Who would get impeached first - Trump or Hillary?

Hillary is too tricky to get caught early. It would be Trump for either:
-saying that he was going back to the Democrat party after election
-starting a twitter war with KimJungUn that ended in a nuclear attack.

I'm still coming to terms that these are the two candidates.

This election would be tailor-made for a independent run.

Whatever happens in this election wouldn't surprise me.

Hillary is coated in teflon. She literally has a wake of bodies (all ruled as very suspicious suicides) behind her 30+ year rise to the top. Trump has deep pockets but doesn't have her ability to dodge every charge. She has gotten out of every single thing that she's fricked up. She puts several people between her and the "act" and keeps herself insulated. Trump is too arrogant and would definitely be impeached before her.

I could see it go either way.

Scandal follows Hillary everywhere she goes.... from the Rose Law firm in Little Rock... to her role as First Lady... to her role as Secretary of State... to her role at the Clinton Foundation. Everywhere she goes, she gets wrapped up in scandal.

So I imagine scandal is headed her way if she is sworn in as president.

But Trump has a better shot of being impeached, simply because the odds are stacked against him. If a major scandal were to engulf his administration, the Democrats would try to pounce so they could impeach the president, and set the opposition party back for years (See GOP after the Watergate scandal). But Trump would also lack the support from Congressional Republicans who already hate him.

If Hillary is ever impeached, the Democrats will circle the wagons behind her and support her no matter how severe the allegations. The GOP will likely not take any risk in defending Trump. So in that sense, Trump would be more likely to be impeached if something were to happen.

quote:

---

You're a moron.

---

Okay, here ya go Mr. Constitutional Scholar:

What Trump says:
One of the things I’m going to do if I win, and I hope we do, and we’re certainly leading, is I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re going to open up those libel laws so that when The New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.

(What Trump probably means by “opening up” our libel laws is that, as president, he would work to overturn a line of landmark Supreme Court decisions dating back to the court’s unanimous 1964 decision in The New York Times v. Sullivan.)

What the Constitution says:
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

What Trump says:

Trump told Yahoo News that he would consider requiring Muslim-Americans to register with a government database, or worse, mandating that they carry special identification cards that note their faith.


What the Constitution says:
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Amendment XV
Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


What Trump says:

(On how to combat ISIS):
We go in, we knock the hell out of them, take the oil.


What the Constitution says:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11:

[The Congress shall have Power...] To declare War …

One has ALREADY broken the law, one hasn't.




Next question.

I'll respond to your disjointed thoughts as best I can ...

quote:

---

When there's a threat to national security by radical Islamists, and were allowing refugees to come in freely, that is a proper way to protect the security of the citizens of our country. It's not unreasonable search when there's a national security threat.

---

I assume you're referring to the various Constitutional violations I specified in my previous post. Again, please read Trump’s bizarre proposal for registering Muslim-Americans and assigning them religious ID cards, and then, for your convenience, I’ll requote:

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You apparently find these laws an annoying hinderance to Trump’s witch hunt, but that hardly changes the fact that his proposals run contrary to them.

Regarding Trump’s contempt for libel laws, the ones he refers to specifically were enacted to redress previous laws that were heavily skewed in favor of plaintiffs—plaintiffs like Trump, who could use them to scare those daring to criticize him with costly defamation law suits. As the Supreme Court noted in Sullivan, the effect of all this was to discourage uninhibited expression of fact or opinion—good maybe for Russia or North Korea, but not for the good old U.S. of A.

“And on his quote on ISIS, it's common knowledge that the president doesn't have the power to declare war.”

Bravo. Now please tell Mr. Trump this.

“I'm assuming you're a liberal?”

In fact, I vote Republican, Democrat or third party depending on the candidates and the issues at hand. And in this particular case, I would state precisely what I have whether I was liberal, conservative, libertarian, monarchist or fascist. Because I am stating nothing more than the facts as they present themselves.

I have done my best to assist you in understanding these matters and I can do no more. Except perhaps to encourage you to read the Constitution along with scholarly opinion from all sides on its use or misuse in the life of our nation.