legal question about impeachment

[SivaGanesha 2]

Does anyone know if a president can be impeached for something they did before taking office? Can they only be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors" committed while in office? Or can they be impeached if accused of crimes that took place before they took office?

For example, if a president is accused of having--in the past while a private citizen--committed a sexual assault, could they be impeached?

Or if a president is accused of having--in the past while a member of cabinet--handled classified emails illegally, could they be impeached?

The only three presidents against whom impeachment was seriously considered--A. Johnson, Nixon, and B. Clinton--all were accused of things while in office, although B. Clinton's impeachment had its origins in the Paula Jones case which predated his becoming president.

Note that I'm not arguing either for or against these candidates being guilty of what they are accused of--nor am I arguing either for or against their being impeached. I'm just wondering whether it is theoretically possible to impeach a president for something they did before becoming president.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[SkyDekker 1,465]

SivaGanesha

Does anyone know if a president can be impeached for something they did before taking office? Can they only be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors" committed while in office? Or can they be impeached if accused of crimes that took place before they took office?

For example, if a president is accused of having--in the past while a private citizen--committed a sexual assault, could they be impeached?

Or if a president is accused of having--in the past while a member of cabinet--handled classified emails illegally, could they be impeached?

The only three presidents against whom impeachment was seriously considered--A. Johnson, Nixon, and B. Clinton--all were accused of things while in office, although B. Clinton's impeachment had its origins in the Paula Jones case which predated his becoming president.

Note that I'm not arguing either for or against these candidates being guilty of what they are accused of--nor am I arguing either for or against their being impeached. I'm just wondering whether it is theoretically possible to impeach a president for something they did before becoming president.

The answer to that question is not established.

[rushmc 23]

Does a non resident expert

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Short answer: Probably.

Keep in mind that "Impeachment" isn't limited to the office of president.
It's the removal process for any elected official.

If the elected official is accused of "bad behavior", then they get a hearing of some sort, and if the folks in charge of that hearing decide that the behavior warrants removal, then they do it.

It doesn't happen a whole lot, at any level, because the person facing impeachment will usually "see the writing on the wall" and resign before facing any public hearing.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rushmc

Does a non resident expert

Then what is the answer?

Do you have the actual intelligence to put an answer together in legible English?

[rehmwa 2]

SivaGanesha

For example, if a president is accused of having--in the past while a private citizen--committed a sexual assault, could they be impeached?

Or if a president is accused of having--in the past while a member of cabinet--handled classified emails illegally, could they be impeached?

just....hypothetical examples..... of course

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[muff528 3]

Also, "impeachment" is really just a formal accusation (indictment) by those who are given the power to do so. Usually the House of Reps. (maybe ONLY the Reps.? Not sure.) so I think, technically, they can bring charges whenever they want, even frivolous charges if they vote to do that. Depends on how silly they want to look. Getting a conviction and removal from office is another matter.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

muff528

Also, "impeachment" is really just a formal accusation (indictment) by those who are given the power to do so. Usually the House of Reps. (maybe ONLY the Reps.? Not sure.) so I think, technically, they can bring charges whenever they want, even frivolous charges if they vote to do that. Depends on how silly they want to look. Getting a conviction and removal from office is another matter.

House votes on Article of Impeachment by simple majority.

Senate then becomes the court and requires two thirds for conviction.

Ability to appeal is somewhat murky. But Rush will chime in with his wealth of knowledge and explain how that works.

[billvon 3,119]

>Keep in mind that "Impeachment" isn't limited to the office of president.
>It's the removal process for any elected official.

Agreed. But keep in mind that the president is effectively immune to ordinary criminal prosecutions during his term as president, and can only be removed from his office for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Thus impeachment becomes much more important, as it is the sole method by which a president can be charged with something.

However, none of the above applies to a president-elect. If Clinton is elected and found guilty of mishandling of classified documents (or Trump is elected and found guilty of fraud, assault or rape) then they can be indicted, prosecuted and found guilty (or innocent) like anyone else before they begin their term.

If the trial is ongoing when they take office, the trial would most likely be suspended until the end of their presidency per the Justice Department's 1973 decision. At that point they would need to be impeached, requiring that the process start all over - and with a more limited set of applicable crimes.

[JerryBaumchen 1,468]

Hi Bill,

Quote

the president is effectively immune to ordinary criminal prosecutions

As Richard Nixon said to David Frost in the Nixon/Frost interviews: 'If the President does it, it is not illegal.'

I guess that did not work out so great.



Jerry Baumchen

[rehmwa 2]

Perhaps the most effective solution would be to "PRE-Impeach" both of them.

Then whichever gets in, can be immediately escorted out and we can take whoever succession planning gives us.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

But keep in mind that the president is effectively immune to ordinary criminal prosecutions during his term as president, and can only be removed from his office for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Thus impeachment becomes much more important, as it is the sole method by which a president can be charged with something.

This isn't true. Impeachment and criminal proceedings (or civil) are separate proceedings. Conviction in one does not constitute a conviction in the other.

If a President is charged with a crime it is more likely the proceedings would be stayed until after the term. That term could of course be shortened by a successful impeachment.

[billvon 3,119]

>Impeachment and criminal proceedings (or civil) are separate proceedings.
>Conviction in one does not constitute a conviction in the other.

Correct. They are different.

>If a President is charged with a crime it is more likely the proceedings would be
>stayed until after the term.

Agreed; which is what I said above.

[kallend 2,150]

rushmc

Does a non resident expert

Does a non-resident expert do what? That sentence fragment makes no sense whatsoever.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JerryBaumchen 1,468]

Hi John,

Quote

makes no sense whatsoever

Typical rushmc posting IMO.



Jerry Baumchen