UKC

How long before she is impeached ?

It seems likely that the Republicans will still control the House (and the Senate), and so could initiate the first stage of the process (requires a simple majority), should they decide she has a case to answer on "high crimes and misdemeanours". Does her email server constitute a misdemeanour ? Yes if the House says so !

Given how toxic this election is, how polarised the US has become, it's pretty clear that Clinton is going to have a lot of conflict with Congress over the next 4 years. The next appointee to the Supreme Court is going to be pivotal and the Reps have already blocked it for 6 months - is there anything to stop them doing so indefinitely ?

So my guess is that we'll see 2 years of stalemate, a big swing to the far right in the mid terms, followed by impeachment

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


At least one republican has this as their basis for not supporting Trump.


I dunno it could eventually provoke a counterswing. The end result will be a seriously divided country though.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

If Clinton wins I think the Clinton clan, Bill and H., will be insufferable and I'm dreading it.

On the other hand if I was American I would never ever vote for Trump, that's for sure.

In reply to KevinD:


I suspect that rather than the usual "coat tails" effect, a lot of Reps who have been reluctant to campaign for Trump will have put all their efforts into congressional battles, so I'd expect little change in Congress


I get the impression that most of Clinton's agenda is based around legislative action - so an inability to work with congress would be seen as a failure of hers, and defeats would galvanise her opponents. Trump on the other hand seems to be more focused on executive action - and that's the worry

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I'm confused, what is the problem with having your own email server at home?

In reply to The Lemming:

It's not that hard to find out is it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/37824415/the-most-simple-explanation-...

In reply to The Lemming:

If emails contain military secrets, they should be held on military hardware.
There are problems fitting this around modern ways of working, but that should definitely be the start point for everything.
If an army captain access military secrets on his personal iPhone, I would have thought that was worthy of a court martial, but I don't actually know

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Yes, the constitution. If that's not enough we are lost.

In reply to Jimbocz:


I thought it was a grey area. Since when the rules were set up no one really expected something so childish.

In reply to Jimbocz:

The constitution says it's up to the senate to approve the presidential nominees, there is nothing there to stop them from saying no to every nominee, and it seems that some plan to do just that

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/nov/01/republican-senators-oppose-clin...

"Checks and balances" have always been a defining feature of the US Constitution, but it authors clearly assumed a level of intelligence and decency that starting to look a bit misguided. Everyone knows how crucial the next appointment is, and lets not forget the 2000 election was decided by the SC voting upon partisan lines.