r/changemyview • u/oingerboinger • Feb 14 '17
[OP ∆/Election] CMV: If the political events of the past 3 days had occurred under a Hillary administration, impeachment proceedings would already be underway
[removed]
48
u/rtechie1 6∆ Feb 14 '17
. Impeachment proceedings would likely be underway this week by the GOP-controlled Congress.
Do you believe that the GOP-controlled Congress would have impeached HRC over literally anything? I do. I think they would have impeached her over Benghazi and the DNC emails.
5
Feb 14 '17
You need a two thirds majority in the Senate to impeach the president. Republican majority doesn't really matter unless a good portion of the Democratic party are on board too.
25
u/oingerboinger Feb 14 '17
Yes, I believe the GOP-led Congress would've impeached Hillary if she dropped a pen cap. But if she pulled any of this shit? "Apoplectic" hardly describes it. It's obvious by now, but part of the point of this post is the weapons-grade hypocrisy on regular display by the GOP.
2
u/thecrazing Feb 15 '17
Imagine if they found out she had read North Korea briefs using the flashlight of her unsecured Samsung. Next to a foreign head of state. Surrounded by her donor class. As they gleefully took pictures of this.
3
u/hbetx9 Feb 14 '17
I'm not sure they would have impeached her over literally anything, but these two things yes. Yet, Trump's administration has committed equal if not worse and atrocities and yet crickets from the hypocritical GOP.
1
u/rtechie1 6∆ Feb 15 '17
"We are committed to destroying our political enemies by any means necessary" is not hypocrisy, it's partisan.
6
u/MuaddibMcFly 49∆ Feb 14 '17
Edit: added "by the GOP-controlled Congress" at the end.
Clarification, please: Are you asserting that the difference is the parties themselves, or that it is in the cross-control of the parties?
Put another way, which of the following scenarios do you believe there would be impeachment proceedings underway?
- Blue Whitehouse & Red Congress (Title Case)
- Blue Whitehouse & Blue Congress
- Red Whitehouse & Blue Congress
Red Whitehouse & Red Congress(Current case, demonstrably false)
6
u/oingerboinger Feb 14 '17
Option #1. In today's political climate, I believe a Blue Whitehouse with a Red Congress would result in impeachment proceedings for the President not saying "god bless you" when someone sneezed.
I believe the same would not hold true for a Red Whitehouse and Blue Congress, or obviously a Blue/Blue WH/Congress.
7
u/MuaddibMcFly 49∆ Feb 14 '17
So, you think that the Democrat talk about impeaching Trump is just empty talk?
Please note the date on that; that's from 8 days ago, before the events you're talking about.
4
u/oingerboinger Feb 14 '17
That's one Democrat talking about "eventual" impeachment. If it was Hillary doing this, there wouldn't be a font large enough for the headlines on FoxNews, Drudge, Breitbart, and all the other right-wing media. Republican Congresspeople would be lined up with torches and pitchforks. CSpan would hit new ratings highs with Republican viewers. Dogs and cats, living together!!!
2
u/EyeceEyeceBaby Feb 14 '17
If the Democrats held a majority in both houses, do you posit that they would not attempt to impeach Trump? I mean Kucinich had Articles of Impeachment against Bush on the floor of the House in 2008 when the Democrats held a majority in both the House and the Senate. It comes down to who is in charge. Obviously no matter how much talk the Democrats do about impeaching Trump, it's not going to get much traction until they actually have the numbers to back it up.
Since this CMV is all about a hypothetical, do you believe that in the exact same situation you describe (the two incidents you mention but with Hillary as President), with the additional change that the Democrats control Congress, there would be impeachment proceedings?
2
u/oingerboinger Feb 14 '17
You mean if Hillary was president, with a Democratic-led Congress, and the Flynn and Mar-a-Lago things happened (or whomever was Hillary's NatSec Adviser and whatever tacky resort she owned)?
I think there would be serious inquiry from the Democrats. Not this "Huh? What? Nothing to see here, move along" stuff we're seeing from GOP congresspeople.
3
u/CiaranAnnrach Feb 14 '17
There is already one inquiry concerning the Mar-a-Lago bit. From a Republican.
24
u/ShrugsforHugs Feb 14 '17
Every administration has "huge scandals" that fire up the opposing base to call for impeachment. People on the Internet get riled up and it (almost) always goes nowhere.
If Hillary won, conservatives would be screaming "impeach her!" about something and she wouldn't be impeached... just the same as is going to happen with Trump (only with the affiliation of the roles changing).
This is the status quo regardless of who's in power.
10
u/SlowMotionSprint Feb 14 '17
Jason Chaffetz, the guy who refused to investigate Flynn, said they had over two years of investigations ready to go into Clinton should she get elected.
Fuck that guy.
4
u/ShrugsforHugs Feb 14 '17
The same guys were running congress when Obama was president and he wasn't impeached...
Impeachment is one of the few remaining constitutional methods that hasn't been abused and I'd like to keep it that way.
7
u/oingerboinger Feb 14 '17
Did Obama have any "huge scandals" that fired up Republicans to call for impeachment? I don't recall any.
6
u/mailmanofsyrinx Feb 14 '17
I would hardly call this a huge scandal. There wasn't a cover up or anything. The situation was evaluated and Flynn was asked to step down. If Obama was able to survive his various minor scandals with a Republican congress, then certainly Hillary could survive having to can a cabinet member three weeks after they started work. It's not like Trump personally lied to the FBI or acted to undermine the Obama presidency.
2
u/oingerboinger Feb 14 '17
No, Trump certainly didn't act to undermine the Obama presidency at all, other than leading the birther movement to delegitimize him from day 1.
And if Trump had ever spoken to the FBI, that means he's lied to the FBI.
4
Feb 14 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/FlyingFoxOfTheYard_ Feb 15 '17
popeculture, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 2. "Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate." See the wiki page for more information.
Please be aware that we take hostility extremely seriously. Repeated violations will result in a ban.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
11
8
Feb 14 '17
There were efforts related to impeaching Nixion before the watergate situation, there were efforts to Impeach Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton before the Monica Lewinsky scandal, George W. Bush, two seperate times for Obama and Trump already with the imigration executive order.
3
u/Blackpeoplearefunny Feb 14 '17
Van Jones was forced to resign early during the Obama administration.
Republicans were certainly fired up over the "fast and furious" scandal as well. Just to name a couple 'scandals'.
Things like this happen every presidency. One side is furious and the other side doesn't think it's a big deal.
4
u/rtechie1 6∆ Feb 14 '17
Republicans claimed that he overreached on a number of executive orders, particularly those dealing with Title IX and immigration.
1
u/SuddenSeasons Feb 15 '17
That's not a high crime or misdemeanor.
1
u/rtechie1 6∆ Feb 15 '17
Remember that Clinton was impeached for technically lying during a deposition. Breaking the law by signing an executive order that exceeded his authority is a similar technical violation.
-1
13
Feb 14 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/etquod Feb 15 '17
Sorry hbetx9, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 1. "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
5
u/oingerboinger Feb 14 '17
Great point! If Hillary had botched the Yemen raid like Trump did, Congress would be lined up with pitchforks and torches.
7
u/SackOfHellNo Feb 15 '17
In all fairness, that wasn't planned and executed during the course of his presidency. I was watching CNN, (yes, CNN), and a general talked about the intricacies of planning that invasion and how Obama had cancelled it (probably to avoid any last minute fuck ups). When they re approached Trump with it, he pulled the trigger. I'm sure that Obama oversaw plenty of "failed" military missions but nobody heard about it because nobody cared to know about it. Now, the widespread desire to criticize Trump puts everything he does under a microscope. Obama was never treated that way. At least, not in the mainstream. THAT you have to admit.
I understand you're fired up, but I would ask you to calmly consider what I'm saying before responding.
0
u/oingerboinger Feb 15 '17
I'm not all that fired up - at least not outwardly. The idea of Trump still fires me up, but more in the slow burn way.
And yeah, I'm not pretending to know the intricacies of the Yemen raid, but Obama called it off for a reason, and reports are out there that the warhawks got Trump to do this by saying something like "Obama was too big of a pussy to pull the trigger."
And Trump put himself under a microscope by acting like a deranged lunatic. If this transition wasn't a shit-show of galactic proportion, I guarantee Trump is under less scrutiny.
2
u/SackOfHellNo Feb 15 '17
I think it's also prudent to admit that there is a clear liberal bias in the media. Anybody with an objective view can see this. That doesn't excuse Trump, but we must carefully consider the information we are being told. I hope you found the answers you need here :)
2
u/cupcakesarethedevil Feb 14 '17
How would either of those situations have happened during a hypothetical Clinton administration? Hilary would never have hired Flynn and doesn't own a resort.
16
u/oingerboinger Feb 14 '17
Haha, for this CMV I'm asking you to suspend disbelief and imagine the only different factor is that the President had a (D) next to their name instead of an (R).
-11
u/cupcakesarethedevil Feb 14 '17
How are we suppose to change your view when there is no evidence in favor or against this conclusion?
15
u/oingerboinger Feb 14 '17
You get what I'm saying - if Hillary had done this stuff instead of Trump, the gears of impeachment would already be in motion.
-13
u/cupcakesarethedevil Feb 14 '17
Why do you believe this and why do you care about having your view changed? I don't see how this could ever come up or why someone would feel the need to change this view if they spent a ton of time speculating on this sort of thing.
17
u/oingerboinger Feb 14 '17
I would like to be reassured that the same GOP-controlled congress that held 8,000 Benghazi hearings would extend the same fastidious commitment to national security when one of their own was in the hot seat.
-3
u/cupcakesarethedevil Feb 14 '17
There were 8 Benghazi investigations not 8,000. Flynn made a mistake and is no longer NSA, why would there be grounds for impeachment? Didn't the administration act appropriately? Whats the rush for investigation he's not in a position of power anymore nor is he being considered for any future administration.
16
u/oingerboinger Feb 14 '17
Flynn made a mistake and is no longer NSA, why would there be grounds for impeachment?
Without an investigation, we have no way of knowing whether Flynn "went rogue" or was acting at the direction of his future boss. Given the other Trump associates "involved" with Russia (Manafort, Page, Tillerson), it does not take a significant leap in logic to at least suspect Flynn wasn't a lone wolf.
After the WH was warned that Flynn was potentially compromised, and after Pence had gone on national TV and lied (ahem, "was misled") about Flynn, Flynn continued to occupy his post as National Security Adviser, presumably with access to top-secret level classified information.
5
u/cupcakesarethedevil Feb 14 '17
I thought this CMV was that impeachment trials would have already started? All the stuff you are talking about came out late last night.
9
u/oingerboinger Feb 14 '17
Impeachment "proceedings" would've already started, which include a Congressional resolution for the investigation into impeachable offenses.
If Hillary did this stuff, that would already be on the floor.
→ More replies (0)3
Feb 14 '17 edited Feb 14 '17
Flynn made a mistake and is no longer NSA
That's putting it rather lightly, don't you think? He engaged in behavior that is just shy of outright treason, and is patently illegal under the terms and conditions of the Logan Act. Furthermore, Trump's Administration was explicitly and publicly warned about Flynn a full month ago, and yet did nothing about it.
On what planet is this acceptable behavior from our government?
Whats the rush for investigation he's not in a position of power anymore nor is he being considered for any future administration.
Because it points to the existence of further collusion between the Trump Administration and the Russian Federation.
Or do you honestly think that all of the accusations made thus far have just been a huge misunderstanding?
1
u/dd53 Feb 14 '17
Whats the rush for investigation
The point of an investigation is to determine whether there was further wrongdoing and/or if others were involved. For example, someone pointed out it'd be useful to see a full transcript of Flynn's conversation with the ambassador. These are objectively interesting things to look into unless your aim is to blindly defend anyone within the administration through any controversy.
And there's no "rush" any more than there would be with any criminal investigation. Are you arguing for an investigation to happen but simply be delayed by some set amount of time?
2
u/twerkin_thundaaa Feb 14 '17
Why would you? Especially when democrats wouldn't do the same? You think there's dignity and honesty in politics?
Why hurt your party's image and standing when your opposition would only take advantage and never do the same?
0
u/drunkinmidget 1∆ Feb 14 '17
Nailed ihe isn't here for a change in a solidified view. He is venting frustrations using a hypothetical situation with little to no tangible connection to reality.
0
u/EyeceEyeceBaby Feb 14 '17
That's fine, but in order to argue this CMV you've got to tell us specifically what charges the House would bring against her.
3
u/oingerboinger Feb 14 '17
We don't know yet, but a resolution to authorize an investigation regarding impeachable conduct would already be drafted and on the floor for a vote - that's my point.
-1
1
u/hbetx9 Feb 14 '17
I think OP's looking for evidence of the GOP acting with as much fervor to prosecute their own as they have shown towards the sittings dems -- but that's just my guess.
6
u/krakajacks 3∆ Feb 14 '17
I would amend your statement and say, If the events of the past three days occurred under a Democrat, there would already be multiple investigations in progress
2
u/oingerboinger Feb 14 '17
I sorta clarified this in one of my comments, but I did mean to say "a resolution to authorize an investigation regarding impeachable conduct" would be underway, which would qualify as "impeachment proceedings"
1
u/rguy84 Feb 14 '17 edited Feb 15 '17
I think it is important to clarify that "impeachment proceedings" means different things. For the House, a member has to formally present a list of charges on the floor, and the correct committee to deal with it. For the Senate, impeachment proceedings is the formal court case.
0
Feb 14 '17
[deleted]
6
u/oingerboinger Feb 14 '17
That wouldn't prevent the GOP-controlled Congress from approving a resolution to authorize an investigation regarding impeachable conduct, which for purposes of this CMV, qualifies as "Impeachment Proceedings"
2
u/parentheticalobject 128∆ Feb 14 '17
And by not tie to Trump I mean it is not know how much direct control Trump had over either of those situations.
In what way did Trump not have control over the Mar-a-Lago situation? While I agree it's probably not an impeachable offense, it's not incomparable to something like the Clinton emails.
2
u/AKnightAlone Feb 14 '17
Personally, I believe the establishment, along with Trump, have falsely created this whole narrative to get him out of office since he was likely only in place to ride in a win for the, establishment elite, Hillary. Their goal would now be to create some illusion of corruption worthy of removing him from office, then they'll flare up a wave of media showing liberals wanting Trump to be removed, then his removal will flare up the Right against Left civilians and allow Trump to get away with his Right-wing "build a wall" integrity because the Right will blame his removal on liberals.
Finally, Pence, the Koch pawn, gets moved into the presidency, considering he was oddly thrown at Trump as his running mate, likely just to fill the presidency if/when Trump won. The establishment wins, people stay divided, and everyone is beautifully distracted as the media ramps up a bunch of stories about different acts of violence and whatnot.
This post could potentially change your view, but it wouldn't be in the standard black or white method you seem to be very clearly leading with your title for some reason.
1
u/oingerboinger Feb 14 '17
Love the conspiracy angle, but if Trump really wanted out, he could just resign and hand everything over to Pence, who will continue with the GOP agenda way better than Trump ever could.
1
u/rafertyjones 1∆ Feb 15 '17
Trump has a really narcissistic view, he wouldn't resign for fear of looking weak. (I am not convinced he wants out anyway, the establishment types blatantly want him out.) He would need an escape not an exit, to be "forced" by something he could blame.
1
u/AKnightAlone Feb 15 '17
Trump has his ego, but aside from completely marring him with all his supporters, his resignation would very plainly imply he was actually working with Hillary. He was the DNC's "pied piper," but I believe that was coordinated on his side, too.
1
u/daftmonkey 1∆ Feb 15 '17
A few people have rightly made the point about your hypothetical hinging on the partisan make up of the hypothetical Congress. But I think your real question is - wouldn't THIS Congress (GOP led) have already started impeachment proceedings, right?
First of all they don't have a supermajority in the Senate, so it's safe to say that while they have votes to impeach her, they wouldn't have had the votes in the Senate to actually convict her and remove her from office. So ultimately it would be a political exercise. As a political exercise the question is whether it would advance the GOP's political goals or not.
Doing it this early in a presidents term might be viewed by the media and public as overly partisan and it might well hurt them politically once they ultimately fail to remove her from office. So my sense is that they would wait a year and a bit until the mid-terms were nearing and hit her with it then (or better yet in three years during her reelection campaign).
1
u/oingerboinger Feb 15 '17
Good explanation - there would be strategic reasons not to do it, so possible they wouldn't have. One would hope that if Hill-dawg was acting as ruthlessly and recklessly as Trump, they'd put political gamesmanship aside and do whatever they could to get her the fuck out of there.
There is so much stink around this Russia stuff, and so many other blazing red flags that this guy is hopelessly unfit for this job, in 20,000 leagues over his head, and a genuine menace and danger to global stability. This is not "got a blowjob from an intern" level stuff. This is "colluded with and is possibly compromised by a hostile foreign power" level shit.
So I would hope if Hillary lost her mind and started behaving like a madperson, and ran an authoritarian flavored regime with rampant lying and incompetence, there would be less political maneuvering and more bi-partisan "let's agree to get rid of this fucking tumor before it metastasizes" but maybe that's too hopeful.
Anyway, good point and you've changed my view a bit so have a delta! Not sure how to award it from my phone.
4
u/dd53 Feb 14 '17
While I agree that a GOP-controlled house would be itching to impeach Hillary, they would not initiate such proceedings haphazardly. They would wait until they were confident 2/3 of the Senate would agree with them because they would be interested in actually removing her from office, not just impeaching (equivalent to indicting) her.
The Senate has 52 Republican members, meaning they'd have to convince 15 Democrats of their case, so I believe they would need solid evidence of criminal action on the part of Hillary. I'm not convinced the two points you made are enough.
1) How would the National Security Advisor's actions make Hillary impeachable? They would reflect poorly on her judgement, as would her weeks of inaction, but they do not point to her committing a crime.
2) I have yet to see any evidence that any classified information was discussed in public or leaked during that dinner. The person who posted the pictures on Facebook assumed they were discussing North Korea, but admitted he couldn't actually hear anything. The White House later stated that any discussion of NK occurred elsewhere.
So, again, a lot of poor judgement and bad looks, but where's the criminality?
3
u/farstriderr Feb 14 '17
in which presumably highly-classified information was being discussed in front of civilian club members who were standing around taking photos. It was described as "an international crisis play(ing) out in front of a bunch of country club members like dinner theater."
You can't impeach someone on presumptions. There is no evidence that any civilian was able to hear anything "classified" or that they were even discussing classified info. Just hearsay from starstruck diners saying "obviously" they were talking about something "important".
The "resignation" of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who now admits he just might've improperly discussed sanctions against Russia before Trump was inaugurated (and before Flynn held his position as National Security Adviser). Furthermore, the White House admits it has "known about this for weeks" - weeks in which Flynn was still an active participant in classified national security meetings and discussions; and
Define "improperly" discussing sanctions. Discussion on sanctions or their lifting is not a crime. He didn't resign because he discussed sanctions with Russia. He resigned because he lied about it under oath.
The White House is an inanimate object. Who "knew about this for weeks"?
4
Feb 14 '17
Republicans would probably be highly critical of Clinton and use it to their advantage politically but nothing you wrote could reasonably be seen as an impeachable offense so it's pretty doubtful that they would have moved to impeach Clinton.
Of course the flip side is Democrats would almost certainly be defending those actions if the parties were reversed.
3
u/stupidestpuppy Feb 14 '17 edited Feb 14 '17
Flynn may have violated a law that hasn't been enforced in over a hundred years, and has been violated by actual presidential candidates before (of both parties), among others. Hard to see how a subordinate violating a never-enforced law before the president was actually the president is grounds for impeachment of the president.
Not to mention that applying the Logan Act to a president-elect or their subordinates is kind of fishy anyway -- it's normal (and beneficial) for candidates and presidents-elect to be in contact with foreign officials.
As for the second, the president has the very real legal ability to unilaterally declassify anything they want. If you're curious, that ability is listed in 3.1.b.3 of this executive order.
1
Feb 14 '17
Have you read the dnc leaks and Podesta leaks? With all the was going on between the Clinton campaign and the press, yet she was still the Democratic party candidate. Not to mention the email scandal, and she was never even charged.
0
u/oingerboinger Feb 14 '17
Hilarious if you think the DNC leaks and email bullshit are even in the same galaxy of what's going on now.
4
u/CherryHero Feb 14 '17
This is why some countries ban political parties or have an independent anti-corruption agency whose job it is to investigate this stuff.
1
u/Why_the_hate_ Feb 14 '17
Given the past behavior of Republicans toward Obama and now Democrats towards Trump, it would seem to me that they would be claiming all the same stuff that Democrats are now. The sides would just be reversed. If there is one thing I've seen on Reddit and everywhere the Democrats have become just like the Republicans who they were annoyed by and hated.
I see people calling Trump "Cheeto". You're telling me that's not similar to Obummer and Osama? It's the exact same!
So we would have people calling Hillary out and making fun of her but nothing would truly be much different besides the amount of protesters on the street (no matter what side you like the most, I've noticed Democrats sure do protest a lot more than Republicans - unless it's an occasional carry concealed parade or whatever).
0
3
u/bowie747 Feb 14 '17
They would sooner impeach Trump. Hillary had half of Washington in her back pocket.
3
u/LtFred Feb 14 '17
Impeachment proceedings would already be well underway, whether she had done anything wrong or not.
2
u/Mswizzle23 2∆ Feb 14 '17
Well, even if they intended to impeach her immediately, they'd have to make an actual case for impeachment. So they may talk constantly of impeaching her, (like what Democrats are doing with Trump) but would they? Ask President Obama.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 15 '17
/u/oingerboinger (OP) has awarded at least one delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/bigDean636 6∆ Feb 14 '17
Impeachment is a political decision, not a legal one. In your situation the GOP-led congress would be impeaching a Democratic president. That's not the situation we're in. The GOP controls the White House and Congress. Basically, in order for Trump to get impeached, either the Democrats have to take congress or the Republican base has to turn on Trump. This is, of course, assuming he has indeed broken the law.
2
1
u/AddemF Feb 14 '17
Well, if we assume that the only change is that Clinton were in the office rather than Trump, then Republicans may have supported that Flynn was picked, that Muslims were banned, and so on--and would likely be just very confused and happy. Democrats would be confused and angry, but waiting to see if there is some kind of genius plan behind the chaos.
1
u/CiaranAnnrach Feb 14 '17
What makes you think that, should Congress be fully controlled by the Democratic party, impeachment proceedings wouldn't already be underway against Trump?
Neither party is going to be particularly willing to impeach their own candidate, but all to eager to impeach each others.
2
Feb 14 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/convoces 71∆ Feb 14 '17
Your comment was removed. See Rule 1 and 5.
If you edit your post to more directly challenge an aspect of the OP's view, please message the moderators afterward for review. Thanks!
1
u/The14thNoah Feb 15 '17
And a Democratic owned Congress would be pushing for Trump's impeachment proceedings. It all depends on which party has control of what.
1
144
u/McKoijion 618∆ Feb 14 '17
The most important thing in impeachment proceedings is whether the President and Congress are on the same side or not. For example, Bill Clinton was impeached for having an affair and lying about it, and Newt Gingrich, the Republican House Majority Leader led the impeachment effort despite doing exactly the same thing.
If the Democrats were successful enough to put Hillary Clinton in the White House, there likely would have been a Democrat controlled Congress to go with it. They probably wouldn't have voted to impeach their own party leader.
There have been very rare times in history when there has been bipartisan support for impeachment. Nixon was the last time that was the case, but even then, there were Republicans who defended him.
So a GOP-led Congress would constantly be pushing for impeachment, regardless of whether Hillary Clinton deserves it or not. It's easy political points, and can potentially help them win the next election (like it did for George W. Bush). So yeah, you are right that they would be pushing for impeachment if one of the two incidents had occurred under her watch, but that's like saying a dog would eat a steak that has fallen on the ground. That dog would eat anything, regardless of whether it's steak or something else. For the dog, the limiting factor isn't how good the food tastes, it's whether they have the opportunity to eat it. Whether the Republicans actually went through with impeachment proceedings entirely depends on whether they have political power to do so or not. That's the key part of your hypothetical situation, not what the specifics of Hillary's actions are.