ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The presidential election year of 2016 has been a remarkable one. For the first time in the history of the United States, a woman is the presumptive nominee of a major political party. Add to that the doubly historic incidence of the first spouse of a previous president being nominated for the same office by the same major political party. But all of this history pales in comparison to what may very well be the most definitive event shared by the Presidents Clinton — impeachment.

For purposes of review, “impeachment” is defined by Noah Webster’s first American Dictionary of the English Language as “an accusation or charge brought against a public officer for maladministration in his office.” Impeachment is not removal from office but merely the political equivalent of a criminal indictment. The same lexicon defines “indictment” as “a written accusation or formal charge of a crime or misdemeanor, preferred by a grand jury under oath to a court.” It follows that impeachment applies to government officials such as a president or secretary of State where as an indictment would apply more broadly to virtually anyone — including a former secretary of State. And while an indictment is the product of a grand jury’s deliberation, the Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole power of impeachment.” It would fall to the House of Representatives to once again take the historic step to accuse — or impeach — another President Clinton.

Although that step would indeed be historic, it would be far from herculean. Thanks to the vigilance of President Obama’s Justice Department, most of the foundation for the accusation has already been laid. It’s the opinion of FBI Director James Comey that “no reasonable prosecutor [appointed by President Obama] would bring such a case” against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. However, members of the House of Representatives in 2017 will be less concerned about the opinion of a likely former FBI director on criminal matters and more concerned about what Alexander Hamilton observed concerning the “political” — rather than legal — nature of impeachment when he remarked in Federalist Paper No. 65 that it “relate[s] chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

At this point it’s important to note that the Constitution does not require a previous criminal conviction as a prerequisite for removal of a government official following his impeachment. This implicit disconnect is necessary given that, for example, the Constitution vests all executive authority in the president of the United States and any federal criminal conviction of the president could only follow the president preferring charges against himself by way of the attorney general he appointed. Alternatively, it cannot be implied that the Constitution’s provision that states,”The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” requires that impeachment may commence against, for example, a president only for such offenses alleged to have occurred during his presidency. Hypothetically, if it were to be revealed that an individual who was serving as president of the United States had allegedly committed an act of treason prior to his inauguration, impeachment would be the obvious — and solemnly patriotic — obligation of the House of Representatives. In such cases, the relevant statutes of limitations would be instructive but not necessarily definitive.

If Hillary Clinton is elected president of the United States in November 2016, legal experts have determined that her inauguration would take place within the time frame of the statute of limitations of various alleged crimes for which she was recently investigated. If, during that time frame, a majority of House members in the next Congress believe she committed injuries to the society when she “extremely careless[ly]” mishandled classified information, Mrs. Clinton may just pull off the most historic hat trick ever executed in the realm of American politics.

• John N. Hostettler was a Republican congressman from Indiana and is the author of “Ordained and Established: A Statesman-Citizen’s Guide to the United States Constitution.”

Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2020 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.