoid prosecution in the courts.
By the way, even at the state level, most politicians in danger of being impeached and removed when there is mounting evidence against them decide to resign rather than be removed. Seriously, if impeachment charges are legit, the simple threat of impeachment is usually enough for a politician to leave. But if the motives are purely political, impeachment attempts crash and burn.
I understand your point, and agree…to a point. My point is that if a Dem politician gets legit impeachment charges leveled against them, they know they can rely on the Dems in the legislative branch to ensure they are not convicted/removed, so therefore they won’t resign. Ala Clinton, Holder, and many others. Some D’s are even re-elected after criminal conviction (Marion Barry)
Meanwhile, if a Repub politician gets legitimate charges, they know the Repubs in the legislative branch won’t shelter them. Ala Nixon, or more recently John Ensign.
Thus I maintain that I believe it’s in the best interest of the Republican Party (and of the country) to unbind the delegates at the convention and prevent Trump from getting the nomination. Even if would-be Trump voter’s get so angry at this as to desert the party, I think this would be less of a disaster than having Trump as the nominee.
Well, I certainly HAVE been wrong before, but I don’t see any other way of this working out. Do you??
There are some other one-in-a-million options here. A TRUE 3rd party candidate could run and prevent Hillary or Trump from getting to 270 electoral votes, and then the House of Representatives would select the next President. This has happened before, but it was a loooooooooooong time ago when we were actually a Republic. We are no longer a Republic, but much more of a Democracy. I wonder what “the people” would do if that happened today. I think I might just stock up on some more supplies…
I agree, maybe 30% of the population looks at him as a person who FINALLY pushes back against all of the leftist **** that gets thrown against anyone with conservative values. I think I am in that group…not a big Trump supporter, but an anti-leftist/media/politician guy.
But it won’t be enough. Each story the NYT and their ilk brings out will whittle away at a few people, and there will be a LOT of stories.
For all his myriad faults, I think Trump has a far better chance of defeating Hillary than any other current or posited candidate. If I were a betting man, I would put his odds of success at 60-40.
The Democrats have stacked the deck through their control of the news networks, academia, and popular culture. A successful challenger has to change the rules of the game to win. Trump is the only person so far who has shown his ability to do that. His recent rise in the polls shows this is working.