Let her go? Giuliani, Christie throw cold water on Hillary prosecution (Watch Video)

[BigHomer]

Having seen Guiliani interviewed several times the last few days I have to disagree with the assessment of this article. Rudy has stated the investigation should go continue.

[Bigun]

Remember this:

What's right is right.

Yeah I remember it! All to well in fact!   The people in question there, unlike Hillary Clinton,  had done absolutely NOTHING wrong and, as you correctly noted, what's right is right!

[Major Confusion]

Locking up a woman half the country voted for not a way to bring country together.

Agreed.  If President Trump wants to start off on the wrong foot, this is step 1.  Just remember what she did and be gracious in victory.  Take the high road; it's less traveled.

[sneakypete]

Why is it you always turn into such an ass with debating something making it personal? As far as your "logic" goes, it makes no sense whatsoever. And as far as my logic goes, I happen to be pretty good at it, I do it for living involving very complex things and have done pretty well at it.

@DB

Ok,in my best "group hug" voice while thinking about bunny rabbits and kittens,your logic ain't THAT good or you wouldn't have made such a bizarre claim.

[sneakypete]

Yes, I know she was a member. The special prosecutor statute expired a long time ago.

@DB

That doesn't mean a new one can't be opened.

[sneakypete]

All Giuliani was saying here, as far as I could tell, is we are not sure what we are going to do yet.

 
We don't have all the information we will have 3 months from now. It is too early to know what may happen and what to do about all of this. 

@240B

Exactly.

Why do so many people seem to have so much trouble understanding that Trump is NOT the president yet,has no official staff,no appointees heading up the various agencies like the Justice Dept and the FBI,and right now has the same authority to start an official investigation as you and I?

While it is true that he MIGHT be a big enough fool to announce right now what he WANTS or PLANS on doing,I sincerely hope that doesn't happen. It would be losing the fight before he can even begin it.

[sneakypete]

Having seen Guiliani interviewed several times the last few days I have to disagree with the assessment of this article. Rudy has stated the investigation should go continue.

@BigHomer

Guiliani is a political creature that wants to be the new AG. I strongly suspect at this point he is telling everybody whatever it is he thinks they want to hear.

[sneakypete]

Agreed.  If President Trump wants to start off on the wrong foot, this is step 1.  Just remember what she did and be gracious in victory.  Take the high road; it's less traveled.

@Major Confusion

Nobody is locking anybody up yet. Nobody is even facing charges yet.

IF/WHEN the time comes,if there is enough evidence against Bubbette! to charge her with felonies,and I believe there will be,the cult members who worship will just have to suck it up or kill themselves. Either works for me.

IF the evidence is compelling,and if it isn't there will be no charges,MOST people will accept the fact that she is a criminal who betrayed her country for personal gain,and they will be glad she is charged. No amount of evidence will ever convince the loons that see her as a religious icon,so who the hell cares what they think?

One thing I DO know,the law means NOTHING if it isn't seen to be equally applied to all. The fact that all the AA laws are discriminatory laws that punish the many for "crimes" they didn't commit in order to benefit the few is in MY opinion THE key issue that has so  many conservatives fired up today.

America is NOT supposed to be a Kingdom with people in positions of power immune from the laws of the land.

[240B]

@240B

Exactly.

Why do so many people seem to have so much trouble understanding that Trump is NOT the president yet,has no official staff,no appointees heading up the various agencies like the Justice Dept and the FBI,and right now has the same authority to start an official investigation as you and I?

While it is true that he MIGHT be a big enough fool to announce right now what he WANTS or PLANS on doing,I sincerely hope that doesn't happen. It would be losing the fight before he can even begin it.

I have seen several interviews with Giuliani on this subject. Each time he says it is too early to speculate about any pardon. In one interview he accidentally quoted me by saying that until they formulate charges, they wouldn't even know what to pardon Hillary for. They can only draw a list of charges after they investigate.


They have destruction of evidence, contempt of Congress, and perjury in the bag, but there may be much more to it than that. The investigation of the Clinton Foundation is ongoing. They may charge her with things that cannot be pardoned, such as high treason.


Also, Obama is a wild card in this mess and there is no way to know what he will do before Jan 17. He has the power to issue a blanket pardon. But, he is no big fan of Hillary so it is unknown if he will do it. He may let her twist in the wind.


It is simply not ripe yet. And it is much too early to speculate about what may happen 70 days from now.


We don't even know if Hillary will still be alive at that time given the condition of her health, And, I'm sure she has a lot of foreign leaders who gave her tens of millions of dollars who are extremely unhappy with her, and Bill.


She is in a precarious situation on all sides, health, legal issues, and all the people who feel ripped off. I would hate to be in her shoes. I can't imagine the pressure. Add to all that, she is known to be a heavy drinker, and that just makes it all worse.

[TomSea]

Yeah I remember it! All to well in fact!   The people in question there, unlike Hillary Clinton,  had done absolutely NOTHING wrong and, as you correctly noted, what's right is right!

I agree they did nothing wrong.

But that might not stop some left-winger types.

[jpsb]

Why is it you always turn into such an ass with debating something making it personal? As far as your "logic" goes, it makes no sense whatsoever. And as far as my logic goes, I happen to be pretty good at it, I do it for living involving very complex things and have done pretty well at it.

@DB

Once Comey and a few others are gone and with a new DoJ I don't see the need for a special prosecutor yet. Let's see what the FBI finds first. I trust a cleaned up FBI to do a professional investigation. If as alleged the corruption involves both parties then maybe a special prosecutor would be needed. Talk of a special prosecutor now is premature, first let the FBI do it's job.

[240B]

I forgot to mention that Giuliani also said that regardless of what happens to Hillary, there are at least over a dozen more players in this mess on her staff among others, who can and probably will be charged with a myriad of crimes.


Will they all be pardoned? Is Obama going to pardon Clinton and her entire staff, along with people who worked for her? Is Obama going to issue two dozen or more pardons? Is he going to pardon everybody in the State Department along with everyone in the IRS along with everyone who did Fast and Furious?


He would have to pardon everyone in the White House and half of Washington D.C. to cover all of the many scandals up.

[Rivergirl]

Blanket pardon, much as Ford did in the Nixon matter.

[Smokin Joe]

Just think, Lynch was promised the attorney general job again by Hillary for covering for her.

And now she's out and just maybe what she did will see the light of day. That would be something.

Lynch and Eric Holder's wife founded a chapter of a sorority together in their college days. There aren't a few tendrils randomly connected here, it's more like a briar patch. Keeping Lynch on would have been a signal to all the 'retired' conspirators that it was going to be business as usual in D.C.

Hopefully not. Someone needs to peel back the rocks roll over the logs, and count the maggots and bugs and see where they go, then do some more digging. The problem is that just about anyone from the lowest flunky up is likely involved, one way or another. That means cleaning out whole departments.
Leave the blackberry on the desk, all materials and items where they are and quit the building cleaned out, and raid domiciles and places of business, safe deposit boxes, etc. at the same time.

If Sheriff Joe didn't get re-elected, he might be the guy to head up such a commission. Let him pick his own people from the door busters up. I think we might be able to trust him to get to the bottom of things.

[Smokin Joe]

Agreed.  If President Trump wants to start off on the wrong foot, this is step 1.  Just remember what she did and be gracious in victory.  Take the high road; it's less traveled.

@TomSea

After endless browbeating over how much worse "Crooked Hillary" was than Trump, we were told over and over and over how she'd destroy the country with criminality and that was why we should not stand on principle but back him, YOU ARE FOR LETTING HER WALK???

Thanks for proving us right.

Enforce the damned law.

[Major Confusion]

Blanket pardon, much as Ford did in the Nixon matter.

Obama may do that as he leaves office.  Ties up the loose ends neatly so Trump doesn't have to.

[Smokin Joe]

Obama may do that as he leaves office.  Ties up the loose ends neatly so Trump doesn't have to.

While it might 'sanitize' the new ground. It doesn't change the treason involved, nor the profit made doing so, nor does it clean out the corruption which must be endemic to permit such things to have gone on. Failure to do that, imho, is intent to let it continue, just maybe with a new bank account on the end.  Letting that go is a pretty heavy mark against Trump if he does.

Judicially test a pardon for crimes never charged. (no one contested Ford's pardon of Nixon, Agnew pleaded nolo contendere.) Blanket absolution for all past sins known and unknown isn't what pardons were necessarily intended for, and she has done nothing to merit that, but the constitutionality of such an action has never been tested.

To do otherwise only sends the signal that those comprising the Government are free to ignore the Rule of Law as long as they forgive themselves on the way out the door, laughing to the bank...

If Barrack Obama was contacting Hillary on her private server, he, too was in violation, and a pardon would be a direct conflict of interest.

[sneakypete]

I forgot to mention that Giuliani also said that regardless of what happens to Hillary, there are at least over a dozen more players in this mess on her staff among others, who can and probably will be charged with a myriad of crimes.


Will they all be pardoned? Is Obama going to pardon Clinton and her entire staff, along with people who worked for her? Is Obama going to issue two dozen or more pardons? Is he going to pardon everybody in the State Department along with everyone in the IRS along with everyone who did Fast and Furious?


He would have to pardon everyone in the White House and half of Washington D.C. to cover all of the many scandals up.

@240B

I seriously doubt the "little people" will be pardoned. The elites don't care if they live or die once they are no longer useful.

Which may end up being a good thing for America,because some man or woman still worried about making  house payments and medical bills for their families can almost certainly be talked into testifying against their bosses if offered immunity and retirement with pay.

[DB]

@DB

Once Comey and a few others are gone and with a new DoJ I don't see the need for a special prosecutor yet. Let's see what the FBI finds first. I trust a cleaned up FBI to do a professional investigation. If as alleged the corruption involves both parties then maybe a special prosecutor would be needed. Talk of a special prosecutor now is premature, first let the FBI do it's job.

Yes.

[sneakypete]

...The problem is that just about anyone from the lowest flunky up is likely involved, one way or another. That means cleaning out whole departments.
Leave the blackberry on the desk, all materials and items where they are and quit the building cleaned out, and raid domiciles and places of business, safe deposit boxes, etc. at the same time.

@Smokin Joe

That's not a bad thing,it's a GOOD thing. People who don't have high-power law firms volunteering to represent them for free (there ain't no such thing as free legal help) are the people most likely to turn state's evidence in exchange for immunity from prosecution. Some may even volunteer on their own to testify. Not much will get someone more steamed than being prosecuted for something you were a minor player in so you could keep your job,and then seeing your boss skate away free as a bird.

[240B]

My opinion is that the Clinton Foundation will soon be frozen and put under some kind of supervised control. I don't know by whom. The FBI maybe, or court supervision.


I doubt very much that even Obama's people are going to allow Clinton to keep all those tens of millions she got from foreign leaders and others while Secretary of State, and live happily ever after. That money will eventually wind up confiscated or redistributed to other 'real' charities, in my opinion.

[TomSea]

My opinion is that the Clinton Foundation will soon be frozen and put under some kind of supervised control. I don't know by whom. The FBI maybe, or court supervision.


I doubt very much that even Obama's people are going to allow Clinton to keep all those tens of millions she got from foreign leaders and others while Secretary of State, and live happily ever after. That money will eventually wind up confiscated or redistributed to other 'real' charities, in my opinion.

Rush was saying today, those countries like Qatar or Saudi Arabia, they made large donations and probably expected favors in return.

[sneakypete]

My opinion is that the Clinton Foundation will soon be frozen and put under some kind of supervised control. I don't know by whom. The FBI maybe, or court supervision.


I doubt very much that even Obama's people are going to allow Clinton to keep all those tens of millions she got from foreign leaders and others while Secretary of State, and live happily ever after. That money will eventually wind up confiscated or redistributed to other 'real' charities, in my opinion.

@240B

You are probably right. Especially about Obomber. At this point he is thinking more about his reputation in the history books than he is giving cover to another professional Dim. Especially one he never liked to start with. If it comes down to he is going to take a hit in history or Bubbette! is going to take a hit in history,you don't have to be a seer to see who is going to lose that one.

[Fishrrman]

240b wrote:
"In one interview he accidentally quoted me by saying that until they formulate charges, they wouldn't even know what to pardon Hillary for. They can only draw a list of charges after they investigate."

In this instance, I believe Giuliani is wrong.

The president can issue a blanket pardon for hillary from, say, January 20, 1993 to January 19, 2017. It would cover any crimes committed during that time.

I believe the president has the ABSOLUTE power of pardon, and that this issue has come before the Supreme Court with the Court backing such powers.

See:
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/89/pardon-power
Excerpt:
The scope of the pardon power remains quite broad, almost plenary. As Justice Stephen Field wrote in Ex parte Garland (1867), "If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching [thereto]; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity....A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender....so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence." A pardon is valid whether accepted or not, because its purposes are primarily public. It is an official act. According to United States v. Klein (1871), Congress cannot limit the President's grant of an amnesty or pardon, but it can grant other or further amnesties itself. Though pardons have been litigated, the Court has consistently refused to limit the President's discretion. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, however, in Schick v. Reed (1974), seemed to limit the Court's restraint to pardons under "conditions which do not in themselves offend the Constitution."
(all emphasis added by me)

It's still unclear whether obama will pardon hillary.
But I wouldn't rule it out.

[240B]

240b wrote:
"In one interview he accidentally quoted me by saying that until they formulate charges, they wouldn't even know what to pardon Hillary for. They can only draw a list of charges after they investigate."

In this instance, I believe Giuliani is wrong.

The president can issue a blanket pardon for hillary from, say, January 20, 1993 to January 19, 2017. It would cover any crimes committed during that time.

I believe the president has the ABSOLUTE power of pardon, and that this issue has come before the Supreme Court with the Court backing such powers.

See:
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/89/pardon-power
Excerpt:
The scope of the pardon power remains quite broad, almost plenary. As Justice Stephen Field wrote in Ex parte Garland (1867), "If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching [thereto]; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity....A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender....so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence." A pardon is valid whether accepted or not, because its purposes are primarily public. It is an official act. According to United States v. Klein (1871), Congress cannot limit the President's grant of an amnesty or pardon, but it can grant other or further amnesties itself. Though pardons have been litigated, the Court has consistently refused to limit the President's discretion. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, however, in Schick v. Reed (1974), seemed to limit the Court's restraint to pardons under "conditions which do not in themselves offend the Constitution."
(all emphasis added by me)

It's still unclear whether obama will pardon hillary.
But I wouldn't rule it out.

You are completely right, but you missed the point. I know what you wrote factually correct.


I think I didn't say it right. The point is, you only pardon a person who is in need of being pardoned. So far, she is not in need of being pardoned for anything. You can't just pick a random person and pardon them just 'in case' they did something wrong. There has to be a reason.


As with Nixon, a pardon of Hillary would be a defacto admission that she must have done 'something' wrong. We don't have that yet.


She herself has not indicated in any way that she needs or wants to be pardoned. Can you pardon someone who doesn't feel like they need it and doesn't want it? That is the issue. There has to be a reason for the pardon.


What has she been charged with? What is the issue? What is she being pardoned for?