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

[lionking]

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.

Would you like to be put in the same category of Nixon and the Iran/Contragate fools?

I know that Hillary won't.

 

[Bob001]

Would you like to be put in the same category of Nixon and the Iran/Contragate fools?

I know that Hillary won't.

You know what Hillary thinks? She might prefer a pardon to having felony charges hanging over her head for a couple years and spending millions of dollars mounting a defense. I'm quite certain she'd prefer a pardon to a federal criminal conviction.

What do you think a pardon is? I repeat, if you think a pardon is some kind of judgment of guilt, you are mistaken. A pardon most commonly is used to restore the rights of someone who has served a sentence and subsequently lived a blameless life; but it is also used to make someone whole who is proven to have been unjustly convicted, and in the cases cited here, it's a mechanism that allows the highest authority to proclaim "You have done nothing to deserve prosecution." Why do you think Clinton should prefer a criminal trial to a pardon, if it comes down to that?

And to answer your question, as far as I know I haven't committed any federal crimes. But I would love to have a Presidential Pardon in my files, just in case.

 

[MikeG]

his major promise along with a wall was to lock mrs clinton up the day after.
he never did say why, but ignoring this promise so early isn't a great sign.

funnily, no cries of lock her up from the crowd after she conceded.
a collective short term memory from team trump?

I wish you well in your search for a fully functioning keyboard.

To be talking about pardons for someone who hasn't done anything wrong is ridiculous.

 

[MikeG]

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......

You'll be calling for the prosecution of Colin Powell, Jeb Bush, and George W Bush for the same offense, I take it.

No, I thought not.

 

[lionking]

You'll be calling for the prosecution of Colin Powell, Jeb Bush, and George W Bush for the same offense, I take it.

No, I thought not.

Exactly.

 

[shuize]

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.

Given that some of the documents were reportedly "top secret," I would argue it is perfectly reasonable to expect a higher standard of care in the handling of such documents. (Especially since she is the one who set up and used the private server for both work and personal matters.) Thus, any deviation from that standard of care when entrusted with our nation's highest secrets arguably constitutes "gross negligence."

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

Perhaps. Although courts take a fairly broad view of "willful." Regardless, even if it does not rise to "willful," she's still on the hook for "gross negligence." And I don't think it's so difficult to argue that losing a dozen mobile devices with sensitive information (that's this many: X X X X X X X X X X X X) is in fact gross negligence.

There was no reason Comey needed to read an "intent" element into 18 U.S.C. 793 (f). It clearly outlines the standard as "gross negligence."

 

[shuize]

You'll be calling for the prosecution of Colin Powell, Jeb Bush, and George W Bush for the same offense, I take it.

No, I thought not.

You should not be so quick with your assumptions. If there is evidence they were grossly negligent in the handling of classified information, they should be subject to prosecution as well. As I stated earlier in the thread, enough of the special treatment for the politically connected.

Did any of them transmit anything close to a 100 classified documents over private servers? If so, prosecute. At the very least, disqualify them from ever holding another security clearance. FFS, don't hold them out as completely blameless and run them for higher office.

 

[MikeG]

Do you not understand how completely trivial this issue is?

Do you not understand that you have been manipulated by the Republican smear machine to think that this is some heinous crime, when it is actually trivially unimportant? If Jesus H Christ walked across the Atlantic and turned up in Washington to start a political career with the Democrats, the Republicans would smear him left right and centre, and morons in a crowd would be chanting "lock him up".

 

[Meadmaker]

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?

Bob sees a difference. A great many in the Republican party do not. That's why Obama will pardon her, so that the Republicans cannot carry on this vindictive anti-Clinton crusade.

 

[shuize]

Do you not understand how completely trivial this issue is?

Do you not understand that you have been manipulated by the Republican smear machine to think that this is some heinous crime, when it is actually trivially unimportant?

Earlier you suggested I was a hypocrite and would not call for prosecution of Republicans if they committed similar crimes. Since I explained how I believe Republicans politicians involved in negligent handling of classified information should also face prosecution, you've apparently changed tack to say the issue is actually trivial. I take this to mean you now recognize that what Clinton did was in fact criminal but, in your opinion, just not that big of a deal.

Again, I disagree. First, a felony is not a trivial crime. Congress has rightly imposed serious criminal sanctions to safeguard our nation's secrets. You may not feel this is a worthwhile goal. I most certainly do.

Second, the questionable nature of the Clinton foundation, her decision to put her personal convenience above reporting and security requirements, and her obstructionist attitude about turning the documents over when properly requested all raise serious concerns about her character.

To repeat my earlier statement, I believe she deserves to be prosecuted. However, I can see the political wisdom in granting a pardon. In my opinion, though, it would be better to let Obama do it. He can take the political heat and explain how, after stating she did nothing wrong, she nonetheless needs to be pardoned.

 

[MikeG]

Yep, you've fallen for the ******** hook, line and sinker. It's sad.

 

[fagin]

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.

Quite right, you don't.

But what does that have to do with Clinton?

 

[halleyscomet]

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.

There will be no pardon because it is not necessary. Years of investigations and hearings have turned up nothing worth charging her over. The investigations were political theater. We will never hear of these issues from Republicans again unless Trump pursues a personal vendetta against the Clintons or other Republicans need a "Look! A boogeyman!" Distraction that isn't gay or Muslim.

Even IF this is pursued, Obama won't want to shut it down. Every minute Trump and the GOP spend on a Quixotic quest to take down Hillary Clinton is a minute they're not spending on issues where they CAN get results. Hillary is the perfect troll to eat Republican time and effort. Unless she has other career plans, a distinct possibility for her, she'll have the time. Taunting the GOP as they try to Ahab themselves will keep Hillary Clinton from getting bored in her retirement.

 

[ponderingturtle]

For what? Be specific.

Being Hillary Clinton.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Given that some of the documents were reportedly "top secret," I would argue it is perfectly reasonable to expect a higher standard of care in the handling of such documents. (Especially since she is the one who set up and used the private server for both work and personal matters.) Thus, any deviation from that standard of care when entrusted with our nation's highest secrets arguably constitutes "gross negligence."





Perhaps. Although courts take a fairly broad view of "willful." Regardless, even if it does not rise to "willful," she's still on the hook for "gross negligence." And I don't think it's so difficult to argue that losing a dozen mobile devices with sensitive information (that's this many: X X X X X X X X X X X X) is in fact gross negligence.

There was no reason Comey needed to read an "intent" element into 18 U.S.C. 793 (f). It clearly outlines the standard as "gross negligence."

What if her mishandling of top secret information was a lower frequency than average for mishandling top secret information at the state department?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Yep like everything he said on the campaign trail it has nothing to do with what he will do as president.

Seriously has any president elect ever had his supporters saying "of course he will not do his campaign promises" to anything like this extent before?

How can they know what he will do when they don't believe in his core campaign promises?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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?

And shouldn't Rice and Powell be gone after too, they also had private email servers.

 

[Belz...]

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.

You don't pardon people who have blown up Alderaan, either, but since none of that has anything to do with Hillary Clinton, why bring it up?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Why? they have lost all the motivation of going after the clintons anymore. What is the point in another round of Bengazi hearings now? They won what they were after.

 

[Belz...]

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?

It's ridiculous. A pardon would be tantamount to an admission of guilt.