Why do Trump supporters think that Trump would be validated in prosecuting Clinton? It would be an impeachable offense?
Laurence Tribe, Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard Law School:
(Via email:) “Under the laws and Justice Department regulations governing federal prosecution, a President Trump would not have legal authority to direct the Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor to ‘look into’ Hillary Clinton’s email situation or the Clinton Foundation or anything else. That’s not within a President’s power.
The only precedents for the kind of vow Trump made in last night’s debate are to be found in dictatorships and banana republics, not the United States. The closest parallel may be what [Viktor] Yanukovych (a former Paul Manafort client) did to [Yulia] Tymoshenko in Ukraine.
Making threats or vows to use a nation’s criminal justice system against one’s vanquished political opponent is worse than terrible policy: it’s incompatible with the survival of a stable constitutional republic and, under our Constitution, would represent an abuse of power so grave that it would be an impeachable offense—one reminiscent of Richard Nixon’s deliberate use of the IRS to go after his political enemies.”
[In a second email, Tribe added that] “some of the political leaders who’ve jailed their political opponents [in the past] have been Hugo Chávez, Recep Erdoğan, Robert Mugabe, Manuel Noriega, Augusto Pinochet and, of course, Vladimir Putin.”
And anyway - Trump supporters also claim that "Donald has the goods on her" what goods? You mean evidence of criminal behavior? Does he know something that the FBI doesn't? Is he deliberately withholding incriminating evidence from law enforcement? That could be considered tantamount to aiding and abetting, if there is legitimate evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
Unless you have and can present new, uninvestigated evidence that you are withholding for some reason, anything else is purely hearsay and no one has any obligation to believe you.
- Anonymous3 years agoFavorite Answer
Trump doesn't understand the job he just applied for.
- honestamericanLv 73 years ago
Simple fact is that is one person's opinion!
An opinion which did not include and of the things Hillary did!
Like having an underling transfer classified material off of government servers to her private server!
Then there is the fact she had emails under subpoena deleted!(FYI-- That is known as 'obstruction of justice'. Which a law professor should know!
Far as I can tell that is just a professor who is part of the establishment covering for more establishment people(Hillary & Trump)! Because make no mistake Trump has become part of the establishment already!
- esim345Lv 73 years ago
It would be bad if he prosecuted innocent people, just for political reasons.
But that's not what's happening. He's suggesting that he should prosecute her because she committed crimes.
Technically the decision is up to his attorney general, rather than the president. But the attorney general is nominated by the president, and the attorney general knows what the president wants him to do. So that's not always a particularly important distinction.
"Does he know something that the FBI doesn't?"
Not about Hillary. But the FBI already has information that Hillary has broken the law. They announced it months ago. They're not doing anything about it because the current administration is corrupt. But that won't be an issue in a couple months.
- Anonymous3 years ago
Why would even a stupid brain dead neo-liberal believe that seeing that this bag lying BlTCH piece of $hit hillary go to prison for the crimes she has committed be an impeachable offense?
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- BobLv 43 years ago
Sooner or later Trump will be in a guge scandal stay tuned
- 3 years ago
I love how people with no knowledge of the system throw around the word "impeachable"
He cannot FORCE the attorney-General to investigate anything. He can suggest it, and the A-G can either say yes or no.