Pardon Hillary
This may be the last message you expected from me, but Obama should pardon Hillary. If Obama does not, Trump should.
Look, I am a FOIA absolutist. Long before it came out that Clinton may have had top secret emails on her home server, I wanted to see her punished for her flouting of public accountability laws. Her whole home-brewed email system was a transparent attempt to evade FOIA, and consistent with her history of attempting to duck transparency (going all the way back to her abortive health care initiative she ran as First Lady). In addition, I have had it up to here with bogus non-profits that pretend to do charity work, but are in fact merely lifestyle and influence maintenance devices for their principals. I would love to see the Clinton Foundation investigated (though market forces may take care of that institution on their own, as it is unlikely donors will be sending much money their way now that the Clintons have no prospect of returning to power).
But the optics, and precedents involved, with a winning candidate's administration criminally prosecuting the election's loser are just terrible. Even if entirely justified, the prosecution smacks of banana republic politics. And even if it were justified, half the country would not see it that way and next time, when the parties are reversed, as sure as the sun rises in the East there will be folks looking to duplicate the prosecution in the other direction.
The rule of law is seldom helped by ignoring wrong-doing, but in this case I will make an exception.
Postscript: By the way, what could be a better political FU than having Trump pardon her? An attempted prosecution could last for years and could lead nowhere. But nothing leaves the impression of "your guilty" like a preemptive pardon (see Richard Nixon). From a political point of view Obama should pardon her just to prevent Trump from doing so and getting credit for being a healer.
Pardons are a tool of political expedience. To lash out at Warren for using them for political expedience is a little batty.
The fact is that perception matters a great deal. And Trump needs something early in his administration that changes the lens about how he is to be viewed. For the sake of not turning into a banana republic of political prosecutions, let her go. If he is serious about draining the swamp, then it would be petty to insist on behavior that perpetuates swamp politics.
Let the Clintons worry about donors asking for "refunds" on unfulfilled pledges, while stewing over how Trump is getting credit for being the better human being. That would be more entertaining.
Would it be justice? Absolutely not. Would it be better for the country and for his ability to do the job, and better for the nation going forward? Absolutely yes.
And what is a Pardon if it is not a tool that allows the abrogation of Justice for the sake of a greater good?
Keep carrying those torches and pitchforks, gentlemen. They only make it easier to paint you as the real monsters.
"You really need something like this to make the system work properly"
that seems like an extremely strong statement to make and not back up. how is that so?
this idea that a president should hold the powers of an autocrat to "correct injustice" seems like a very one sided view.
what if the president, who is beyond appeal on such matters, commits injustice?
surely you can see that this tool can be used either way.
the real question is by what first principle can we place any one person about the rights of all others in the republic. the president need give no reason for a pardon nor win any argument. he can just set someone free. so, that person violates your rights, then walks because an autocrat says so? where is the justice in that?
this is not a power consistent with notions of rights and liberty.
it basically places the entire court system under the veto of a king.
This. Trump should cut a deal: Obama pardons Clinton and her partners in crime, then Trump pardons Obama. Quid pro quo. Obama will hate pardoning the Clintons but he'll have no choice. His legacy hangs in the balance.
There is a way to deal with a president who commits "injustice." It's called impeachment.
The problem is that we no longer seem to be able to employ that tool.
I wholly agree. Prosecuting her will set a precedent of persecuting the losing party that will not be limited to "in the case of wrongdoing"
Oh, Coyote! You certainly know how to kick a hornets' nest!
The problem, as I see it, is that the illegal activity involved a lot more people than just Hillary, Bill, and maybe Chelsea. How can you reconcile a pardon for Hillary, when the rest are prosecuted? How could a massive pardon for all involved be reconciled? If pardons are too politically explosive, how could it be possible ignore clearly illegal activity and have DOJ refuse to prosecute?
There simply are no good answers here.
I agree that we don't want to establish a precedent of the victor imprisoning the loser, but we also need to reaffirm that no one is above the law. The Clintons have been above the law and given a pass by the press since the cattle futures.
How about announcing that any prison time will be commuted before any trial (based on her age and infirmity). That way people can see that the laws are being followed. Trump can also announce that he match her commutation of prison time with the commutation of prison time for others convicted of doing the same thing (careless handling not malicious handling or actual spying). Follow that with an announcement that this is a one time action that will not be repeated.
Warren's position seems predicated on the acceptance of your points. He just hasn't called for a public declaration. And with his having worked with government agencies for many years, his acceptance may be well justified.
To accept Warren's position, one must accept that we are already in truth a banana republic. Maybe he is correct. We have two major teams and they have different mascots and different color schemes. They espouse different goals. They sometimes appear to despise one another. But do we switch directions when one team wins over the other. When did we last go from growing the government to shrinking the government?
What I would prefer however is for Trump to say "I'm only the president. I will make sure the FBI and Justice Department work together and do their jobs. The outcome of their investigation will determine the Clinton's future."
If the Clintons were really out of favors to sell, this might make some sense. My guess is that Chelsea will step up to the plate, cultivate favors to sell and the Clintons will be back in business (on a much smaller scale).
Just like the next generation of Kennedys never amounted to anything, that is Chelsea's fate. There is talk of running her in a safe, New York Congressional seat. But what will that gain her? She really doesnt seem to have her parents political drive or skills, certainly not her father's charisma and high degree of understanding of how politics and policy are related. She is educated and I assume reasonably intelligent, but I think her public persona is that of an empty suit.
The other factor is that the trans-generational name recognition is a quickly diminishing commodity. By the time children of John and Robert Kennedy were of "political" age, people fondly remembered John Kennedy but the feeling of Camelot was over and they had the advantage that their uncle Ted was still a powerful politician. If Chelsea were to turn to a political career it would be at least 6-10 years before she could get beyond that congressional seat. By then, few people will associate the Clintons with much positive name recognition, and most of what will be remembered is the unending scandal associated with both her father and mother.
I was goofing around on one of the conspiracy theory websites when I read a post that had a really good idea. Pull an OJ Simpson on her. Get some people to go through the e-mails and if they find any information that would have compromised Ambassador Stevens' security, let the families of the people who were killed in Benghazi bring a wrongful death suit against her.
Unless the FBI and Justice initiate legal action against Clinton, government leakers will forever use the "Hillary defense" in court. Equal protection: she got away with it, so it's a violation of my rights if I can't also.
Comey needs to publicly announce that his previous decision to not recommend prosecution was an error in judgment. He needs to recommend prosecution and the Justice Department must proceed to indict. At which point, Trump should immediately issue a pardon.
There should still be an investigation and all those emails should still come out. Certainly investigate the Clinton Foundation, which must be cleaned up or shut down.
But please, a pardon; spare the public the pain and suffering of yet more Clinton. They walk quietly away with no commotion and are never heard from again. How serene.
Hell no. The Clintons and too many people around them have considered themselves above the law for decades. There has to be a reckoning if public trust is to be restored.
The Z-Man called it 2 months ago.
http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=8551
You are absolutely correct.
Having served in the Naval Security Group with a Top Secret clearance I
was obligated to keep any classified information that I acquired in
complete confidence. I was subject to arrest and fines if I disclosed
classified information willingly or through gross negligence. Back then
we had a saying that I'm sure you've heard, Loose lips sink ships.
Hillary
transacted state department business, including classified information
on an non-secure private server. During Congressional testimony Director
Comey said that some of the email contained Top Secret information. The
State Dept has it's own intelligence operations that work covertly on
foreign soil. It has "assets" working for them undercover to obtain
intelligence. In this scenario extreme carelessness with this type of
material can result in the deaths of those "assets".
Comey also
said that she was extremely careless, which I take to mean grossly
negligent in her handling of classified material. Not only did
unauthorized people have access to her email, but we know that at least
5-foreign entities attacked the server, read that to mean penetrated our
security via that server.
This is not a case of "no harm, no foul". We have no way of knowing how harmful her gross negligence was. An example must be made.
Even if Obama pardons her there are plenty of bad actors in this drama and I make an example of them. Huma and Cheryl Mills come to mind.
And then it becomes some sort of Reconciliation Court, where the Clintons will humbly and with contrition in their hearts beg us to forgive their crimes. Then afterward, with a wave to their fans, hop on the waiting helicopter to ferry them to celebratory dinner in The Hamptons.
No, I believe it is imperative that Clinton and Obama's entire administration be investigated and prosecuted so the entire world can see their criminal depravity laid bare. It must be made so plain, and clear, how criminal our betters, in general, and the left in particular, have conducted themselves. Destroy them.
She should not get a broad, no specific pardon as Ford did with Nixon. But a pardon for any exposures of classified information should be pardoned with the proviso that Clinton never have access to classified information again. If she gains an office, even through election, that gives access to classified information, the pardon is void.
And it should be widely pronounced that the President cannot pardon anyone until after they have committed the crime, but by SCOTUS decision can anytime afterward, therefore acceptance is admission of guilt.
On the contrary, the signal features of banana republics are corruption and immunity. I think the optics of long-overdue prosecution for bribery and felony violation of the Espionage Act would actually be favorable.
Regards,
Bill Drissel
Frisco, TX
In 1215, King John signed the Magna Carta, which established that the King himself is not above the law. That principle has been a part of our law ever since.
Paula Jones sued Bill Clinton for damages in 1994. He claimed immunity because he was a sitting President.The Court rejected his defense saying:
"However, this Court does not believe that a President has absolute immunity from civil causes of action arising
prior to assuming the office.
"Nowhere in the Constitution, congressional acts, or the writings of any judge or scholar, may any credible support for such a proposition be found. It is contrary to our form of government, which asserts as did the English in the Magna Carta and the Petition of Right, that even the sovereign is subject to God and the law.
"Therefore, the President's Motion to Dismiss on Grounds of Presidential Immunity is denied.
You would smash the foundation stone that has upheld our law for eight hundred one years . . . for "optics?"
"Really, we have to work on that election thing."
Yup, far better to just do away with it and let our betters in government decide who should rule us.
Sorry but Clinton and her accomplices are not guilty of a few petty crimes. Even using their position to make money might be acceptable if that was as far as it got but Clintons crimes are massive and include being responsible for the deaths of Americans
just to aid in the cover up of what the State Dept and the administration was doing in Libya in regards to weapons sales and other criminal misconduct. In addition she is guilty of exposing top secret intel to foreign powers KNOWINGLY and WILLFULLY.
She has used power and position to obstruct justice and to intimidate people into turning a blind eye to her crimes.
She isn't your garden variety crooked politician....and for this SHE MUST BE PUNISHED. If she is not then there will be NO
END to the crimes the commies posing as dems commit. They will operate under the "it isn't illegal if you don't get caught" mantra and a LOT OF PEOPLE will mysteriously turn up dead in their pursuit of 'NOT GETTING CAUGHT'. So NO!!!
Trump won't be able to accomplish much with an obstructionist congress, ( the GOP doesn't have the votes to beat a filibuster, assuming all of the GOP senators vote with Trump instead of the dems). One of the FEW things he can do without Congress is to insure the swamp is drained....and that means investigating and trying EVERYONE involved in the criminality of the past 8 years...especially the Clintons.
It is only possble to pardon someone if they have been convicted of a crime, then usually on the grounds of an unsafe prosecution or miscarriage of justice.
Hillary cannot then be pardoned, but could be offered immunity from prosecution.
Why? Why should she get immunity from prosecution when others even of minor crimes will not?
Is this not proof that the priviledged elite are treated differently to the Plebs... and is this not exactly what the Trump victory was about?
Some, many, of you folks still don't get it do you? So distracted by personalities and caricature you just do not see it was not about who governs, but how.
And there are none so blind as those who cannot see.
Go look at this article (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/07/the-presidents-broad-power-to-pardon-and-commute), for a discussion of the pros and cons of pardons. There is a Federalist paper (#74) that discusses it, if you want to read the original.
An excellent example of why I would never want to be president. Politically, Hillary must be pardoned (or Trump must tell his team not to prosecute her). Otherwise, the country would be torn asunder. She most definitely broke laws, just like illegal immigrants broke the law; but attempts to fully execute the law would have tragic consequences. However, from the point of view of precedent, laws cannot be selectively ignored. Otherwise, people will lose respect for all laws . . . a situation that is already invading the American mindset.
I wonder if there is a third way: Pardon Hillary, but take action against those who helped her. Nixon was pardoned, but those who helped him were not. Perhaps that would get across the message that laws need to be respected.
JK, you have a good idea. Jail is not the only option. It is a convenient rallying cry, but it probably is not necessary. To build on your idea, actions should also be taken against those who helped Clinton. After all, those who helped Nixon were sent to jail.
Indict her. Prosecute her. Let an honest jury convict her. Give her a sentence that an ordinary citizen would get for the same crimes. Let everybody see she is a criminal. Then pardon her.
Let's start with the 47 Clinton friends who mysteriously turned up dead.
If US politicians can sell favors like those of a banana republic, they can f___ing well go to prison like them, too.
Those who have misused government power -- especially from the office of president -- must go to prison, or it is time for the people to rise and put the lot of them up against a wall.
It seems to me that Hillary has not yet asked to be excused.
Nixon was pardoned without first being convicted of anything.
Indeed, if we're not willing to prosecute outgoing politicians, may I suggest we legalize the method used in Piper's Lone Star Planet for taking care of the problem. Because one way or the other, it must be done.
The FBI already investigated the email issue and found that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case. Of course she should be held to account under the law, but a pardon would be patently political, a way to accuse her of crimes without her being able to address those in a court of law.
Truthiness prevails.
The FBI already investigated the email issue and Mr. Comey said that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case. But there have already been multiple cases under the Obama administration, especially the New Black Panthers and "Fast & Furious" cases, which show that no Obama-appointed prosecutor's word is to be trusted.
jdgalt: the New Black Panthers
There is no evidence that the Black Panther involved intimidated voters.
jdgalt: "Fast & Furious" cases
Screwing up is not a criminal act.
Agreed.
The main risk isn't that the corrupt will think it's OK to break the law (they already think that, obviously).
The real risk is that the corrupt -- if they believe that their political opposition will come after them once they are out of office -- will have a tremendous incentive to never give up the reigns of power. If Bill Clinton, or George Bush, or Barack Obama is pretty sure that his successor is going to throw him in jail, then it's not very long before the idea of suspending elections starts to look pretty rational.
The same goes for opponents in campaigns. If you have a credible belief that your opponent is going to come after you once the election is over, then the simple expediency of self-defense means you can't rely on the ballot-box to protect you. Once retaliation against political opponents becomes the norm, you start turning elections into civil wars.
jdgalt: Obama himself (for exceeding his powers and for extending the powers of EPA and NLRB, among others, without authority from Congress)
Those are civil matters that can be addressed in the courts.
Pardoning her would carve into stone the idea that "THE ELITE ARE BETTER THAN YOU AND HELD TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD".
Let her be a martyr, but let her be a martyr because she was held to the same standard as applies to the lowliest citizen.
Sorry but no. They need to be investigated and if crimes were committed they need to stand trial. And if convicted they need to go to prison. Same as any other citizen.
How about Obama shut down these riots ASAP in exchange for a pardon? Never give away something for nothing.
Absolutely. If a crime were committed, she has to be brought to account. Conversely, if no crime were committed, she has the right to contest the charges.
Despite the hyperventilation from some quarters, the FBI found no reasonable cause to bring charges in the server case.
No private party would have standing to bring a case. And it is not permissible that miscreants hiding behind color of law get off scot-free.
jdgalt: No private party would have standing to bring a case.
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency found that the petitioners had standing, the petitioners being states and cities, which represents a judicial check on the regulatory power.
If the people take that attitude, then the bad guys have won and there are no limits on government or its members, ever. So bring on the civil war!
The point of prosecuting her is the same as the point of prosecuting any criminal who completed his crime successfully: It's the only way you deter tomorrow's would-be criminal.
No, how about we prosecute and imprison George Soros for instigating those riots (and the ones in Baltimore and Ferguson) through his Ruckus Society? While we're at it, make it a RICO case and seize his billions. It'll bring peace to America for generations.
That's not exactly magnanimous. Bush Jr. just didn't want his history of using cocaine to come to light.
Impeachment is one of the checks and balances that, we had to learn the hard way, doesn't work.
It's time to strip immunity from all officials who have it, and give courts the power to fire them if they commit felonies. Cops, prosecutors, judges, everyone. No exceptions.
"That attitude" is a reflection of the fact that civil government can only ever be functional in a society/culture where self-regulation is the norm.
The law can only maintain order where most of the people obey the law out of a belief that the law is right, rather than out of fear of punishment; i.e., that most people are good guys who WANT to be good guys, and not bad guys who only do the right thing when they are afraid of getting caught.
In that light, you may be right that the bad guys have already won. Sadly, civil war may well be inevitable. But, I do not think that history gives much reason to believe that civil war will turn bad guys into good guys.