Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

READER POLL: Should President Trump pardon Hillary?

READER POLL: Should President Trump pardon Hillary?

Gerald Ford Part Deux?

In 1974, President Gerald Ford granted former President Richard Nixon a full pardon. “It could go on and on and on, or someone must write the end to it. I have concluded that only I can do that, and if I can, I must,” said Ford.

What do you think? Should President Trump channel Ford and Pardon Hillary?


Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

NO !!! NEVER !!!

    fscarn in reply to Lewfarge. | November 9, 2016 at 5:11 pm

    Before any sort of pardon can be considered, there must be both an accounting and a rendering.

    In plea bargains the defendant is required to explain him/her|self before the court/judge, who is the proxy for the people themselves, accepts the plea bargain.

    “Allocution allows the defendant to explain why the sentence should be lenient. In plea bargains, an allocution may be required of the defendant. The defendant explicitly admits specifically and in detail the actions and their reasons in exchange for a reduced sentence.

    “In principle, that removes any doubt as to the exact nature of the defendant’s guilt in the matter.”

    The nation deserves to know the depth and breadth of this woman’s duplicitous and treasonous actions before any measure of forgiveness is offered.

    We’re a long ways for getting to that point.

    No, no, no.

    Agree with never: The Clinton Crime Foundation’s assets were obtained by selling government influence, and all the proceeds should be reclaimed by the government.

I thought about this for a while and concluded .. only after she ‘fesses up’

Obama will beat him to it.

But if for some reason he does not, I would say yes since it will leave her forever under a cloud of suspicion, so much it will be on her gravestone.

The question is moot. Obama will do it.

    I say that Obama and Trump will not.

    Where do you stop ? You have Clinton’s staff and IT folks. The there is those clowns at DOJ that obstructed justice to keep the email investigation bottled up.

    Then, the Clinton Foundation scandal goes everywhere.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Freddy Hill. | November 9, 2016 at 5:41 pm

    I wouldn’t hang my hat on that. Obama is really big on his “legacy” and his “legacy” was basically just slapped down by the American people so don’t expect him to do anything to harm it.

I’m ambivalent about a pardon, but IF it is to be done, it should only be done once the investigation is complete and the facts are in the public domain.

Abso-FREAKING-loooootly NOT.

It would be a terrible move and establish a terrible precedent.

That’s Barracula’s role from here on out. He needs to be forever tied to Hellary.

    userpen in reply to Ragspierre. | November 9, 2016 at 4:46 pm

    I was going to say, “That’s harsh, Rags.” But actually that’s one of your better posts.

    Actually, Obama is tied pretty solidly to her no matter what he does.

    If he pardons Hillary, he becomes the second coming of Gerald Ford pardoning Nixon, and puts them both in that ‘frame’ forever.

    If he *doesn’t* pardon Hillary… As I recall, accepting a pardon is an admission of wrongdoing. If Obama claims he doesn’t believe she did anything wrong, and the investigation continues to drag out Democratic dirt, his fellow dirty Democrats will blame the resulting negative fallout on the party to him.

      Ragspierre in reply to georgfelis. | November 9, 2016 at 5:29 pm

      Coupla thangs…

      1. there is no implication of wrong-doing in a POTUS pardon, and

      2. there is no “acceptance” as part of the process. It’s what it is, regardless of how the beneficiary feels. Look in the Constitution, and

      3. these guys can spin anything. ANY. THING. They lie.

      BUT a pardon is part of history, and hard to spin.

        Sorry Rags, but that is not correct.

        In the case of Burdick v. United States (dealing with a presidential pardon) the Supreme Court ruled:

        “[A pardon] carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.”

        As to acceptance, the Court also said that acceptance of the pardon cannot be forced on the individual. They cited United States v. Wilson which said:

        “A pardon is a deed to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered, and if it be rejected, we have discovered no power in a court to force it on him.”

        Therefore, a pardon cannot be forced on anyone and acceptance of a pardon is an admission of guilt.

      tom swift in reply to georgfelis. | November 9, 2016 at 5:43 pm

      If [Obama] pardons Hillary, he becomes the second coming of Gerald Ford pardoning Nixon

      No; much worse. Ford was not implicated in Nixon’s crimes; he was never part of his administration, and never plotted with him to commit and then cover up illegal acts. The same is not true of Obama. The strong and immediate suspicion of a pardon for Hillary and her crimes is that Obama would be protecting a possible, and very likely, trail of testimony about his own crimes.

      Hillary’s life of crime is also far more extensive than Nixon’s. I’d prefer that the possibility of further investigation be left open, particularly of the trail of dead bodies going back to Arkansas. We aren’t dealing here merely with a politician with the ethical sense of a weasel, we’re dealing with a female Al Capone.

Not just no, but HELL NO!!! Damn Democrats need to learn that when they commit multiple felonies, they will be held accountable.

Both Clinton and the Democratic party claim she did nothing wrong and was exonerated by the FBI. Why would he need to pardon her?

For me to ok a pardon, ALL of the money in the clinton foundation would have to be immediately given to multiple REAL charities that the crooks have no influence over and any money owed by them would have to come out of their own money. These people are the kind of scum that you cannot get off of the bottom of your shoes and if not beaten down will rise again in another venue.

Pardon her for what? A FBI security review?

You imply that someone, even Trump, has the stones to prosecute her for a crime that would require a pardon. That’s pretty child-like thinking given the actors in this theatre.

    No, wait. Andy is partly correct. And so is MJN1957. At the present moment, all we have is a much politicized quasi-security review/FBI investigation.

    Impanel a Grand Jury, put the players under oath, and see if an indictment can be obtained with respect to the Clinton Foundation and “Pay-to-Play.” Include not only Hillary, but her co-conspirator, William Jefferson Clinton.

    If she can be indicted, along with Bill, then let’s talk about a ‘pardon’ for “crimes committed against the United States.”

    gbear in reply to Andy. | November 9, 2016 at 5:13 pm

    For starters:
    The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.
    FOIA is designed to “improve public access to agency records and information.”
    The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained “by the agency,” that they should be “readily found” and that the records must “make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress.”
    Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. “Knowingly” removing or housing classified information at an “unauthorized location” is subject to a fine or a year in prison.

    The crime family money mill is another matter still under investigation.

    Evan3457 in reply to Andy. | November 9, 2016 at 6:23 pm

    18 U.S.C 793 (f).
    That’s all.

I don’t think that Obama will pardon her since that would mean that he knows she did something illegal. And, remember that his IRS apparently passed on the review of the Foundation. She’s always said that she was innocent, right?

She should go through a trial and be judged for her actions. If she is sent to prison, then Trump can commute her sentence so she doesn’t serve, but leave the stain of the conviction. See Scooter Libby and how Bush treated him.

Yes. Here’s why.

1. It makes it very clear that she broke the law.

2. It allows us to investigate just what happened without looking like a political witch hunt.

Andy, Andy, Andy. You have not been paying attention

Of course he shouldn’t. Of course he will. I’ll put my money in the betting pool on 12 DEC.

No. it’s time to stop treating politicians and government workers as if they were above the law. Seeing one of their own in an orange jumpsuit would put the rest on notice.

Mark Finkelstein | November 9, 2016 at 5:02 pm

I think Obama would be doing Trump a favor by pardoning Hillary. It clears the air and lets Trump move on with his agenda. Investigations, prosecutions, etc. will only stir up partisan turmoil. Hillary is the past. Let her be consigned to the past and not muddy the present and the future.

i’m okay with him pardoning her…

posthumously. 😎

Yes , if she comes clean and weadmits the illegality and dissolves the Clinton foundation

Otherwise his Attorney General appoints special prosecutor and she takes her chances.
Then we can love on , laws and guidelines for classified info need to be strengthened.

another option is offering her a pardon in return for a sworn statement in which she admits all her various crimes and agrees to surrender all assets of the Clinton Foundation, as well as her personal ones.

You need a button that says “Hell no, are you crazy or something? She’s a traitor.”
IF you wait until after Obama leaves office before you really open up the investigations then no.

smalltownoklahoman | November 9, 2016 at 5:13 pm

I would only say yes on one precondition: that she publicly state that she is done with politics altogether. No more running for public office, no more consulting or lobbying, no private speeches for large sums of money, D.O.N.E.!

    Gremlin1974 in reply to smalltownoklahoman. | November 9, 2016 at 5:36 pm

    That would be pointless since she can’t be held to it.

      smalltownoklahoman in reply to Gremlin1974. | November 9, 2016 at 6:20 pm

      When I say I want her to publicly state she’s done all I’m really wanting her to admit is reality. She is DONE! Without the office of Presidency as a shield she is now vulnerable like she has not been for decades as her corruption is now finally catching up to her. If Obama and the DOJ can’t get the FBI to wrap up their investigations and/or Obama doesn’t pardon her then the Clinton Foundation has a good chance of being shut down and likely takes with it just about everything the Clintons have been building and saving for years. I severely doubt anyone is going to be paying them exorbitant fees now to hear them give a speech in private, which was really a venue for influence peddling so that’s gone. Consulting and lobbying: given the multiple scandals that have erupted this campaign season I doubt anyone is going to want to bring the Clinton’s onboard for fear of any of that tainting them. Finally, there is her age and health. Barring some miracle treatment coming about in the next couple of years for whatever her condition is this was her last chance at the presidency and she lost. She’s not interested in going back to the House or Senate either so those are likely save from her presence ever returning (except maybe to testify in one of these ongoing cases). If she were to just admit her defeat in total and then go retire in obscurity somewhere never to bother the American people again I would be happy with that.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to smalltownoklahoman. | November 9, 2016 at 9:50 pm

        Well frankly that is the basic net result of last night, at her age her only future contributions, if they can be called that, will probably be another book.

Not only no but Hell no.

No; disastersville lies that way.

The things Trump has been campaigning on are a little unusual for an American election. They’re not wonderful castle-in-the sky visions of free everything for everybody, of making Kumbaya the national anthem, of putting Eleanor Roosevelt on the $5 bill. And they’re not vague mantras about a chicken in every pot, a tiger in every tank, motherhood and apple pie, or even the health benefits of kissing strange babies. They’re much more specific and basic things like reigning in the government and making it subject to its own laws. The Wall is nothing but a concrete (sorry) tactic to finally start enforcing Federal immigration laws which already exist. Draconian action against Obamacare would basically be undoing a law forced on the country illegally by the Reid/Pelosi/Obama/Roberts axis. On judicial appointments, he’s not looking for Social Justice Warriors, but rather judges who know and respect the Constitution and what it already says, not what they imagine it should say. Etc.

In other words, although he hasn’t explicitly stated it, his thinking is clearly about getting the old Ship of State we’ve known for centuries off the rocks, patching up the holes, maybe polishing the brightwork a bit as long as he’s there, and giving it a bit of a push to get it moving again.

Now what should he do with one of the people who put it onto the rocks in the first place, by her life of lawless and criminal behavior? Remove her from the reach of the very legal mechanisms he’s trying to re-establish? It would be one of the worst things he could do.

(Note that if I’m right about that business of his intentions to re-float the USS Ship of State … that would be the very definition of conservative politics—Keep What Works, be wary of slapdash “improvements”, avoid what’s failed. It this is indeed what he has in mind, Trump would be, philosophically, the most conservative President we’ve had since Coolidge.)

    ScottTheEngineer in reply to tom swift. | November 9, 2016 at 5:34 pm

    I agree 100% absolutely imperative to Charge. Comey said she broke the law but was too incompetent to know she was doing wrong. (Is that even a valid defense?) After 30 years in the government? I doubt it. To restore faith in a just system she absolutely needs to be prosecuted.

      DaveGinOly in reply to ScottTheEngineer. | November 9, 2016 at 9:23 pm

      In order to believe Hillary didn’t know she was trafficking in classified material through her server, one would have to believe that she thought she could conduct 100% of her electronic communications through her private email address without ever sending or receiving classified material. If she started out thinking that way, sooner or later it would have dawned on her to ask, “Say, Huma, where’s all the classified info I should be receiving?” If that ever happened, then she continued the practice after learning that she was already handling classified material. Of course, if Hillary really thought she could do that job without the electronic communication of classified material, then she was too stupid to be POTUS.

    Ragspierre in reply to tom swift. | November 9, 2016 at 5:39 pm

    “Trump would be, philosophically, the most conservative President we’ve had since Coolidge.”

    You, tom, are complete idiot.

      Hey Rag. Everything you have said over the last 6 months re this election was just proven wrong. Normally, a man with any remaining intellectual credibility would have the common sense and decency to shut his trap for a few days, if not a few weeks. Not double down on stupid.

    CloseTheFed in reply to tom swift. | November 9, 2016 at 6:37 pm

    Tom Swift: Good points all.

Which violation of law are you talking about? The email server? Small potatoes. How about the RICO charges against Chelsea, Bill AND Hillary for running a money laundering racket with the various “foundations” and all the OTHER PEOPLE caught up in this web?

The Ford/Nixon comparison isn’t really applicable to me. Nixon covered up an illegal political stunt. That is far different from what Hillary is accused of doing. She could have endangered peoples lives and in one case probably did (Libya).

So no there should be no pardon for Hillary.

For the emails, why not? For the Clinton Foundation matters? No. Obama will probably beat Trump to it and while he (Obama) is at it, he should pardon himself, as he conducted government business on Hillary’s private email; I’ve read, though am not sure, that the president’s communications are presumptively classified.

Tom Swift: + 2000

Also, the pardon would have to be to broad since she has never been charged. So any pardon would have to be for “any and all crimes committed prior to….” and would basically give her a clean slate to begin scamming again.

If Obama pardons her, well, that’s part of the course, since he’s implicated in her wrongdoing, having known about her illegal server, and sending e-mails to it. He’d just be covering his own ass.

If Trump pardoned her, that would tone-deaf to the max. A big part of why he one is the sound conviction of most of his supporters that while they get screwed on a steady basis by the elites, the elites never have to pay for their mistakes, for their misdeeds, even for their crimes.

Answer: Hell, NO.

Losing an election is not a reason to avoid punishment for criminal activity. Millions of people in this country did not win the election for President yesterday. Should they be able to argue they should not have to do the time because they did not get elected President.

Perhaps the reason I hesitate on investigating and prosecuting is because the hue and cry of the left would be tiresome. But maybe that is exactly why it should be done: because they should unlearn the idea that having a hissy fit will get them what they want, and their opponents will just roll over just because they can’t stand the screeching.

If she is convicted, then yes, I am fine with her sentence being commuted (I prefer that to pardoned).

To see Hillary judged and convicted by a jury of her peers, and found guilty, will send a message that no one is above the law.

To see Hillary judged and convicted by a jury of deplorables that she does not consider her peers, but are because this is America, is priceless. The necessary humiliation of her would be complete.

To see Hillary’s schemes fully played out in a way that the media could never play down again, on the record, forever, is necessary for the healing and trust rebuilding of the nation.

This will remind everyone of what makes America great. A plumber or beautician or a housewife from the working class part of town sitting in judgment of a woman who came within a whisker of being the most powerful leader in the world. Because we are all equal before the greatest system of justice in the world.

Yes, that alone would restore a sense of balance to America. It would not be necessary for her to spend more than 2 weeks in jail until a commutation (or pardon) was executed to achieve 90% of what is needed.

It would send the message.
It would ruin Hillary and her legacy forever.
It would strengthen Trump in victory.

He would be shown to be magnanimous, merciful, and delivering on the values that make America great.

And if the jury votes for acquittal, so be it. But let justice run its course. One could argue that not everyone would be treated so mercifully – and it would be true.

But the judgment would remain, with the warning that next time, there might be no mercy because no one is above the law. The deterrent could work without creating deep wounds in the nation (although one could argue a deeper sentence might be necessary to make the lesson stick).

I’m open to other opinions, but I think the Clinton legacy would be tarnished for all and rule of law restored.

No. I’ve read and reread the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon.

http://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment

I see no bearing on the duties or responsibilities of ordinary citizens. But Hillary Clinton committed ordinary crimes. The kind of crimes any citizen could commit.

Raise your hand if you’ve “endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.”

I DIDN’T give annual briefings on how not to politicize the IRS. I DID give annual briefings on keeping secrets. Maybe if Hillary Clinton had committed crimes that only a Secretary of State could commit and you could persuade me there were some grey areas, OK pardon. But this is black letter law and the E’s go to prison for it. So should she.

P.S. Also, so do the O’s. I’m not singling out the enlisted.

I think after about four month of “lock her up”, it would be very hard politically to pardon her.

You forget something about Watergate. Coulson, Haldeman, Erlich, and Mitchell all did time. I think a ton of other people did time as well.

The Clinton Foundation needs to be dismantled. The rot infecting the DoJ ( as well as other agencies ) needs to be rooted out and you need to make sure certain people ie Cheryl Mills, Valerie Jarret, John Podesta, Huma, never serve in government again.

Commute her prison sentence yes, maybe when the smoke clears if it it clears in eight years, pardon her, but for now — Drain the Swamp!

No. It’s one thing to pardon a former president. Hillary was not a president no matter how badly she wanted it.

Just hilldawg? There are a whole cast of characters involved in the crime syndicate.
MAYBE, if hilldawg rolls over on each and every one of them and agrees to testify in open court.

No! Never pardon her!

She violated multiple laws fully knowing what she was doing. She deliberately tried to cover her tracks and hide evidence. She destroyed evidence after Congressional subpoenas. She has no remorse for her actions.

She does not deserve a pardon.

There is some mistake in your poll choices, as you left out “hell” in front of No.

Hell No. Not now, not ever. Send every one of the crooks to jail for the longest terms possible under the law.

SoCA Conservative Mom | November 9, 2016 at 8:06 pm

There should be a thorough investigation and trial every person who committed a crime. If found guilty, Trump should allow Hillary to be booked into prison and grant an 11th hour pardon.

Sure.
So long as we drain her accounts, pull her retirement, crush the Foundation, and then we can pardon her after the execution.
No problem with that at all.

NO.

This is about the Rule of Law. If Hillary Clinton gets away with all her crimes, you are sending a message to people like me that playing outside the rules is allowed.

You want my kind to respect the rule of law. Else, the likes of Mitch McConnell will be found hanging from highway overpasses.

Hillary needs to be spending more time channeling Betty Ford

“You, tom, are complete idiot.”
Rags responding to a post.

Kemberlee, how often does Rags get to call people names before he’s banned? For a long time he was great – I used to look forward to his comments. But he’s been very ill-mannered for a long time and it’s been tolerated by whoever moderates this site. It’s wearing very thin.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to DaveGinOly. | November 10, 2016 at 1:59 am

    Why would he be banned? He is not using hate speech or cursing people. Why would they censor a long time member of the community? Perhaps the problem isn’t Rag’s comments but other people’s need to grow a thicker skin.

    Oh, and if Tom needed your help, I am sure he would ask.

Who says that Obama is without sin. He might benefit from some justice. The fact is that the whole government is corrupt and needs a good cleaning.

Absolutely not. There’s no reason for a pardon. Let her be investigated for all her crimes, and indicted on the ones within the statute, and let the evidence be published. Then start plea bargaining.

If an investigation finds her guilty of major crimes, she should be indicted. However, I believe there is another option. President Trump could pardon her on condition that all the assets of the Clinton foundation and any wealth she accumulated as SOS be disbursed to charities of Trump’s choice.

A proper investigation and indictment if warranted (lol.. ‘if’) would go a long way to restoring faith in American institutions and the primacy of law and order. Obama should not pardon her, but if he does, it will not be for her sake, but as a way for Obama to toss a final monkey wrench into the workings of our country.

I suspect media attention on Trump’s cabinet choices, SC choice, and shoring up the outgoing Obama’s legacy won’t leave a lot of time for Hillary stories. The story has been less ‘will Hillary be indicted’ than ‘will FBI investigations hurt Hillary’s campaign?’ Well, the campaign is over, all the cameras have pivoted, and there are a lot of people on both sides who wouldn’t mind seeing the whole Hillary thing just fade away.

nope she should never be pardoned…
and knowing how Trump is working things.
with the clinton foundation investigation
what he should do is have them stall the investigation of it a lil while …so it begins just after jan 20th
(when 0bama leaves office and is no longer president
….he can’t pardon hillary then…)
so when Trump takes over… he can indict, trial and put her in gitmo and waterboard her ugly ass for a very long time…
….then have her publicly executed as an example to other corrupt politicians.

I hear 0bama is furious at the FBI james comey… because 0bama’s lil gambit of the 2 investigations…. didn’t draw any support/sympathy from the people to give hillary the win in the presidential election. ….but instead, increased the distrust the public had towards her. *LMAO*

best to wait for 0bama to leave office… then charge hillary with a crime. …so no pardons can be possible, unless through trump… ….I just love to see the libtards suffer knowing they can do nothing to really stop trump or the GOP for quite awhile.

Should he? No. will he? I assume he wants her roller deck.

I assume you mean Rolodex?? I thought about hitting yes. But she did 10x above & beyond what Nixon did, so I chose no. But he also needs to somehow bring the media to heel, too.

Consider: Denying Hillary! the Oval Office, especially in the spectacularly humiliating way it happened to her, is a punishment far worse than a prison cell. Her entire life has been in pursuit of being the first female president. And she didn’t do it altruistically, she did it out of blind ambition.

She’s 70 years old, she’s done. It’s too late to try again. The curtain has fallen and she failed miserably.

In the end, the investigations need to go forward but in Clinton’s case I think the matter will be moot. I don’t think she has much longer given what we know and suspect about her health.

    No!

    Clinton’s humiliation in losing the election is her punishment to her corrupt and incompetent self.

    Her criminality and treason needs to be made an example of that Americans will remember for many generations to come. If not, look for the left to merely rehabilitate her to hero status.

    Another Voice in reply to turfmann. | November 10, 2016 at 1:06 pm

    Pardon, Absolve, Move On without penalty is an insult to those who are serving time and punishment for much less. Better to have a SPECIAL independent investigation go forward via the I.R.S and F.B.I. of the Clinton Foundation working in collusion with undisclosed foreign governments for profit with evidence pulled from Hillary’s time at state and take down their financial power house they have amassed and will continue to profit from. Hillary’s age and health are against her as is Bill’s. The stress of this lash hurrah will shorten her and Bill’s life span (less 10 yrs) Better than conviction of “state crimes” is to seek convictions on the illegality in structure and donations they accepted and remove the ability of the Foundation for building a second act for Chelsea. In doing so, name names and indict them too. It sends a clearer message to everyone who participated in the collusion which has allowed this to exist.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Another Voice. | November 10, 2016 at 3:41 pm

      Didn’t Trump vehemently promise to prosecute Hillary during one or more of the debates? And at his stump speeches when he got people chanting, “LOCK HER UP!!”

      Is he going to waffle on a major promise already? Because that’s what the poll question suggests.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to turfmann. | November 10, 2016 at 3:33 pm

    I agree, but nobody deserves to be prosecuted a la Jean Val Jean more than she does. She should be locked up for the rest of her life only if a firing squad can’t be arranged. As for obastard pardoning her, he could look at it as a major blemish on his legacy, but compared to the hit his legacy would take if he is exposed through a thorough investigation of her activities is probably worse.

    She’s always maintained she did nothing wrong except an innocent mistake. If so, why would she need a pardon?

    As for other pardons, THE first pardon Trump should consider is Joe Arpaio. Arpaio is the victim of a far-left, fascist witch hunt. Then make him Dep. Dir. of DHS. Giuliani wants DHS, not AG.

    jean Va

What’s the pardon going to be for? Surely she has to be found guilty of breaking a law BEFORE she can be pardoned right?

Otherwise Barry O is going to be pardoning her for not being found guilty of anything???

Mailman

    Evil Otto in reply to mailman. | November 10, 2016 at 6:31 am

    Nope. The President can pardon even people who haven’t gone to court. As an example, Ford pardoned Nixon for any crimes he had committed as POTUS, despite Nixon never having been arrested for anything.

DINORightMarie | November 10, 2016 at 3:58 am

This is a sincere question:

Can someone who has NOT been indicted or accused of any crime be “pardoned”?

At this point the corrupt DoJ (FBI, etc.) won’t charge her, indict her, or even cede she did anything “wrong.”

Can a Presidential pardon be used to “pardon” potential charges?

    Yes. The Constitution does not require a ‘conviction’ prior to a Presidential pardon.

    “Pardons can take place before or after a criminal proceeding. President Gerald Ford, for example, pardoned Richard Nixon before Nixon was ever charged with, let alone convicted, of any crime. Such pardons, however, are rare, and general procedures dictate that at least five years of a sentence should be served before a pardon is considered. In the Constitutional Convention of 1787, this issue was brought up and debated quickly, with no restriction on when a pardon might be granted, suggested by James Wilson as a way of obtaining the testimony of accomplices.”

    See:http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pard.html

      DINORightMarie in reply to Redneck Law. | November 11, 2016 at 10:53 am

      I am not sure that is truly accurate. As President, Nixon was impeached – a special type of indictment, not used in criminal law but used in relation to people in positions of power.

      He was being tried by the Senate, in essence, to determine if his “high crimes and misdemeanors” were sufficient to remove him from office.

      To me, the impeachment = indictment. Therefore, he was “charged” by Congress – but he resigned before the Senate could remove him from office – i.e. find him guilty and then administer the subsequent sentence.

        Nixon was NEVER impeached!! The House dropped the impeachment proceedings upon Nixon’s resignation from the Presidency. Clinton on the other hand WAS impeached but the Senate failed to convict.

    Yes. But remember that a pardon is basically an admission that she’s guilty as sin. There’ll be no escaping that. I can think of no better poetic justice than her ending her life the same way Nixon ended his Presidency.

      DINORightMarie in reply to Lanceman. | November 11, 2016 at 10:57 am

      To your point, that is also not always the case. The term “pardon” implies accusation and/or conviction of wrong-doing, not guilt necessarily.

      Nixon resigned to avoid the inevitable – he would have been removed from office, no doubt. He was “indicted” when the House impeached him. The trial in the Senate was clearly going to find him guilty, after John Dean’s testimony (“….cancer on the presidency…..”).

      However, if all it takes is the possibility of a crime, then what is the pardon really for – giving immunity to your friends?

Trump needs to restore faith in rule of law, the FBI and DOJ as institutions, and prove to the American people that NO ONE is above the law.

Hillary’s crimes are legion.

Reasons to pardon her are non-existent.

They should pursue the crimes of the Clinton Foundation too. Put Bill and Chelsea in prison along with Hillary.

VetHusbandFather | November 10, 2016 at 6:02 am

She’s done, pardon her and refocus on going after her inner circle. Huma Abedin is the most obvious, she’s still young so put her in jail and get her blacklisted from politics.

The pardon will be enough to smother whatever credibility Clinton has left. And trust me if we try to send her to jail she’ll just end up in the care of a home Dr. after we find out how sick sh really is.

buckeyeminuteman | November 10, 2016 at 6:56 am

Can you be pardoned if you haven’t been convicted of anything yet?

Americans believe that corruption is rampant in our political system/leadership and there is an over abundance of data to support this assertion. A basic truth is that corruption will never start to go away until people start going to jail. If our leaders are not afraid of being jailed because they are above the law, then what is there to control them to keep them honest?
>
Investigating Hillary and her cohort is an imperative. If criminal acts are found, then placing Hilary and her cohort on trial is an imperative. If anyone is found to be guilty, then putting them in jail is an imperative. Anything less is a justification for allowing the rampant corruption to continue. Anything less will accomplish nothing to allow Americans to regain their faith in our political system.

Yes, he needs to get clear of the muck and make a fresh start. Indicting Hillary would bog the country down in at least a year of legal acrimony and establish a precedent for revenge politics. My guess is the he will make the Clintons a deal, they slip off into semi-obscurity and he lets them off with a warning, meanwhile he will gather and keep a careful record of their misdeeds as an insurance policy in his safe.

    “Indicting Hillary would bog the country down in at least a year of legal acrimony and establish a precedent for revenge politics.”

    I don’t buy that. If the teams currently investigating Hillary are given free rein to do a proper investigation and they can build a strong enough case than in indictment must happen. That would not be revenge politics, that would be bringing someone to count for their crimes.

Actually, I’d rather see Obama pardon her. If Trump does it he’ll piss off a bunch of people in Congress who are making a career out of it. It seems to me that Trump promised to keep going after her. It would be better if he didn’t break that promise by pardoning her.

On top of that, there are calls for a Special Prosecutor. All I’ve ever seen from that is years wasted, millions spent and some poor underling goes to jail.

Nothing is ever going to happen to Hillary and we need to get on with the business of Making America Great Again.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to hvlee. | November 10, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    “Move on” is always the retreat cry of those lacking intestinal fortitude and the skill to walk and chew gum at the same time.

HECK NO, prosecution and incarceration is the deterrence for those who consider committing the same offense!

thalesofmiletus | November 10, 2016 at 9:28 am

The Clintons are politically impotent now, so what difference at this point does it make?

The real goal should be to clean out the IRS and have them go after the Clinton Foundation…

She should be prosecuted. She put our country at risk by making classified documents available to whoever wants them.

She also sold influence to the whoever donated to the Clinton Mafia.

For punishment, put her on probation and make her live with Bill.

It now occurs to me that Obama really no longer has a reason to want to pardon her.
She lost the election, and I don’t really believe they are on the best of terms…
I am uncertain what benefit he might see in it.

He may just forget about it.

I would only support a pardon if Obama also states, during the announcement of such a travesty, unequivocally that he was a disaster as a President and will now head off to a Tibetan monastery for the rest of his life.

Trump should let it be and GOP should stop all investigations. I am pretty sure he wouldn’t prosecute his friend whom he praised constantly until this campaign – he donated so much money to – including $100,000 to Clinton Foundation – only proven charity gift he ever made. Trumpsters will be so disappointed in him so often.
Chavetz should grow up and stop the investigations. She is now history, how many more millions of dollars will they waste on this? At this point what difference does it make? LMAO.
Besides it would look third world country to put your opponent in jail.
Trump has shown absolutely no human decency during the campaign, yeah I was and still have nevertrump, AKA Biff, but I feel really certain he will never want her prosecuted.

    What you’re advocating is a path to chaos: as presidential candidate, commit whatever crimes you want – if you win, you corrupt the justice department and Congress into submission; if you lose, you get pardoned.

    This is more of a recipe for a third world country than prosecuting her.

    Clinton is not merely a politician like John Kerry who made millions on insider trading – she took bribes from foreigners hostile to the United States while she was secretary of state.

    She belongs in prison.

No! But he will… Possibly including himself.

Pardoning any of the Cintons and her associates is a deplorable concept.

If the pardon included a few stipulations…

1. The Clinton Foundation be shutdown.
2. The Clinton Family loses any benefits that they receive from the taxpayers. (They have to reimburse the country the cost of their Secret Service detail.)
3. Neither Bill or Hillary can ever hold any public office ever again.

Assuming her health lasts, she needs to be indicted and processed, to some degree. Her co-conspirators need to have the book thown at them to dissuade future corruption.

I wondered why Hillary was being so meek and Barry so nice. They either are very scared of what Trump may allow to happen to them, or they have a nasty plan for Trump at the 11th hour. Electoral college shenanigans etc.

ScottTheEngineer | November 11, 2016 at 9:46 am

I think Obama will drop a pardon on his way out. She shouldn’t get one. I’m ok with a multi-million dollar fine but a year in jail would be ok too. It was good enough for Scooter Libby.
Too incompetent to know you were doing wrong isn’t an acceptable excuse for breaking the law.
Trump needs to ferret out all the political hacks in the government. They don’t belong there.

“I[Christe] haven’t spoken to (Trump) about that. I will tell you they had an enormously gracious conversation with each other Tuesday night,” he said. “Again, politics are over now, people have spoken, time to move on.”

“People wanted (Clinton) to be locked up. Those are his constituents,” host Matt Lauer replied.

“Listen, but the people get to speak through their vote and they voted for Donald Trump to be president of the United States. It is now his job — and I am confident he will — to bring the country together,” Christie said.

… this investigation has to be brought to a conclusion, not abandoned.
If it is abandoned, the story that this was all ginned up by the Republicans will haunt Trump.
Besides, the Clinton Foundation scandal goes everywhere and must be stomped out.

I think it would be wise for President Trump to access what the actual FBI investigation into the Foundation yields. If they uncover treason then he is obligated to let everything go forward.

I suspect that Obama will likely pardon her, and if he does, that’s actually not a bad thing. The rest of her life (what a couple years on the outside?) in prison would never be the crushing blow or lasting shame that losing to Donald Trump was.

It’s time to move on. Out with the old, tired Clinton crap and in with the new.

    tom swift in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | November 11, 2016 at 6:59 pm

    The new Clinton crap … is Chelsea. Ready and waiting to work that old Clinton magic …

    The Clinton Foundation/Clinton Global Initiative is gangrene which will continue to infect government and society. It can’t just be ignored. It must be cut out and incinerated.

      Wow, I didn’t even think of Chelsea as a potential player. She’s just such a big pile of “ick.” A whiny, spoiled brat, she has none of her father’s charm, a heaping helping of her mother’s personality deficit, and all of her own baggage related to the corrupt Clinton Foundation.

      My sincere hope is that Trump’s victory means that the Bush and Clinton “dynasties” are well and truly gone.

        Yep, Chelsea is being groomed to take over Nita Lowey’s seat when Lowey retires in ’18. Lowey’s district just happens to include Chappaqua, NY. Convenient, right? And the Clintons just bought a house for $1.3 million right near theirs in Chappaqua for Chelsea.
        This travesty is another reason why Hillary Clinton should be a convicted felon.

    ” The rest of her life (what a couple years on the outside?) in prison would never be the crushing blow or lasting shame that losing to Donald Trump was….”

    Must HEARTILY disagree. She’s probably already over it, living high on the hog with her illegally obtained wealth.

    She’s a criminal on a level no higher than your average street thug.

    No better shame than the perp walk and resulting trial.

” A whiny, spoiled brat,”

Which would make her a perfect representative for the current crybabies of one of the more liberal states.

Clarifying my position: If Obama doesn’t pardon her, he must know something that would be a major embarrassment to whoever issues the pardon. Therefore if he doesn’t, Trump should not either, to avoid the trap.

He should, however, put forth a special prosecutor. Somebody both fair and neutral. Also a virgin, a direct descendent of Lincoln, with twelve toes, and a cat named ‘Bureaugard’ (because if we’re setting impossible restrictions, why not go all the way?)

    I just don’t think we need to waste still more taxpayer money on this. She’ll never suffer anything as much as she did this loss to Trump. Never. It was beyond humiliating for her; it touched her on all two levels of her being (the corrupt elitist and the hapless progressive lackey and stooge of Soros). She’s done. It’s over. Let’s just move on. Revenge is not pretty, and it’s not even worthwhile when the victim of it won’t be around much longer anyway (if reports of her ill health are any indication).

      This is not about revenge. It’s about justice.

      This woman has been a disease on our society since she piggybacked her way into the White House. She has committed treason by taking bribes while secretary of state. The full, sordid details of her bad acts must be brought to light.If allowed to ‘ride into the sunset,’ her acts will be covered up and future generations will not know the truth about her and her ilk – and we’ll find ourselves with more Hillary Clinton.

      Same with the fraud of ‘Barack Hussein Obama,’ or whoever he really is.

This needs to be a two-part question.
1. Should a special prosecutor be appointed to investigate all the Clinton corruption? Need to show the American people just how corrupt this family is.
2. Should Trump pardon? Depends on how deep the corruption is, but it must be displayed to the American people.

Hell, no! There can’t be one law for the elites and another for the rest of us. Hillary has been getting away with this kind of corruption and lawlessness for at least 30 years, and it has to stop. She also has to be made an example of: an object lesson in draining the swamp.

The investigation must proceed to its conclusion, and then she has to be indicted and convicted. She’s unlikely to go to jail even if she’s convicted, but there needs to be a conviction so that no one can ever claim with a shred of credibility that this woman was persecuted by some vast right-wing conspiracy that had it in for her. Otherwise, she will try to wriggle out of responsibility, as she has been doing successfully her entire life.

NO!

fatolddrunkguy | November 13, 2016 at 6:56 pm

Make Hillary Ambassador to Libya in exchange for calling off the FBI.

GOP leaders have said that there are no upcoming Hilary investigations. Giuliani has said as AG he won’t investigate her. Trump thanked Hilary for her thirty years of public service no indictments are coming. No pardon necessary. Lock her up was just a ploy to get Trump elected.

Pardon Hillary? HELL NO! Hang the traitor! The same with her husband Bill, Podesta, Kerry, Holder, Pelosi, Reid and Obama – HANG THEM ALL right in the front yard of the White House. Her daughter and son-in-law deserve 5-10 in prison. These basement dwellers have to GO, and I don’t mean go down the street. Grind them into dust and in front of the worlds globalist/fascist community.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend