A Pardon for Hillary? ....By Andrew C. McCarthy

[mystery-ak]

 A Pardon for Hillary?
And does Trump actually want her to be pardoned?
By Andrew C. McCarthy — November 12, 2016

White House press secretary Josh Earnest raised some eyebrows on Wednesday when he engaged on the question whether President Obama would pardon Hillary Clinton before leaving office. Earnest did not indicate that the president had made any commitment one way or the other, but the fact that he is clearly thinking about it is intriguing.

The question primarily arises because there is significant evidence of felony law violations. These do not only involve the mishandling of classified information and the conversion/destruction of government files (i.e., the former secretary of state’s government-related e-mails). It has also been credibly reported that the FBI is investigating pay-to-play corruption during Clinton’s State Department tenure, through the mechanism of the Clinton Foundation — the family “charity” by means of which the Clintons have become fabulously wealthy by leveraging their “public service.” Thus far, Mrs. Clinton has been spared prosecution, but we have learned that the e-mails aspect of the investigation was unduly limited (no grand jury was used); and the legal theory on which FBI director James Comey declined to seek charges is highly debatable, even if it has been rubber-stamped by Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

The proximate cause driving the pardon question, however, is President-elect Donald Trump’s commitment that if victorious, he would appoint a special prosecutor to probe his rival’s “situation.”

more
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/442139/print

[Doug Loss]

McCarthy makes a solid case, but I think he misses one thing.  If Obama issues pardons "that cover not only Mrs. Clinton but any crimes committed by any person arising out of both the homebrew e-mail system and the Clinton Foundation — including any false statements and obstruction of the FBI’s investigations," that will close the case but most certainly won't spare Obama any embarrassment.  If anything, it would make Obama overtly complicit in a treasonous criminal enterprise.  We couldn't do anything about it, but even some of his supporters would recognize the essential lawlessness of it all.

But if Obama doesn't pardon her, Trump has to appoint a special prosecutor.  To not do so would be effectively pardoning her himself, and would be recognized as such.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Can someone please explain how someone can be pardoned for something one is not found guilty of?

The text of the Constitution is
he  shall  have  Power  to  Grant  Reprieves  and  Pardons  for
Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeach-
ment

I realize that Ford pardoned Nixon for a crime he was never found guilty of.

This may not have been a constitutional act by Ford, though.

[Doug Loss]

Can someone please explain how someone can be pardoned for something one is not found guilty of?

The text of the Constitution is
he  shall  have  Power  to  Grant  Reprieves  and  Pardons  for
Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeach-
ment

I realize that Ford pardoned Nixon for a crime he was never found guilty of.

This may not have been a constitutional act by Ford, though.

The power of presidential pardon has been held to be absolute, allowing the president to pardon someone for any offenses committed to that point, whether charged or not.  A presidential pardon precludes indictment for any action the pardon lists that was committed prior to the time of the pardon.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The power of presidential pardon has been held to be absolute, allowing the president to pardon someone for any offenses committed to that point, whether charged or not.  A presidential pardon precludes indictment for any action the pardon lists that was committed prior to the time of the pardon.

Can you cite a specific place wherein this doctrine resides?

This seems overly broad.  You say it pertains to any action, but not any person.  How can that be?  Are you implying that specified actions are pardonable, no matter who makes them?

[DB]

McCarthy makes a solid case, but I think he misses one thing.  If Obama issues pardons "that cover not only Mrs. Clinton but any crimes committed by any person arising out of both the homebrew e-mail system and the Clinton Foundation — including any false statements and obstruction of the FBI’s investigations," that will close the case but most certainly won't spare Obama any embarrassment.  If anything, it would make Obama overtly complicit in a treasonous criminal enterprise.  We couldn't do anything about it, but even some of his supporters would recognize the essential lawlessness of it all.

But if Obama doesn't pardon her, Trump has to appoint a special prosecutor.  To not do so would be effectively pardoning her himself, and would be recognized as such.

The special prosecutor statute expired a long time ago. There's no reason a cleaned up DOJ and FBI can't do their job. There's no conflict of interest in doing so.

[Doug Loss]

Can you cite a specific place wherein this doctrine resides?

This seems overly broad.  You say it pertains to any action, but not any person.  How can that be?  Are you implying that specified actions are pardonable, no matter who makes them?

No, I meant any actions by the specified person.  I think I have to modify my previous statement.  It appears after further research that a presidential pardon may only be given to someone accused or convicted of a federal crime.  I'm not sure if a president can pardon someone who hasn't even been formally accused of a crime.  Of course, that would just mean that the Obama DOJ could accuse Hillary merely so he could pardon her subsequently.

[goatprairie]

Sure, let's have a country where the person who was just elected president attempts to throw his opponent into prison. Can we say BANANA REPUBLIC? A great idea....not.

[Doug Loss]

Sure, let's have a country where the person who was just elected president attempts to throw his opponent into prison. Can we say BANANA REPUBLIC? A great idea....not.

You seem to be missing a big point.  Attempting to throw the losing presidential candidate in prison because you're now in power is certainly banana republic activity.  But prosecuting that candidate for felonious actions that were ignored with a wink and a nudge by the previous administration, showing that no one is above the law, is not only not banana republic activity, it's fundamental to regaining the trust of the American people.

[240B]

McCarthy makes a solid case, but I think he misses one thing.  If Obama issues pardons "that cover not only Mrs. Clinton but any crimes committed by any person arising out of both the homebrew e-mail system and the Clinton Foundation — including any false statements and obstruction of the FBI’s investigations," that will close the case but most certainly won't spare Obama any embarrassment.  If anything, it would make Obama overtly complicit in a treasonous criminal enterprise.  We couldn't do anything about it, but even some of his supporters would recognize the essential lawlessness of it all.

But if Obama doesn't pardon her, Trump has to appoint a special prosecutor.  To not do so would be effectively pardoning her himself, and would be recognized as such.

@Doug Loss
Thank you for discussing this.


I find your comment intriguing. Especially the part where you described a, for lack of a better word, a "fantail" type pardon. 


If Obama issues pardons "that cover not only Mrs. Clinton but any crimes committed by any person arising out of both the homebrew e-mail system and the Clinton Foundation — including any false statements and obstruction of the FBI’s investigations,"

I know the President can pardon anyone. However, are you seriously proposing that the President can pardon, not a person, but that he can pardon a whole crime? In the sense that someone commits stock fraud, for example, the President could say, 'I pardon Mr. Smith as well as anyone else who worked for Mr. Smith or was involved in Mr. Smith's crime."


That seems a little broad. Because the President would be pardoning people who may or may not even be known as having any culpability. Wouldn't a pardon have to be directed specifically at a known defendant individually? I do not understand this part of your comment. Would you please clarify what you meant by this?

[Doug Loss]

@Doug Loss
Thank you for discussing this.


I find your comment intriguing. Especially the part where you described a, for lack of a better word, a "fantail" type pardon. 


If Obama issues pardons "that cover not only Mrs. Clinton but any crimes committed by any person arising out of both the homebrew e-mail system and the Clinton Foundation — including any false statements and obstruction of the FBI’s investigations,"

I know the President can pardon anyone. However, are you seriously proposing that the President can pardon, not a person, but that he can pardon a whole crime? In the sense that someone commits stock fraud, for example, the President could say, 'I pardon Mr. Smith as well as anyone else who worked for Mr. Smith or was involved in Mr. Smith's crime."


That seems a little broad. Because the President would be pardoning people who may or may not even be known as having any culpability. Wouldn't a pardon have to be directed specifically at a known defendant individually? I do not understand this part of your comment. Would you please clarify what you meant by this?

Those weren't my words, they were McCarthy's.  I don't know (and I suspect otherwise) that any presidential pardon can be given to anyone who hasn't actually been accused of a federal crime.  Not that such trivialities as obedience to the law and the Constitution have impeded Obama's actions before, of course.

[240B]

Those weren't my words, they were McCarthy's.  I don't know (and I suspect otherwise) that any presidential pardon can be given to anyone who hasn't actually been accused of a federal crime.  Not that such trivialities as obedience to the law and the Constitution have impeded Obama's actions before, of course.

You know what would be interesting, is if the pardon of Hillary Clinton (who has not committed nor been charged with any crime) caused the whole 'pardoning' process to go Congress for further definition. Using Nixon as an example, it does seem that Presidents have been kind of "fast and loose" with using it.


I just wonder if a pardon can be challenged in any way. Who would be the party to step up and say, 'No'. Hillary is not pardoned because the pardon is not valid since she is not accused of any crime?


This will be interesting.

[goatprairie]

You seem to be missing a big point.  Attempting to throw the losing presidential candidate in prison because you're now in power is certainly banana republic activity.  But prosecuting that candidate for felonious actions that were ignored with a wink and a nudge by the previous administration, showing that no one is above the law, is not only not banana republic activity, it's fundamental to regaining the trust of the American people.

It won't be seen that way. The average person (and many people are quite unaware of Her Heinous's past) will simply see it as Trump trying to get revenge. He would be supported by only about 33% of the public.
If you want to set up the conditions that would almost certainly destroy the thin fabric tying this country together, go ahead. She would never get convicted anyway, and Obama is probably setting up something now to pardon her for future prosecution. I doubt Trump will even try to charge her.  Just let her and her husband slink off into ignominy. I'd be quite happy with that.
We've got far more bigger fish to fry than trying to imprison Hillary.

[Doug Loss]

You know what would be interesting, is if the pardon of Hillary Clinton (who has not committed nor been charged with any crime) caused the whole 'pardoning' process to go Congress for further definition. Using Nixon as an example, it does seem that Presidents have been kind of "fast and loose" with using it.


I just wonder if a pardon can be challenged in any way. Who would be the party to step up and say, 'No'. Hillary is not pardoned because the pardon is not valid since she is not accused of any crime?


This will be interesting.

But Nixon was accused of "obstruction of justice" (a federal felony) by Congress.  So while it might have be a little stretch on Ford's part, it was completely defendable.  If Obama pardons Hillary on speculation that she might eventually be accused of a crime, that would be a completely different ballgame.

[sinkspur]

You seem to be missing a big point.  Attempting to throw the losing presidential candidate in prison because you're now in power is certainly banana republic activity.  But prosecuting that candidate for felonious actions that were ignored with a wink and a nudge by the previous administration, showing that no one is above the law, is not only not banana republic activity, it's fundamental to regaining the trust of the American people.

The last thing the American people want are another four years of endless investigations.  Oh, the die-hard Trumpkins might want it, but nobody else does.

And, it IS banana republic-like, no matter how you dress it up.