Public Advocate's new project: Clinton Investigative Commission, to Impeach Hillary Clinton
Updated 1:06 p.m. Friday, September 9
A week ago, Public Advocate president, Eugene Delgaudio, decided Impeachment of Hillary Clinton is an option and began the work to launch an effort under the project name Clinton Investigative Commission. A similar effort was launched against her husband led by Delgaudio years ago.
As president of the sponsor group that paid for the Clinton Investigative Commission in 1997, the group collected and presented petitions demanding Congress impeach Bill Clinton which the House of Representatives did pass and then the Senate considered but did not have to the required votes to convict Bill Clinton.
It turns out that National Review magazine agrees with our thinking here at Public Advocate on impeachment and has been advocating it for months according to their online report. Andrew McCarthy lays out the case for impeachment in a reasonable and reasoned fashion.
Now Public Advocate's project might not appear so "unthinkable" to some of our many critics. Thank you National Review.
(National Review was still wrong about supporing John Roberts to the Supreme Court and we were proved right in opposing him)
National Review says the great amount of allegations of crimes being committed is serious enough for Congress to investigate, convict, punish, and otherwise sanction Hillary Clinton so few people object on those grounds to the idea of impeachment.
National Review than reports:
"the main objection to impeachment is the claim that, because the former secretary of state does not currently hold public office, there is nothing from which to remove her. Hence, as a non-incumbent who merely seeks the nation's highest office - after proving herself manifestly unfit in a subordinate office - she is said to be immune from impeachment. How could she be impeached from the presidency, the question is posed, if she is not president? How could she be removed from an office she does not hold based on offenses not committed while wielding presidential power?
These questions and the non-incumbency theory behind them fundamentally misconstrue the constitutional remedy of impeachment, which is not limited to removal from power but includes disqualification from future office. Moreover, their premise is wrong: The proceeding against Clinton would not be a presidential impeachment; it would be an impeachment based on her abuses of power as secretary of state, which would have the constitutional effect of disqualifying her for the presidency.
The Constitution does not limit impeachment to incumbent officials. Article I endows the House of Representatives with the "sole Power of Impeachment" - i.e., the power to file articles of impeachment. It further empowers the Senate with "the sole Power to try all Impeachments." Significantly, in prescribing the standard for conviction in the Senate, Article I, Section 3 states that "no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present" (emphasis added)."