Image 01 Image 03

Jesse Jackson to Obama: Pardon Hillary

Jesse Jackson to Obama: Pardon Hillary

What about Bill, and Chelsea, and Huma, and …

Our ongoing (and still open) poll on whether President Trump should pardon Hillary shows overwhelming opposition.

But, as was mentioned in the comments to that post, we may not get there.

Obama may do it first.

Jesse Jackson opened up the issue in an appeal to Obama, as reported in The Detroit Free Press:

Speaking at President Gerald Ford’s alma mater, The Rev. Jesse Jackson called for President Obama to issue a blanket pardon to Hillary Clinton before he leaves office, just like Ford did for Richard Nixon.

Stopping short of saying Clinton did anything wrong, Jackson told a large crowd of University of Michigan students, faculty and administrators gathered at daylong celebration of his career that Obama should short-circuit President-elect Donald Trump’s promised attempt to prosecute Hillary Clinton for use of a private e-mail server.

“It would be a monumental moral mistake to pursue the indictment of Hillary Clinton,” Jackson said. He said issuing the pardon could help heal the nation, like Ford’s pardon of Nixon did.

“President Ford said we don’t need him for trophy. We need to move on. President Nixon wasn’t convicted of a crime. He didn’t apply for a pardon. (Ford) did it because he thought it would be best for the country.

“Hillary Clinton has not been tried, but there are those who want to drag her for the next three years. It will not stop until they find a reason to put her in jail. That would be a travesty.”

So what do you think? Will Obama pardon Hillary (and Bill and Chelsea and Huma)?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Well, he’s right that if there’s no pardon this will drag on for years to come. and so it should. She belongs in prison; if she doesn’t end up there, at least the public deserves to know why.

But – but – she’s *not guilty*! Isn’t that what the FBI said? How can you pardon an innocent person?

If Obama does pardon her, he’ll forever have placed the label of “guilty” on her. Hardly seems helpful…

    A pardon doesn’t have to be for any specific offense, it can be for all offenses if any. And it would be seen not as an admission of guilt but as a very reasonable rescue from vindictive and baseless Republican witch hunts. Believe it or not, half the country is convinced of this, and will not be budged no matter what the evidence. The fact that she’s been investigated for so long and not been charged is proof positive that she’s in fact completely innocent. People seem not to realise that nobody but the DOJ can charge her, and it was never going to.

      The fact that she’s been investigated for so long and not been charged is proof positive that she’s in fact completely innocent.

      One simply points out to anyone arguing that, that after all the investigations of Al Capone, all they convicted him of was tax evasion.

      So it goes for high profile criminals. They have very good accountants to hide the real books.

        Milhouse in reply to RodFC. | November 17, 2016 at 1:37 am

        Ah, but they did get him for something. They haven’t got her for anything, therefore she hasn’t done anything. I recently tangled with someone who was utterly convinced that “the police” could and would prosecute anyone they were convinced had committed a crime, and were completely neutral to boot, so that the fact that they had not prosecuted her was absolute proof that there was no evidence on which she could be prosecuted. He refused to believe that the exclusive power of prosecution for federal offenses lies with the DOJ, which is very far from neutral.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | November 17, 2016 at 2:15 am

          So to you since the completely corrupt DOJ hasn’t charged Hillary that means that she is completely innocent?

          Did you actually listen to James Comey lay out for 30 minutes the way she broke the law but in the end basically blame it on her being stupid? I understand “innocent until proven guilty” but geez.

          Also, there was zero chance she would be charged which is why Comey didn’t “recommend” prosecution, which was just cover for him to keep Hillary from having him killed, since his recommendation means basically jack squat.

          RodFC in reply to Milhouse. | November 17, 2016 at 3:25 am

          The key word is “in the end”. It took a long time to get him, and others like Gotti took even longer.

          And they might not have got Capone if he had better tax lawyers from the start.

          RodFC in reply to Milhouse. | November 17, 2016 at 3:28 am

          @Gremlion1974, Milhouse is not arguing Clinton is not guilty. He is playing devil’s advocate and saying what Hillaries defenders are going to argue.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | November 17, 2016 at 3:11 pm

          @RodFC Well to be fair, with Milly you never can really tell.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | November 17, 2016 at 9:01 pm

          RodFC, I am not playing devil’s advocate, I am describing how half the country thinks. They are convinced that she is the innocent victim of persecution, and nothing will convince them otherwise. That is why Starr didn’t indict her when he had the chance; he would have to try her in DC, and no DC jury would ever convict her no matter how strong the evidence, so he decided it was better not to indict her than to give her the vindication of an acquittal.

          inspectorudy in reply to Milhouse. | November 17, 2016 at 10:58 pm

          You obviously haven’t been paying attention to the goings on in the FBI. The field agents have all complained that they were denied the use of subpoenas and questioning of witnesses concerning the clinton foundation. This has to be the biggest “Pay to Play” scheme in my lifetime. This has nothing to do with being a good American or making a mistake trying to serve your country. This is all about greed! She and her grifter husband were using her position to benefit their own net worth and there is nothing noble anywhere to be found. She and slick willy should go to prison for the remainder of their lives. Your notion, to appease the snowflakes by a pardon, is just liberal crap.

      Evil Otto in reply to Milhouse. | November 17, 2016 at 6:44 am

      “The fact that she’s been investigated for so long and not been charged is proof positive that she’s in fact completely innocent.”

      That isn’t how it works.

        Milhouse in reply to Evil Otto. | November 17, 2016 at 9:03 pm

        That’s how half the country thinks it works. They genuinely don’t know that the DOJ has a monopoly on prosecuting federal crimes, and that it doesn’t have to prosecute its friends. This is why 18th-century England did not have public prosecutors.

      gwsjr425 in reply to Milhouse. | November 17, 2016 at 7:02 am

      HEHEHEHE….I got that very same talking point in an email blast from the DNC.

I don’t think it would help. They have such an ongoing enterprise, they would be in new trouble the day after the pardon.

I don’t think he will just because they really don’t like each other.

    Rick the Curmudgeon in reply to Gremlin1974. | November 17, 2016 at 1:28 am

    If he does pardon her, it won’t be until 0900, 20JAN17. He’ll keep them wondering until the last possible second.

Hillary won’t ask him for one.

Recall that the Nixon pardon was the absolute end of Nixon’s political career. After that, his status was essentially that of a jailbird, except that he lived in obscurity in San Clemente rather than at taxpayer expense in Leavenworth.

But it’s not obvious that Hillary realizes that she’s reached the end of the road. Megalomaniacs rarely do. She may believe that she can face any charges and actually win. After all, she always has.

Meanwhile, she still has the resources of the Clinton Crime Foundation; she can bribe, extort, threaten, and blackmail just like the old days. Although they’ve taken a pounding, the Democrats still exist as a party, and they’re as filthy and corrupt as ever—the ideal environment for Hillary, the spider at the center of the web. All she has to do is spin her corrupt plots, and wait.

I don’t believe she’ll live that long. But what I believe isn’t a factor here; it’s about what she believes.

Further, there’s little reason for Obama to ride to her rescue. Trump has a great deal of leverage on Obama, if he wants to use it; all the stuff Obama’s been trying to hide, his transcripts, his birth certificate, the Fast & Furious coverup, the payoffs to Iran … an embarrassment of riches. Trump can hint that he’ll let Obama skate on some of that stuff, if he keeps his nose out of l’affaire Hillary.

Well, I certainly don’t have to tell Trump how to make a deal.

Besides, Jackson won’t whine much. It’s not like Hillary’s black, or anything.

    clintack in reply to tom swift. | November 16, 2016 at 9:52 pm

    The Clinton Foundation is the real dirt, though. Pardon or no pardon, that’s all corrupt enterprise ill-gotten gains. Freeze the accounts.

    If President Obama is really looking to troll conservatives on his way out, he should issue a pardon to the Clinton Foundation. (After all, non-profit 501(c)(3) corporations are people too!)

I think President Obama won’t pardon her, because he secretly knows that the pardon would become one of the key elements of his historical identity (that is, the one-line description of who a historical figure was) — his legacy, as it were.

Lincoln — the tall guy with the beard who freed the slaves
Ford — the guy who pardoned Nixon and tripped that one time

Obama is still hoping to do better than “Taft — the guy who was really, really fat”. But it’s not looking good.

Yep. He will pardon Hellary.

That seals her history, and it makes Barracula look magnanimous. He won’t miss that chance.

Otherwise, she’s left to the vagaries of the criminal justice system and years of process, which never serves Obama.

    legacyrepublican in reply to Ragspierre. | November 17, 2016 at 5:48 am

    In addition, it ends her political career for good because Barracula will have pronounced her guilty for all to see.

    BTW, if I am correct, could she still face criminal prosecution in the state of New York for mishandling The Clinton Foundation even with a presidential pardon? ( of course, Como would pardon her too )

      Her political career is over anyway. And you are correct, a federal pardon would not protect her from prosecution in NY. Like that’s ever going to happen…

    I view it more as compartmentalizing a leak in a sinking ship. By sealing off ‘Clinton’ from his (imaginary) glowing record, historians can contrast the two of them.

    (Hillary: Didn’t get universal health care through. Obama: did. Hillary: Accepted bribes for influence peddling. Obama: Spared the nation the indignity of a trial and pardoned her. Hillary: Foreign policy disasters. Obama: Attempted recovery and would have too, if he had not run out of time and been forced to let the Trumpster in.) In short, she can be blamed for everything he did.

      Rick the Curmudgeon in reply to georgfelis. | November 17, 2016 at 5:21 pm

      In short, she can be blamed for everything he did.

      Well, poetic justice is better than no justice.

      And considering how the Clintons and Obamas feel about each other, hijinks are sure to follow.

Has Obama let Jessie Jackson out of purdah?

I don’t think Obama wants to go the scope he has to shut down all or even most investigations.

Not to mention civil actions that are not covered by a pardon.
What is more Clinton would have to tell the truth about any crimes in further investigations, if she didn’t that would open her to perjury. I don’t think Obama wants to give her a “get out of jail free” card and then see her tear it apart, and you know she will.

I think that at this point Obama is doing everything he can to distance himself from her, and to make her become the fall guy.

And Gerald Ford was taken down by Jimmy Carter.

IANAL, but if she’s pardoned, can’t the investigations continue to see:
a- what happened
b- who else may have committed illegal acts?
Either of those seems a valid reason to keep the investigations going. The key is that she could be called to testify under oath and, if needed, a grant of immunity could be made without political consequences to get her testimony. If she lies it’s off to jail on perjury. If she is guilty, and the right questions were asked, she would be confessing.

Is it possible?

    Milhouse in reply to VaGentleman. | November 17, 2016 at 9:46 pm

    It’s true that Congress can continue to investigate. Even the FBI can, but it would be hard to justify the expense unless there was a real prospect of uncovering indictable offenses by someone.

Hillary Clinton should be put in a pillory in a public square, then locked up for the rest of her life.

Once an investigation into the Clinton ‘foundation’ is completed, Chelsea will probably be in prison with her.

Imagine the grooming this talentless greedy bozo has had: do anything you want, to anyone you want – you’re that special.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to | November 17, 2016 at 2:18 am

    None of the Clintons will see the inside of a Jail cell, just hang that up right now, even if they do it will be one of the country club federal prisons where they golf and have 5 star chefs.

    Bill knows to many people”s secrets, Hillary is to dangerous, and Chelsea is protected by them. Sure some high level staffers may go to jail, but not one of those 3, that’s just reality.

      tom swift in reply to Gremlin1974. | November 17, 2016 at 8:12 am

      This scenario is why both parties were fighting so desperately to get some member of the Insider’s Club into the Oval Office. They’re the ones the Clinton slime machine will have the dirt on, and they’re the ones who can be relied on to be “helpful” to other Insiders.

      That comfortable arrangement won’t work reliably if an “outsider” is President. Hence the dread of both Bernie and Trump. Neither of them give a hoot about what dirt Billy Jeff has on the other insiders. Trump in particular is a serious menace; unlike career politicians, being in office isn’t the centerpiece of his career. He has a life—and an unusually big and extravagant one—completely independent of politics. He could be utterly trashed politically and it would make no difference to him at all—he’d still be The Donald, he’d have a nuthold on the press like nobody since Princess Di, and he’d still be rich. He’s “untouchable”; they all know it, and they’re terrified.

      He’s in the ideal position to end a lot of careers, if he wants to. Since they’re careers of evil, that’s just fine with me.

        Milhouse in reply to tom swift. | November 17, 2016 at 9:49 pm

        What are you talking about? Trump is very much an insider in that crowd. Don’t forget that until he decided to run against her he was very close with the Clintons. He was on the Jeff Epstein planes, right there with them, and has the same interest in not investigating them.

      Neither one of them are Napoleon. They should be pursued to the fullest extent of the law. If they are not, they, future generations will be deprived of the lesson of how corruption and treason infested itself into the US government during the tenures of Clinton and Obama – and such horrors will be repeated.

      Most people, even people on our side, don’t appreciate the bullet we dodged in this election. We may not be so fortunate next time. The unique talents of Donald Trump bundled in one person come along once in a century, if that, and at the right time.

buckeyeminuteman | November 17, 2016 at 6:31 am

A blanket pardon for any and all crimes you may have committed and may be indicted and/or convicted for in the future is just wrong. It may Ford very unpopular. Trump definitely has no business doing it. If Obama does it, count on losing more Dem seats in the 2018 elections.

    It didn’t hurt Republicans when Bush pardoned Weinberger at al for “all offenses charged or prosecuted by Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh or other member of his office, or committed by these individuals and within the jurisdiction of that office”.

Obama will consider a Hillary pardon in the same way he considers everything else: How will a pardon of Hillary help Obama?

He does not care whether a pardon or lack thereof helps or hurts Hillary or the country.

Hee Hee. A little backstabbing by JJ. Guess HRC didn’t donate any funds to him.

pablo panadero | November 17, 2016 at 7:46 am

On or about January 19, Obama will issue the largest blanket pardon ever seen for the entire state department, IRS, and justice department. This will reach down to the lowest IT guy so all records are destroyed.

Trumps reaction will be to revoke the executive order permitting federal employee unions, and congress will follow up with a law that forbids anyone accepting a pardon from holding a federal government job or receiving a federal pension.

Obama will help Trunmp clean house.

Jesse Jackson is still alive? He’s been a ghost for so long I thought maybe he was dead. Maybe he can get Obama to give that convict kid of his a pardon.

I don’t think Hillary shouldbe pardoned, but I do think Jesse should be pardoned for suggesting it.

I kinda hate the idea of a pardon, but think that it may be the least worst alternative. The alternative is that Trump’s DoJ investigate her, along with the family foundation/slush fund, and probably ultimately indict her and her minions for a multitude of crimes (which Trump is almost obligated to do, given his campaign promises). The problem is that that would set the precedent of sending the FBI (and the rest of the DoJ) after losing Presidential candidates. There have been numerous legal wags who have pointed out that the feds can, essentially indict a ham sandwich, and that we all most likely violate federal laws every day. So, there is probably always something that can be found against any losing Presidential candidate, if enough governmental resources are thrown against them.

That said, the alternative is also intolerable – that there is a two tier legal system in this country, with some, like Crooked Hillary, essentially above the law.

    Milhouse in reply to Bruce Hayden. | November 17, 2016 at 9:58 pm

    The difference is that most losing candidates have not committed any crimes, at least that anyone knows of. This time the evidence is out there, and if she gets away with it just because she was a presidential candidate that sets a dangerous precedent. These are not political crimes, they’re crimes that anyone else would already be in prison for.

2nd Ammendment Mother | November 17, 2016 at 1:34 pm

Anyone else see a massive destruction of hard drives by Obama appointees happening in the near future?

Do it. The buck stops at Obama, and he’s the one who should be held accountable, not Clinton.

    Milhouse in reply to M.K.. | November 17, 2016 at 9:59 pm

    How is 0bama responsible for Clinton’s crimes? He didn’t tell her to do them, he didn’t benefit from them, and she certainly didn’t do them to help him.

      tom swift in reply to Milhouse. | November 17, 2016 at 11:35 pm

      He knew he was conducting government business on an unsecured server when he e-mailed her under a fictitious name. To the server address he didn’t know about until he read it in the papers.

He probably should pardon her.

The goings on at the Clinton Foundation were extremely corrupt, but she and Bill are too connected to not continue without a major fight.

If the Clinton Foundation is shut down, I don’t really care if the Clintons go to jail or not.

Perhaps a compromise would be to pardon Clinton for the email server and any and all national security violations that might be related to its use while leaving open the possibility of prosecution for pay-to-pay corruption involving the Clinton Foundation?

This would at least permit a thorough investigation. Although I suspect indictments, let alone convictions, would be difficult to obtain as (for some reason) conspirators seldom say (let alone write) “I’ll pay you $X if you do Y.” Apparently the only reason Jesse Jackson got caught was because he was all too obvious about what he was selling and what he wanted for it.

Nonetheless, the American public would at least find out what happened, who paid, and what potential favors were delivered (now that it’s too late to do anything about it anyway).

    “This would at least permit a thorough investigation…”

    This is why it would not be done.

    Rick the Curmudgeon in reply to Albigensian. | November 17, 2016 at 5:16 pm

    Only if the pardon listed specific acts and details of those acts for which she was being pardoned, e.g. “56 counts of failure to secure classified material, to wit: (and a list of those materials)

    You know, for the history books…

I hope all of you hillary apologist never serve on a jury where the nation’s laws are on trial! What a bunch of sniveling excuses to not try a criminal! This isn’t about making a mistake as SoS that embarrassed our nation or killed four good American men in Benghazi. This is about making a large amount of money in four years that is unprecedented. This is about being nothing but a cheap crook who got caught in a pay to play scheme and has nothing to do with “Hurt feelings” or national pride. If anything, she should be put on trial to clear her sordid name and if she is innocent then she should be acquitted of this charge. If not then she should go to prison for the abuse of her position and power GIVEN to her by the people of the US.

Fortunately, because Jesse was so typically unintelligible, his request was not heard.