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

[MikeG]

He's talking about two gibbering idiots, namely Trump and Giuliani.

Yeah, I didn't think I made that too confusing. Clearly I was wrong.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yeah, I didn't think I made that too confusing. Clearly I was wrong.

Well you said that Trump as President and the attorney general of the United States, and i quote:

"who don't and won't have any control over who gets prosecuted," which is not just wrong, but is pants on head *********** wrong.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Well you said that Trump as President and the attorney general of the United States, and i quote:

"who don't and won't have any control over who gets prosecuted," which is not just wrong, but is pants on head *********** wrong.

Then why did you highlight the portion of the post that was not wrong?

 

[The Big Dog]

Then why did you highlight the portion of the post that was not wrong?

I did not highlight anything, although one should be impressed that he highlighted his accusation that they were idiots and followed it with something so unbelievably wrong.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I did not highlight anything,

My bad.

 

[shuize]

It has happened many times before, and it wouldn't be such an admission.

Again I refer to Caspar Weinberger and George Schulz. When GHW Bush pardoned them, it was not a tacit admission they had done anything wrong. It was a tacit admission that they could face a politically motivated prosecution for something that was not a crime.

You may be right. But that is definitely not how the public will view it.

I'm trying to decide from which president Clinton would be better of receiving a pardon. Personally, if she's going to get one, I sort of hope it's from Obama. But her reputation will suffer either way.

 

[Darat]

Not accurate, Comey said that no prosecutor would bring charges.

Trump's gang is not bound by that opinion.

Which is why there were so many articles yesterday discussing whether Obama should grant her a pardon.

And why an avid poster on this website raised the issue a year or so ago.

Because there was not the evidence to bring a case, as I accurately stated.

 

[Darth Rotor]

What federal crime was HRC convicted of that needs a presidential pardon? Not seeing it, for all that I a disgusted with the number of civilians who get away with violations of classified material regs that are encoded in law: She's not the first. Were I to behave the same when I was serving in the Navy I'd still be in prison, perhaps with Walker and such folk. But apparently there isn't a case to be made, hence no conviction.

Bob, I understand that analogy to Carter, but I'd like to remind you that what he declared was an Amnesty, which IIRC is a different legal thing than a pardon. (I may need to re read details on that). Beyond that, Carter was trying to heal some wounds from the Viet Nam war, not address political corruption and malfeasance.

President Obama cannot pardon a conviction for a crime that is at State level. Has HRC been convicted of any of those? Not that I've heard of.

So, no federal conviction. No state conviction. I don't get this pardon talk.

IMO, effort not worth pursuing as there are substantial challenges that do require AG effort, on going and in the future.

 

[dudalb]

Because there was not the evidence to bring a case, as I accurately stated.

Technixally, the FBI chief would not make the prosecute or not prosecute call.He presents the evidence with a recommendation to the AG's office. They decide on whether to prosecute or not. The AG is free to either accept or reject the FBI director's recommendation. The FBI director, by himself, could not prosectute a Cheese Sandwich, as the saying goes.By himself, the FBI director could not prosecute a Cheese Sandwich.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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."

Except that at the time they were transmitted they were not classified.

The emails you refer to were ones discussing things such as potential target lists for the Drone Program. Low level discussions like this were considered non-classified by the DoS and were often sent on non secure non classified email because it was easier to get hold of the right people and it was considered non-classified by them. The CIA however considered anything and everything to do with the Drone Program to be born Top Secret, so when the DoS gave them over to to the CIA for checking they reclassified these emails as Top Secret.

You can't prosecute someone for mishandling documents that were reclassified after they transmitted them though.

Consider this. You take a lunch order for a meeting and send it to your local Deli to have it made up. I later see that order and realise that one of the orders gives away that a person at the meeting was there, and this is top secret information. I now reclassify the lunch order as Top Secret to protect that attendee's identity. Did you break the law when you sent that lunch order, now Top Secret, to the Deli? Of course not.

This is the same with the Clinton Emails, the CIA's reclassifying them as Top Secret does not effect those that transmitted or stored them before they were classified as such.

The second group was of Three (3) emails with embedded confidential material in them. Now while this information was confidential when sent to Clinton, none of the emails had the appropriate headers to warn of this, rather just the (c) notification inside the body of the email itself, which when asked about, she stated that she had thought that the information had come from a bullet point list as the emails were not headed to say that they contained confidential information.

In these three cases the main person at fault was the one that sent these mails to Clinton.

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.

You are misconstruing what was said. Clinton stated she didn't know where the devices were, not that she had lost them. When a phone is upgraded or changed out, the user doesn't know what happens to it once it is turned in, so her answer was true, she didn't know where they were.

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."

Trouble is that even looking into the case files for precedent on what equates to Gross Negligence, it is far from clear that Clinton's actions (when not looked at through an Alt-Right filter) even came near to qualifying.

 

[Mike!]

Has this already happened? I wasn't paying attention, but I thought I just heard something on the news about Obama pardoning a turkey.

 

[lionking]

what in the hell are you talking about??

Huh? Both Guilani and Trump are gibbering idiots. Do you want a recap of their classic quotes again.

Oh, presuming Guilani is made AG, would there have ever been a worse one? If so, who?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Jail for what?

At least mishandling classified info.

“…from her direction that classification rules be disregarded, to the presence on her personal email server of information at the highest level of classification, to her repeated falsehoods of a sort that juries are told every day may be treated as evidence of guilty knowledge—it is nearly impossible to draw any conclusion other than that she knew enough to support a conviction at the least for mishandling classified information.” Former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey

Keeping up on the issue, the best argument I have seen so far in her favor was this:

"In Secretary Clinton’s case, then, the fact that some of the emails contained information that might be classified today does nothing to prove that the information was classified (and was known by her to be classified) at the time it was discussed over unsecured networks" Law Professor Stephen Vladeck

So as I see it. Seems her best defense is to play ignorant? And you wonder why people don't trust her? Here is the touted genius, far smarter and far more experienced than any other candidate, but to avoid serious criminal charges she has to pretend she was ignorant of classified information she handled, and ignorant of the fact that to view classified info, one needs a security clearance? So we either believe she is this sharp experienced seasoned politician, and knew damn well what she was doing, and thought herself above the law.

or

It was all accidental. She is such a bumbling ignorant fool, that she makes Palin look smart.



Ultimately, it will be Lynch who decides if charges against Clinton, or any of her aides are, in fact, warranted. But clearly she is either a bumbling idiot, or an outright criminal. Either way, no chance for me to vote for her. But if I was to guess, I would guess crook. She should actually do the "I am not a crook" speech just for irony.

 

[PhantomWolf]

At least mishandling classified info.

Except, as noted previously, you can't be found guilty of mishandling classified info that wasn't classified at the time. Also it should be noted that Clinton, as the head of the Department would be fully within her rights to have declassified any document created by the DoS. The "highly classified materials" were classified after the fact.

Keeping up on the issue, the best argument I have seen so far in her favor was this:

It's a very good argument.

So as I see it. Seems her best defense is to play ignorant? And you wonder why people don't trust her? Here is the touted genius, far smarter and far more experienced than any other candidate, but to avoid serious criminal charges she has to pretend she was ignorant of classified information she handled, and ignorant of the fact that to view classified info, one needs a security clearance? So we either believe she is this sharp experienced seasoned politician, and knew damn well what she was doing, and thought herself above the law.

or

It was all accidental. She is such a bumbling ignorant fool, that she makes Palin look smart.

False Dichotomy

With a little bit of thought you'd realise that no one can know what classification information has just by looking at it, this is why there are protocols on how to label classified materials so that people know if it is classified. The same materials could have differing classification levels in different departments, in fact this is the case here. The CIA considers that all information about Drones is classified Top Secret, the DoS doesn't. This means that if a document on drones is created by the CIA, it would be Classified, but if the same was created by the DoS it might not be. However, the CIA could request that the document be made classified, as they did with several emails.

To assume that someone had to be foolish or stupid for not knowing that information was classified is simply silly. Consider a report on a shipment of Oranges from Turkey to Iran. What classification is it? It could be Top Secret because knowing about the report could reveal a secret source. Likewise a particular photo of a submarine might be Top Secret because the camera that took it is Top Secret while other photos of the same sub might not classified at all. Hence the need for labeling. The only three items of classified material that were classified at the time failed to contain correct labeling to indicate that they contained classified materials.

So at the end of the day you have materials that were not classified until after the fact, and three documents that were not labeled as containing classified information, but had some confidential information in them, the lowest classification of information.

 

[Foolmewunz]

The blood lust is really palpable in some. I kinda hope that Obama doesn't pardon her and that some whackjobs convince Donald that he has to follow through and prosecute. It will seem like just what it is, petty vindictiveness, being a bad winner, and distract them from their more reprehensible programs.

More important, it sets a precedent the GOP never wants to see. Would you really want to be anyone in the Trump family when the next Democrat takes office and decides to go after the thousands of potential conflicts of interest between Trump's family business and his years in the White House. "Hi, Daddy. I know we said to keep the rates at $900 a night, but bookings aren't really coming in." "Oh, don't you worry, sugar drawers, I get a lot of visitors here. I'm sure some of them will want to stay in a fine gold-leaf-lobbied hotel. Call it a hunch."

I can see them explaining how those bookings were made by the various officials and that it's just a coincidence that the name of the hotel or the conference venue happens to be the same on the White House stationery.

State department gestures to countries that just happen to later license Trump Golf and Trump Hotels and Trump Casinos. Five hundred cases of Trump wine per week ordered by the embassies for various tin pot dictators? National Committee of Concerned Whatever booking its annual conference at Mar-A-Lago?

Hell, the Dems wouldn't even wait until he was out of the White House, they'd start in immediately. Congressional privilege to slander someone and to release confidential information, as Chairman Gowdy has taught us, can go a long way.

So, yeah... please, Donald! Go after Hillary Clinton. What's the statute of limitations on war crimes? I believe there is none. Bush and Cheney could be spending their senior years in orange jumpsuits.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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.

And if she's shrewd, she'll refuse it.

ETA: Well, I see I was all sorts of ninja'd.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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.

Trump assassinated a Supreme Court justice?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Trump assassinated a Supreme Court justice?

Didn't you know?

Trump always went to these Bunga-bunga parties with Scalia and other conservatives.

Scalia did too much of the cheap coke Trump brought...