If Hillary gets indicted, should Obama just pardon her?

[TheDormouse]

Last edited Mon Apr 4, 2016, 05:49 PM - Edit history (3)

I deeply believe in equal justice for all Americans, whatever their station or former station. The law, whether human or divine, is no respecter of persons; but the law is a respecter of reality.

The facts, as I see them, are that a former First Lady and Secretary of State of the United States, instead of enjoying equal treatment with any other citizen accused of violating the law, would be cruelly and excessively penalized either in preserving the presumption of her innocence or in obtaining a speedy determination of her guilt in order to repay a legal debt to society.

During this long period of delay and potential litigation, ugly passions would again be aroused. And our people would again be polarized in their opinions. And the credibility of our free institutions of government would again be challenged at home and abroad.

In the end, the courts might well hold that Hillary Clinton had been denied due process, and the verdict of history would even be more inconclusive with respect to those charges arising out of the period of her candidacy, of which I am presently aware.

But it is not the ultimate fate of Hillary Clinton that most concerns me, though surely it deeply troubles every decent and every compassionate person. My concern is the immediate future of this great country.

In this, I dare not depend upon my personal sympathy as a longtime friend of the former Secretary of State, nor my professional judgment as a lawyer, and I do not.

As President, my primary concern must always be the greatest good of all the people of the United States whose servant I am. As a man, my first consideration is to be true to my own convictions and my own conscience.

My conscience tells me clearly and certainly that I cannot prolong the bad dreams that continue to reopen a chapter that is closed. My conscience tells me that only I, as President, have the constitutional power to firmly shut and seal this book. My conscience tells me it is my duty, not merely to proclaim domestic tranquility but to use every means that I have to insure it. I do believe that the buck stops here, that I cannot rely upon public opinion polls to tell me what is right. I do believe that right makes might and that if I am wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference. I do believe, with all my heart and mind and spirit, that I, not as President but as a humble servant of God, will receive justice without mercy if I fail to show mercy.

Finally, I feel that Hillary Clinton and her loved ones have suffered enough and will continue to suffer, no matter what I do, no matter what we, as a great and good nation, can do together to make his goal of peace come true.

Now, therefore, I, Barack Obama, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Hillary Rodham Clinton for all offenses against the United States which she, Hillary Clinton, has committed or may have committed or taken part in.

http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/ford.htm

If the Department of Justice indicts Hillary (and/or her friends/associates/staff) for alleged criminal activity related to the handling of her emails as Secretary of State, and her responses to FOIA and other requests involving her emails, should Obama just issue her (and/or her friends/associates/staff) a full pardon in order to spare the country the divisiveness that would result from a trial?

And if he should, in fact, erase an indictment by pardoning her, should she stay in the race for the presidency?

Would an indictment and pardon help or hurt her chances of winning the Democratic Party's nomination?

Would an indictment and pardon help or hurt the chance of a Democrat winning the White House in November?

addendum added after 93rd reply posted:

Since a pardon requires admission of guilt (Burdick v. United States)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2006/12/28/closing-the-chapter-on-watergate-wasnt-done-lightly/a10a19c2-5a80-4806-9048-216a90dc0dd7/

If Hillary is indicted, and if Obama pardons her, should she accept the pardon or should refuse the pardon and fight to clear her name?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. No.

Ford pardoned Nixon and it just pissed people off.

[roguevalley]

23. I am still broiling with rage about Nixon's pardon. If he

pardons her, give the entire country a blanket pardon. If the rich are allowed to maraud, then they will continue to do so.

[bigbrother05]

58. Agree, a pardon would give the GE to the GOP

[SheilaT]

81. Not if Bernie is the nominee.

He'd roundly condemn a pardon.

[Politicalboi]

2. No he should not

They knew what they were doing was wrong. The Clinton's are just slimy. I would love to see Bill and Hill arrested.

[Punkingal]

3. Not if he cares about his legacy.

[yourpaljoey]

18. When it comes out Hill was running play-for-play out of the SOS

...and he did not know about it, his legacy will be flushed anyway.
The sooner he can kill it, the better it will be for him.

[Politicalboi]

61. No

If he lets her walk his legacy is toast. Can't blame him he didn't know. She had it at her home. She was told NOT to do this, and she thought she was better than that. Let her rot in jail for all I care.

[yourpaljoey]

113. wow

I totally blame him that he did not know Hill was totally disrespecting him
by running pay for play out of his White House!
When she emailed him with the @hillaryclinton.com address
why did he not wake up?
This is the biggest scandal I have seen, and Obama owns it.
There is no legacy.

[CoffeeCat]

106. He would be pardoning her for a law he championed!

Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send or store classified information on personal email.

President Obama issued this executive order on Dec 29, 2009.

[Punkingal]

135. I am not one who believes Obama won't say go ahead if the FBI recommends an indictment.

I just don;t think he would thwart the law like that. Why would he ruin his legacy for her? It makes no sense to me.

[daleanime]

4. Yes.

No.

N/A

N/A

[geek tragedy]

5. If Clinton gets cleared by the DOJ, should all of the Indictment Fairy clappers

leave DU?

I say yes.

[TheDormouse]

7. when u say cleared,

do you mean that if they find evidence that she is completely innocent of all allegations?

or do you mean, rather, that they simply decline to bring charges because they are not convinced that they would be able to win a trial, despite their conviction that she may actually be guilty of alleged misdeeds?

[geek tragedy]

11. the DOJ does not find people innocent.

it only states whether there is grounds for prosecution

[TheDormouse]

22. but staff blab to the press as anonymous sources; it would come out

[geek tragedy]

27. bottom line is that the people pushing the indictment angle here

have been advancing the goals and efforts of the Republican propaganda machine, to the point it is clear that most have no valuable role to play in fighting Republican propaganda.

[TheDormouse]

66. we'll have to agree to disagree

Democrats are voting for a nominee now.
An indictment is theoretically a possibility (although I can't imagine Clinton herself being indicted for anything that has been reported on to date); it's a consideration that voters need to weigh when deciding whether to mark Clinton's name or Sanders' name on their ballots.

[-none]

87. In other words, she is a Democrat, so she didn't do anything wrong.

Got it.

[geek tragedy]

89. when people are citing wingnut publications to support their argument

there is the presumption that wingnuts are full of shit.

[Lizzie Poppet]

95. Only by people who struggled mightily in Logic 101.

Just sayin'...

[karynnj]

69. There is a big gap between acceptable behavior and grounds for prosecution

It is very likely that if no one around her is indicted, there might still be a negative report that explains things that should not have been done and then argues that they do not rise to the level of sufficient grounds for prosecution.

From what we already know, there are things she did that were wrong. She herself has said that the arrangement she set up was a mistake. One thing that bothers me a lot, is that she intentionally did not leave the SD with an archive of her work email, even though they were subject to FOIA and Congressional inquiries that started when she was SoS. Then she tried to wave her hands and claim that the SD actually did have <most> of her emails because she sent them to SD accounts.

You do not have to be a computer scientist to know that it would be time consuming and complicated to retroactively create a program that searches all the emails -- active in those 4 years - for all the emails from HRC. Then, the "most" comes into play - some of her direct reports also had accounts on her server and she corresponded with people not in the State Department. Certainly a Clinton email to the Secretary of Defense could fit a FOIA request. What this means is that until she gave them the email because they demanded them and they processed them, the State Department was trashed for dragging their feet on these legitimate (even if Republican or annoying) inquiries.

Thanks to Hillary, any claim that Obama could have had running a transparent administration are completely gone.

[geek tragedy]

72. no doubt she'll face some criticism for what everyone

concedes was a really bad idea, on any number of levels.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

101. Certain people here dont care whether she is guilty of something or not, their

agenda is to taint her so the GOP wins.

[geek tragedy]

103. That, and they want to defeat her so badly they've decided that the old enemy of their

perceived enemy is somehow their friend

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. And if we do get a clear unsealed indictment

Will you leave DU? Obviously you hate the process and would prefer she skates (if there is a case) for pretty obvious ideological reasons.

By the way what happens if the indictment remains sealed and we have a Saturday Night massacre? How healthy do you think that will be for the country? Can't say in that case I care for the effects for either party incidentally.

[geek tragedy]

74. you seem to be contemplating every scenario

except for "no crime committed"

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. Reporters do that you know

We do contemplate every fucking scenario. And from what has emerged, the no fucking crime is pretty low...though possible. So will you leave DU? I doubt it... But the demands will continue.

[geek tragedy]

92. what criminal statute do you think she violated? nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

93. A few that have to do with handling of classified material

For starters, Sidney Blumenthal had no clearance, yet was given access to material he had no clearance to see. That is a felony.

[geek tragedy]

96. that's not an answer. a prosecutor must be able to meet each element of a specific

criminal statute beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also, you have evidence that she sent Sid Blumenthal classified information?

Would love to see your source for that tidbit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

97. You might want to go here and start reading

https://foia.state.gov/search/search.aspx

And yes, I expect the prosecutors to cite the case law applicable in this case. Suffice it to say, yes, she did give Blumenthal access, and he did send her pretty doubtful "intel" as well Some of the material was NSA Special Access Program.

http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristofer-harrison/dont-focus-on-classified-_b_7959776.html

You got to realize, if MY HUSBAND had done any shit like that while in the United States Navy, I would be visiting him at Leavenworth. What she did, people are serving hard time at Club Fed.

[geek tragedy]

98. thank you for proving my point--you cited two Republicans.

Kristofer Harrison was flunky of George W Bush's administration

John R Schindler is a raging wingnut

And, you provided zero evidence that Clinton sent anything classified to Blumenthal.

So, no it does not "suffice it to say" she gave him classified documents.

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. And the Dept of State FOIA reading room

here the emails from Sidney to her are to be found, in what we call primary sources

Thank you for proving my point that you give two shits about this

For the rest of the class, do you know why Republicans started to call the press, the liberal press? They dared pursue Watergate and brought down a President. This but Republican sources, strikes me the same way. And if this goes down that path, I predict a similar end Though I also suspect that HILLARY PARTISANS will have a hell of a time hiding their devotion like Nixon devotees were able to. The internet creates a permanent record.

[geek tragedy]

100. I proved that I don't rely on my Republicans to form my viewpoint on this.

I also proved you don't have any evidence to back up your claims, other than the word of Republicans.

What I do not give "two shits" about is the opinion of those who have aligned themselves with the Republicans in a general election year.

Linking to a database is not evidence. It just means you have literally nothing.

Hillary Clinton was allowed to send and receive emails from Sid Blumenthal.

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. Alas I RELIED ON THE FUCKING EMAILS

that you can once again FIND FUCKING HERE

https://foia.state.gov/search/search.aspx

Did you notice the GOV in the domain name? Or are the emails and the State Department are now somehow republican?

Your but Republicans is as shallow as actual republicans complaining about the WAPO covering Watergate..

I read over 30k of those emails, let me tell you, some are really vapid shitty stuff, like going to the theater and dinner with Speaker Pelosi Or arranging for the car to pick her up at a certain time. What the hell happened to social secretaries, as it used to be? I feel sorry for the poor graduate students that somebody will go though that trove.

[geek tragedy]

107. temper temper

you read 30,000 emails?

I believe you that she sent emails back and forth with Blumenthal.

I don't believe you that she sent classified information to him. And the fact that no one is reporting that she sent him classified information is a tip off that she probably didn't.

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. Once again here

https://foia.state.gov/search/search.aspx

Go read. brew some coffee. Will take a while.

I notice you have no shitty, or even witty comeback to that. There is not one.

I will repeat, there are people serving hard time at Club Fed for what she did.

You might want to get aquatinted with this shit

http://securitywing.com/12-things-remember-handling-classified-information/

And partisan like you turn my stomach. This is about national security and if the prosecutors recommend prosecution I HOPE FOR ALL OUR SAKES they throw the book at her. which they will not for the record.

And for the rest of the class, more than a few of the emails I read, and at least four involved Sidney. are currently classified. They started to review before release AFTER THIS REUTERS story came out

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821

[geek tragedy]

112. that's not how it works when you're making a claim.

If you make a claim, you don't point at a big database and say "there."


You're very angry at her, but anger isn't a substitute for legal analysis

[nadinbrzezinski]

114. I pointed to you to the PRIMARY SOURCE MATERIAL

that currently the Office of the prosecutor is using

This is how debate works, Since you will not take a news story, I pointed to you the source material. I will repeat myself again, you remind me of Nixon fans during Watergate.

If you do not care about National Security, say such. Some of us do.

For the record, once again, here is the FOIA room

https://foia.state.gov/search/search.aspx

From now on, you will keep getting that back. You either do the work, or you don't. I care two shits about it. And as to anger at a politician... why should I be angry at her? I love that active imagination of hyper partisans, no matter what party. I don't know, her, neither do you. But if the DOJ recommends indictment I expect them to reach an agreement with her. The last thing they will want is to go to a full court. Personally I would prefer a full court, but DoJ does not like to do that. They prefer to negotiate a reduced sentence- plea. It saves money.

She is not that special either. This is common practice.

So here, once gain, the FOIA room

https://foia.state.gov/search/search.aspx

[geek tragedy]

116. I will not do the work to try to disprove your allegation which is false

by all known accounts.

That's now how this works.

If you can't support your claim, then it's not considered true.

[nadinbrzezinski]

117. here

https://foia.state.gov/search/search.aspx

And once again, this is not my allegation. There has been prelnty of coverage on this

Once again the Reuters story that opened THAT PARTICULAR FLOODGATE

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821

And the FOIA room

https://foia.state.gov/search/search.aspx

Here once again, the FOIA room

https://foia.state.gov/search/search.aspx

That is what you will get now

https://foia.state.gov/search/search.aspx

The FOIA room, since you do not accept any news reporting that challenges your expectations, the FOIA room

https://foia.state.gov/search/search.aspx

That is all you will get

https://foia.state.gov/search/search.aspx

[geek tragedy]

121. the Reuters article is at least second-hand evidence, so that is

something I'll buy as possibly indicating that something along those lines was sent to Blumenthal, though it's still a judgment call-though one that may be correct.

[nadinbrzezinski]

123. Yeah becuase we cannot bother with the primary evidence

Here

https://foia.state.gov/search/search.aspx

[Jackie Wilson Said]

127. GOP created the email story and they are promoting it everywhere.

[840high]

130. Bull. Hillary created it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

136. So the evil GOP put the server in her home?

Is that what you are telling me? I knew the bastids were good, but damn, they are not quite that good. So is the State Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Department of Justice Republican outfits too?

[TheDormouse]

138. yes, they are all part of the vast right-wing conspiracy

[Chan790]

122. You haven't answered her question yet...and she asked you first.

If Hillary is indicted, will you leave DU?

It's a simple yes or no question.

[Depaysement]

6. He should just pardon her

And then cancel the election and just have the military install her as La Presidenta.

[philosslayer]

8. Yes

N/t

[Else You Are Mad]

9. No. Hillary is not above the law.

Why should she? If she committed a crime, she should suffer the consequences.

Hillary shouldn't even be running, if she is the nominee and she gets indicted, she just handed over the presidency to the Republicans.

[TheDormouse]

14. but if she gets indicted, Obama can un-indict her--it's in the Constitution

[Else You Are Mad]

19. And...

If Obama does that, the GOP candidate would undoubtedly be elected by a landslide.

[TheDormouse]

55. Ford won 48% of the vote in 1976

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1976

[Else You Are Mad]

59. As discussed below...

That is a different situation & a different time. On both sides, there is such a hatred of the insider establishment that if Hillary gets indicted, people will not let that slide when voting.

[karynnj]

125. To be analagous, Nixon would have to be the one running - pardoned by Ford nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. Not quite

A pardon implies and requires an admission of guilt. So the paperwork would include a mea culpa. It might be in the cards, with the explicit agreement of never again serving in any capacity in public office.

It has benefits. From a DOJ perspective it prevents a costly prosecution. Politically it means the end of the run to the WH. For the record, if the charges are bad enough, an offer of a pardon would not shock me in the least.

[TheDormouse]

54. did Nixon admit guilt? did Marc Rich admit guilt?

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. Yes, deep in the paperwork

And for the record the Nixon case is singular since that was an impeachment proceeding, not a DOJ proceeding. You cannot issue a pardon if there is no admittance of guilt

[TheDormouse]

86. I wasnt familiar with Burdick v US before now; which brings up a new question

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. It is always good to ask them

For the record, I will be utterly surprised if Obama issues a pardon...legacy.

[Optimism]

108. Legacy, yes.

I wonder if we will ever really know exactly WHY he agreed to appoint Hillary to be Sec of State. I'd love to know that real answer, though I doubt we truly ever will. I'm sure Obama regrets it at this point though. (Or not ... his praise for Debbie Wassermann Schultz recently ...)

We seem to be at a tipping appoint for the nomination in these upcoming few weeks. For the sake of the party, for the sake of the country, for the sake of the planet ... we really need to do all that we can to help Wisconsin (first) and New York soon after WIN BIG for Bernie. One step at a time, though these next truly are major ones.

[nadinbrzezinski]

120. We will and aparently that was part of the deal for her to step down in 2008

I give it 20 years before that is either confirmed or denied, but the team of rivals cabinet was pretty much his idea...

Here is one of those contemporaneous stories

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/73689-obamas-team-of-rivals-following-no-drama-mantra

[rbrnmw]

10. Indictment Fairy please hear me

[TheDormouse]

12. lol

[nichomachus]

13. You can't pardon someone unless they've been convicted. nt

[Tarc]

25. I'm not sure about that, as Ford pardoned Nixon only a month after the latter's resignation

This is a silly topic though, as there will be no indictment over something that didn't actually happen.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

29. Not so. Ford pardoned Nixon before he was indicted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon

[TheDormouse]

30. what was Nixon convicted of? what was Marc Rich convicted of?

[Fumesucker]

91. Poppy Bush pardoned Cap Weinberger before he went to trial

https://www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/29/reviews/iran-pardon.html

Bush Pardons 6 in Iran Affair, Aborting a Weinberger Trial; Prosecutor Assails 'Cover-Up'

[Califonz]

126. One of the bigger loopholes in the US Constitution

in action. Did any other Presidents (pre-Ford) give "Christmas Eve pardons" to their cronies?

[dana_b]

15. in this particular election, if she is indicted

she SHOULD drop out. So many people are very anti establishment right now that if she stayed in after being indicted and IF she wins the nomination, it would be a guaranteed loss for the Dems in the GE.

I don't think that she would drop out though. She is too full of herself.

[Zira]

21. She's too corrupt. Which is why she broke this law and had her own server.

She was trying to avoid oversight.

[Skwmom]

26. Hillary Clinton will never drop out.

[dana_b]

38. I agree n/t

[0rganism]

39. i suspect if HRC is indicted the superdelegates will decommit

to prevent an avoidable loss in the GE. after an indictment and seeing her claim to a lead enhanced by superdelegates evaporate, she would almost certainly drop out.

that said, she is very unlikely to be indicted.

[Zira]

16. No.

Send her to prison for breaking the same laws we hold everyone else to.

[brooklynite]

17. I -DO- believe in fairies!

[grntuscarora]

20. I'll trade him one HRC pardon for a Chelsea Manning pardon.

Comparing apples and oranges, I know, but I want Chelsea pardoned.

[Zira]

31. Chelsea should be pardoned and HRC would never pardon him.

I doubt she would pardon anyone.

I bet she would want a pardon for herself.

[grntuscarora]

37. Do you think Obama will pardon Chelsea?

I've been thinking about this a lot, and will be very disappointed if he doesn't, but I've heard nothing to indicate he will. The Prez hasn't been sympathetic to whistle blowers, imo.

[Zira]

104. Excuse me. Chelsea Manning should be pardoned. Wrong Chelsea in my post.

I was thinking Chelsea Clinton did something I didn't know about.

[Zira]

43. HYPOCRISY OF Hillary: Hillary Clinton Denounced Manning and Defended the prosecution WHILE having

illegal email server.

Glen Greenwald:

Hillary Clinton on the Sanctity of Protecting Classified Information:
https://theintercept.com/2015/08/12/hillary-clinton-sanctity-protecting-classified-information/

"It turns out that at least two of the emails which traversed Hillary Clinton’s personal email account and server were “top secret,” according to the inspector general for the Intelligence Community as reported by McClatchy. To describe that as reckless is an understatement given that, as AP notes, “There is no evidence she used encryption to shield the emails or her personal server from foreign intelligence services or other potentially prying eyes.” The FBI has now taken possession of that server."

"In December 2011, Chelsea Manning’s court-martial was set to begin. None of the documents at issue in that prosecution was “top secret,” unlike the documents found on Hillary Clinton’s server. Nonetheless, the then-secretary of state convened a press conference to denounce Manning and defend the prosecution."

"Manning was convicted and sentenced to 35 years in prison. At the time, the only thing Hillary Clinton had to say about that was to issue a sermon about how classified information “deserves to be protected and we will continue to take necessary steps to do so” because it “affect[s] the security of individuals and relationships.”

"That was during the time that she had covertly installed a non-government server and was using it and a personal email account to receive classified and, apparently, even top-secret information. While there’s no evidence she herself placed those documents on the server or sent them herself, it is her use of a personal server and email account that — quite predictably — caused the vulnerability."

[Greenwald makes the point that the government over classifies things and Hillary used that as her defense]

"But that’s an argument that Hillary Clinton never uttered in order to object as people’s lives and careers were destroyed and they were hauled off to prison. To the contrary, she more often than not defended it, using rationale that, as it turns out, condemned herself and her own behavior at least as much as those whose persecution she was defending."

[tularetom]

24. If he does, he'll open a can of worms

An indictment and pardon, or even a refusal to prosecute will cost the Democrats the presidency.

It will also increase the chances that a republican congress will bring impeachment charges against Obama before the end of his term.

He's been squeaky clean up to now. Does he want to squander whats left of his reputation on a disloyal hack like Hillary Clinton?

[geek tragedy]

28. you're going to be so disappointed when there's no indictment nt

[Skwmom]

70. I think most people believe the odds of our government doing anything about the email, the

speech and foundation money is slim to none.

We will just continue to suffer being lectured to by dictators/their representatives over corruption and crony capitalism.

[geek tragedy]

73. maybe you're just wrong about her committing crimes?

have you ever been wrong about anything?

[TheDormouse]

32. There's not enough time left in his term. And they know it.

[tularetom]

42. I'm not so sure about that

But even so, he's concerned about his image and I don't think he wants to be thought of as the guy who pardoned a crook just because she has the same letter after her name as he does. She hasn't been very supportive of him, why should he stick his neck out for her.

[TheDormouse]

47. no question that Bill helped him win his second term

It was touch and go there for a bit in 2012.

[Merryland]

33. hell no!

[B2G]

34. She has 'suffered enough'

[Merryland]

41. violins...

[agracie]

52. So have we.

[Karma13612]

118. +100 eom

[Lizzie Poppet]

35. Not if he wants a positive legacy.

No chance, basically...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. The perception of wrongdoing is often as damaging is the reality of wrongdoing.

However, in this case I think it's more than just a perception.

[LonePirate]

40. Posts like this only serve to rile up discord among various Dems.

Some are out for blood because they think an indictment helps Bernie. Some support Hillary and consider this investigation fruitless. We should not fall for troll bait like this which pits the Dem factions against each other.

[TheDormouse]

46. it's a real concern; we are not just imagining the FBI investigation

[LonePirate]

49. It's chum in the water for the hungry sharks.

The link in the OP assumes guilt when the investigation has not even completed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. And some of us are for that pesky thing

Called the truth. If crimes were committed she is not above the law. That said, a pardon would prevent her from continuing. Call it...precedent

[LonePirate]

65. Except the OP has moved on to presumed guilt. It's not about the truth any longer.

There's no issue with the investigation proceeding to whatever conclusion it reaches. Presuming guilt in order to put factions of Dems against each other is something we should all be against given our innocent until proven guilty basis of our justice system.

And DUers need to stop trying to fool other members. The people seeking the "truth" around here are the ones silently and not so silenty presuming guilt but using truth as some neutral or magnanimous motive for their heightened and partisan interest in the investigation. Very few of us around here are completely impartial towards the investigation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. Taking a pardon implies guilt

You admit to it, whether you were convicted or not. The only advantage in this case, from the prosecutors perspective, would be not having to spend money on an actual trial.

If they find evidence I am sure there are going to be a slew of proposals from the prosecutors to avoid the actual trial. All of them will involve a guilty plea and a thick folder with sentence recommendations to the judge. This is hardly unusual and happens all the time in courts, both state and federal

[LonePirate]

71. Um, so you agree that the original post presumes guilt?

While there is nothing wrong with discussing hypotheticals, the post/link is still an effort, perhaps unintentional, to generate rancor between Dem factions right now. Then again, perhaps articles like that are intended to influence the primary race and the chaos is a goal.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. A pardon implies that (And would be the top end of this)

But most Americans do not know that. I personally suspect this will stop well, very much short of one if the prosecutors decide to unseal the indictment. In fact, I expect this to go this way. Assume for or the moment evidence of wrong doing is there ok.

Prosecutors will aproach her and lawyer and have a nice, look, we have this evidence chat, perhaps over coffee. This is the case. We could go to a trial and just one of the potential charges could carry 1 to 10. Our case is iron clad (of course, no prosecutor worth his or her salt will claim otherwise). In exchange for a guilty plea we are willing to recommend a suspended sentence, time served. Oh and it goes without saying, a hefty fine ( for mere mortals).

They would include, due to the nature of the charges possible, a prohibition of her ever serving again in any government job that needs and requires a clearance. Ergo, her race to the White House will come to a screeching halt. Of course the rest of the crap that comes with this will come, such as probation, not being able to vote for a certaiin number of years, and not being able to quality for things like Section 8 for pretty much the rest of her life. The DOJ, assuming they find enough to recommend indictment, will do all they can to not have to go to court... Like for real. Some of it is actually Natinal security. The last they want is a close door trial. Imagine the actual CT theories if they did that.

The process of negotiation I just described happens all the fucking time by the way. It is not unique to her. Though I will grant you that many posters here will try to make this a Supreme Court case and special treatment. It is not. Prosecutors prefer not to go to trial...that shit costs money after all.

[LonePirate]

84. I certainly agree there will never be a televised trial. Have to wait & see for anything else.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. Of course we do

I am not a lawyer, but we cover courts from time to time. So this would not surprise me For political reasons, which is unique to this case, I expect a whiff of where this is going by May. Otherwise...December would be a nice time frame.

[dragonfly301]

44. He should pardon Don Siegelman first n/t

[Ferd Berfel]

119. Absolutly the correct thing to do

[bigwillq]

48. No (nt)

[agracie]

50. No. I'd prefer a stick in the eye.

[840high]

131. yep

[senz]

51. Recommended -- serious discussion of a serious subject.

[karynnj]

57. It would be premature and, if it happened now,would likely hurt her especially if she is the nominee

Because we would all credit Obama as having far more of the facts than are public, some might assume that this implies guilt.

It is really awkward that the possibility of indictment hangs over her while people are choosing who to vote for. However, it would be intensely unfair to assume that she will be charged with anything at this point. The dilemma is that IF she or those close to her are charged after she wins the nomination, we will be in a situation that has never occurred before. I think it would be solely up to her to decide whether to step down -- and then it is not clear how a new nominee could be fairly chosen. My guess is that no one chosen would make most Democrats happy. However, there is the opposite side of the coin -- if she is later considered not to have done anything wrong and she loses what is really her last chance at the Presidency, nothing could ever make up for that unfair loss.

However, we will have more information relatively soon. The FBI is said to be expecting to issue a report by May - at least per rumor in various articles. If this is the real timeline, it would be wrong for Obama to do anything until then. It is better for HRC if the report comes out - lists things that should have been done differently but recommends indicting no one. Think of how the interpretation of that changes if Obama has already pardoned her.

Is there any time where he should consider it? All I can consider is that it would be a good idea if she actually is indicted before he leaves office. One possible negative consideration is that this will color his own legacy. If there is really anything wrong enough that she is indicted AND it was done without his knowledge and approval, he might be in a very awkward lose/lose situation where the entire spectacle of a former First Lady/SoS being indicted means that his legacy will have been harmed by his giving her that position -- no matter whether he pardons her or not.

My own guess - the FBI will write a very negative report, might suggest that some people around her acted inappropriately and recommend they never get clearance again ( which in some cases means they will not be eligible for positions in the future they might have gotten. ), but stop short of indicting anyone -- or at least not Clinton.

If this is the case, would a negative report make anyone less likely to vote for her than what already is known.

[Philly-Union-Man]

62. She would need to be convicted before a pardon could happen.

So, no. He'd look like a fool trying to do so.

[TheDormouse]

64. speaking strategically, or as a matter of law?

Again, what was Nixon convicted of? What was Marc Rich convicted of?

[cherokeeprogressive]

77. Yeah... I remember when Marc Rich was convicted, and Nixon before him.

Strange stuff people post, isn't it?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

88. Not true. Ford pardoned Nixon before he was ever indicted.

[RDANGELO]

67. I might consider commuting her sentence, but not a pardon.

Considering all of her public service,if she initially did not intend to break the law, I would take everything into consideration.

[Samantha]

78. I believe Hillary will negotiate a deal

Comey will insist upon her never having a classified security clearance again. He is really upset about this. If she forfeits that security clearance she cannot be President of the United States. She probably would resign from the race for "health" reasons.

The stuff that has been in the MSM is just small potatoes compared to what is being withheld. So when the question becomes what has been the damages of her actions, the true answer to that question is horrendous.

The best thing for this Country would be for the matter to end, and Hillary negotiating a settlement would take the issue out of the public eye.

Sam

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

79. I hope you don't mind...

...but if I ever get 'jammed up' I would like to cut and paste parts of the original post.

I'll let you know what the judge says.

[Half-Century Man]

80. No. We must hold.our public servants to the well known standards of the law.

[Holly_Hobby]

82. Is running a shadow government out of your basement illegal? n/t

[Maedhros]

83. No.

Obama has waged a war against investigative journalism and against whistle blowers acting in the public interest. It would be infuriatingly hypocritical of him to pardon Hillary for things his Justice Department has been aggressively prosecuting.

[Lil Missy]

94. Oh look! Another newbie stirring shit with right-wing talking points!

[840high]

133. Hillary? Her email - damn it

own it. She got us into this mess.

[lumberjack_jeff]

102. Sure. Contingient on bowing out of the race. n/t

[highprincipleswork]

110. Pardon doesn't matter. Indictment not necessary. This is crippling to a GE election. Bad risk.

[Jarqui]

111. I'm not sure.

If the infraction is kind of like a speeding ticket, i can live with a pardon. But I really doubt that would be the level of infraction because it could cost her the election.

Either they look the other way because the penalty would be far greater than the crime or they really indict her with some crime of significance.

If she did quid pro quo with the Clinton Foundation, then really nail her and throw away the key.
If she obstructed justice, then really nail her.
If she was really reckless or negligent with classified info, then maybe really nail her.
If it's a misdemeanor haggle down from a felony like Petraeus, then nail her.

I do not think Obama should pardon any of those at the moment - though I'd reserve judgement until I knew all of the circumstances. I might go along with a commutation depending on circumstances as well.

If it's a light misdemeanor, I think they have to let her walk. Penalty would be too harsh - it would probably cost her the election.

[Karma13612]

115. Of course not.

If he did that, then what good does it do to ever even have investigations, or laws?

Lets see, if you are a politician, and really want to do something illegal, then go ahead, do it, and wait for the president to nullify and neutralize the power of the justice department.

yea, that makes a whole bunch of sense.

[Bobbie Jo]

124. Ok, who left the back door open?

[Kip Humphrey]

128. Any way you spin it, Hillary in the GE is a losing proposition.

[AgerolanAmerican]

129. absolutely not

It would cement the reality of certain privileged individuals being above the law. I don't think Obama wants that to be his legacy - and it's not like he owes her any favors.

[840high]

134. +100

[Beacool]

132. Keep hoping.......

It's the only way that Sanders would be the Democratic nominee.

[PADemD]

137. Would Hillary pardon Edward Snowdon?

I wonder if he's experiencing schadenfreude.

[99Forever]

139. Fuck no.

No one is above the law.