A pardon for Mrs. (and maybe Mr.) Clinton?

[Meadmaker]

Trump will not pardon her. Obama will.

Several people have brought up Richard Nixon, but he isn't the most appropriate comparison. It will be much like Caspar Weinberger and George Schulz. Just before the 1992 election, a politically motivated special prosecutor indicted those two on trumped up charges related to the Iran Contra affair. They were pardoned by outgoing President George H. W. Bush, never having been brought to trial, to spare them the expense and hardship of a defense at trial, not to mention the possibility that a jury might actually convict them.

The anti-Hillary pols, including Trump himself, are so deep in the story that she is a criminal that they could not do anything except keep up the pressure to "lock her up". Obama will discuss it with her, and if they think there is any possibility that she need fear prosecution, there will be a pre-emptive pardon issued.

As well there should be.

ETA: It shouldn't be necessary, but there it is.

 

[lionking]

You don't pardon people who have assassinated a supreme court justice, conducted RICO activities and international gangsterism, and who are guilty of child trafficking.

So Hillary is in the clear.

Thanks for that.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Trump is not a dictator yet. We do still have a court system.

I am pretty comfortable with "yet" not being necessary.
About half of the house, and about half of the senate, members of his own party can't stand him. He's going to have to work with those people, I dont' think he's got the kind of back room strong arming skills Cheney had/used.

 

[Mike!]

Well in the pre-election background. y local paper noted that in 1960 the candidate who looked shifty, sick, had a five O'clock shadow, and lacked charisma lost.

Unfair comparison, Hillary is almost always clean shaven.

 

[ARMCX1]

Here's a question I was asked today, and I'm truly stumped.
Will President Trump pardon Mrs. (and possibly Mr.) Clinton?

Will he attempt to heal the nation and say, "What's done is done. If we want to be great again, we need to close this door and look ahead"
or
Will he "ask" the DoJ to "go get her" in an attempt to throw raw meat to his base?

Someone at work suggested that he allow her to go to trial, and if found guilty, then pardon her.

Trump will do neither a pardon nor ask DOJ to investigate an indictment. It was campaign rhetoric to fire up his base while waiting for the mainstream Republicans returned to the fold.

The political gimmick was used in various guises for 4 months.

 

[shuize]

For what? Be specific.

Violation of 18 U.S.C. 793, for starters.

Knowingly setting up a private, unapproved server to handle tens of thousands of private and work related emails.

Gross negligence in transmitting over a hundred classified documents through that system.

Willfully passing classified documents to her lawyers who lacked security clearance to review the documents.

Gross negligence in losing or improperly destroying approximately a dozen mobile devices containing sensitive information.

That's just off the top of my head working off an iPhone. I'm sure a competent prosecutor could do even better.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Violation of 18 U.S.C. 793, for starters.

Knowingly setting up a private, unapproved server to handle tens of thousands of private and work related emails.

Gross negligence in transmitting over a hundred classified documents through that system.

Willfully passing classified documents to her lawyers who lacked security clearance to review the documents.

Gross negligence in losing or improperly destroying approximately a dozen mobile devices containing sensitive information.

That's just off the top of my head working off an iPhone. I'm sure a competent prosecutor could do even better.

On point 3, I would like to know the average rate of confidential material over .gov. her level could simply be normal negligence....par for the course.

On point 4, it would only be wilful if she thought there was confidential material there.

 

[Bob001]

Please stop with this ridiculous Nixon comparison.

There's nothing ridiculous about it. A pardon is for something someone may have done, not just been convicted of. Geo. HW Bush pardoned several Iran-Contra conspirators, including the SecDef Caspar Weinberger.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/29/reviews/iran-pardon.html

 

[Bob001]

Here's a question I was asked today, and I'm truly stumped.
Will President Trump pardon Mrs. (and possibly Mr.) Clinton?
....

There's no legal or practical reason why Obama couldn't pardon her, to take it out of Trump's hands.

 

[lionking]

There's nothing ridiculous about it. A pardon is for something someone may have done, not just been convicted of. Geo. HW Bush pardoned several Iran-Contra conspirators, including the SecDef Caspar Weinberger.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/29/reviews/iran-pardon.html

Nixon approved and covered up a burglary and conspiracy. The Iran-Contra conspirators fermented a war. Hillary has, possibly, but not provably, been careless with emails. Most, if not all, not classified.

You see no difference? Seriously?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trump will do neither a pardon nor ask DOJ to investigate an indictment. It was campaign rhetoric to fire up his base while waiting for the mainstream Republicans returned to the fold.

The political gimmick was used in various guises for 4 months.

People voting for Trump seemed to believe for the most part that Trump was really going to do [fill in the blank with their wishes]. Some of them are going to be very very wrong. We just don't know yet which ones.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nixon approved and covered up a burglary and conspiracy. The Iran-Contra conspirators fermented a war. Hillary has, possibly, but not provably, been careless with emails. Most, if not all, not classified.

You see no difference? Seriously?

They seriously don't. That's what drinking the koolaid does to you.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

At this point, Obama could and should do whatever he can to take decisions out of Trump's (tiny) hands: he should make the Clintons prosecution-proof, because that will take away the one thing that is currently unifying the GOP.
In the absence of an enemy, Republicans will turn on each other, making it easier to defeat them in 2018.

 

[lionking]

At this point, Obama could and should do whatever he can to take decisions out of Trump's (tiny) hands: he should make the Clintons prosecution-proof, because that will take away the one thing that is currently unifying the GOP.
In the absence of an enemy, Republicans will turn on each other, making it easier to defeat them in 2018.

That's the pragmatic thing to do, but not the right thing.

 

[lionking]

They seriously don't. That's what drinking the koolaid does to you.

Indeed. Sad.

 

[Bob001]

Nixon approved and covered up a burglary and conspiracy. The Iran-Contra conspirators fermented a war. Hillary has, possibly, but not provably, been careless with emails. Most, if not all, not classified.

You see no difference? Seriously?

The pardon mechanism prevents prosecution for any reason. If Obama pardons Clinton, it protects her from a politically motivated prosecution and even possible conviction. The fact that she did much less -- if anything, really -- than other officials who were pardoned is an argument for pardoning her. Do you think there would be some honor in allowing her to be dragged into a long, very expensive federal criminal trial? Is that your point? Or do you think a pardon is some kind of short-circuit judgment of guilt? It is not.

 

[Darat]

Agreed. As much as I would like to see her burn, it probably is better to pardon her. The only issue being if it is done before or after she goes to jail.

Jail for what?

 

[Darat]

If he appoints a special prosecutor who can't find grounds for criminal charges, Hillary will be vindicated and Teh Donald will simply look vindictive.

But if he pardons her without investigation, then she will never be cleared by Donald's prosecutor. The cloud of potential guilt will always hang over her, and Donald won't be put in an awkward position by his unsuccessful prosecutor.

If he's shrewd, he'll pardon her.

ETA: Okay, Segnosaur kind of already said it.

The "cloud of guilt" was never anything but politically motivated spin so the facts make no difference.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Nixon approved and covered up a burglary and conspiracy. The Iran-Contra conspirators fermented a war. Hillary has, possibly, but not provably, been careless with emails. Most, if not all, not classified.

You see no difference? Seriously?

They seriously don't. That's what drinking the koolaid does to you.

I think it was stronger than Kool Aid.

 

[Darat]

Violation of 18 U.S.C. 793, for starters.

Knowingly setting up a private, unapproved server to handle tens of thousands of private and work related emails.

Gross negligence in transmitting over a hundred classified documents through that system.

Willfully passing classified documents to her lawyers who lacked security clearance to review the documents.

Gross negligence in losing or improperly destroying approximately a dozen mobile devices containing sensitive information.

That's just off the top of my head working off an iPhone. I'm sure a competent prosecutor could do even better.

Are you forgetting that has already been throughly investigated and there wasn't the evidence to charge her with any criminal wrong doing?