Pardon the interruption: Clinton allegation may force Obama to act; Clinton to admit

[corbe]

Pardon the interruption: Clinton allegation may force Obama to act; Clinton to admit

 By David Weisberg, contributor - 12/27/16 01:00 PM EST   0comments

Executive orders barring offshore drilling in most U.S. Arctic waters; an abstention at the U.N. permitting the Security Council to declare all Israeli settlement activity to be illegal and an obstacle to peace; the possibility of further action at the U.N. to formalize the administration’s comprehensive vision of a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict—Pres. Obama is sprinting, not jogging, to the finish-line.

In dashing through his last few weeks in office, will one of Pres. Obama’s final acts be to pardon Hillary Clinton

for any violations of federal law she might have committed while she was secretary of state?

It’s an interesting and complex question.

We should first note that the Obama administration’s decision not to prosecute Mrs. Clinton would not bind the Trump administration. Until relevant statutes of limitations have expired, she could still be prosecuted by the new administration. It is possible in my opinion for Clinton to be prosecuted for either her improper handling of classified information on “home brew,” or allegations of “pay to play” arrangements between the secretary of state and donors to the Clinton Foundation, which could constitute bribery.

The statute of limitations for most federal crimes is five years from the commission of the offense; that would apply to the two categories relevant to Mrs. Clinton. Her tenure as secretary of state ended Feb. 1, 2013, so it is possible that the statute of limitations will not run until Feb. 1, 2018, more than a year after Mr. Trump takes office.

What looks like one question—will the president pardon Mrs. Clinton?—turns out, on analysis, to be two. The first question is: Would Mrs. Clinton wish to receive a pardon?

That question seems to be a proverbial no-brainer. Surely, any person who had been in federal government would be eager to receive a presidential pardon, because it eliminates even the possibility of federal prosecution. That looks like all upside and no downside.

But there is a downside, and it isn’t trivial. A pardon must be accepted by the person who is pardoned if it is to effectively stymie any prosecution.

Furthermore, there is solid legal precedent that acceptance of a pardon is equivalent to confession of guilt. A U.S. Supreme Court case from 1915 called Burdick v. U.S. establishes that principle; it has never been overturned.

If acceptance of a pardon by Mrs. Clinton would amount to confession of guilt, would she nevertheless accept it? A multitude of factors would go into her decision.

<..snip..>

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/311883-pardon-the-interruption-clinton-allegation-may-force

[corbe]

  Obummer will pardon her.  They don't trust Trump's new FBI Director.

[montanajoe]

I think Trump is probably encouraging 0  to do so. That way he won't have to answer to the supporters that felt this was a campaign promise. He can just say my hands are tied...

[Cripplecreek]

  Obummer will pardon her.  They don't trust Trump's new FBI Director.

I think its hillarious watching the Alt Right fight. Now they're calling Milo a cuck.

[Sanguine]

I think its hillarious watching the Alt Right fight. Now they're calling Milo a cuck.

Really?  What did Milo do to earn that?

[Cripplecreek]

Really?  What did Milo do to earn that?

Civil war brewing in the Alt Right.

Alt-right movement descends into civil war after leading figure is booted from Trump inauguration event

http://www.businessinsider.com/alt-right-civil-war-twitter-cernovich-milo-alaska-2016-12

"Mike got upset that I was tweeting some things about Jewish people," he said. "I don't hate Jews, but there are some things that I like to talk about. I'm alt-right. I've always been alt-right. I've never said I'm not alt-right, unlike Mike Cernovich, Paul Joseph Watson, Milo, and these other cucks. I've always been alt-right."

 

[Sanguine]

Civil war brewing in the Alt Right.

Alt-right movement descends into civil war after leading figure is booted from Trump inauguration event

http://www.businessinsider.com/alt-right-civil-war-twitter-cernovich-milo-alaska-2016-12

"Mike got upset that I was tweeting some things about Jewish people," he said. "I don't hate Jews, but there are some things that I like to talk about. I'm alt-right. I've always been alt-right. I've never said I'm not alt-right, unlike Mike Cernovich, Paul Joseph Watson, Milo, and these other cucks. I've always been alt-right."

 

Interesting.

[the_doc]

But there is a downside, and it isn’t trivial. A pardon must be accepted by the person who is pardoned if it is to effectively stymie any prosecution.

Furthermore, there is solid legal precedent that acceptance of a pardon is equivalent to confession of guilt. A U.S. Supreme Court case from 1915 called Burdick v. U.S. establishes that principle; it has never been overturned.

If acceptance of a pardon by Mrs. Clinton would amount to confession of guilt, would she nevertheless accept it? A multitude of factors would go into her decision.[/i]

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/311883-pardon-the-interruption-clinton-allegation-may-force

If Obama does pardon HRC, that just gives us more incentive to pursue the BC forgery case. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I believe no one can be pardoned for an offense that has not been charged against that individual.  Can you imagine the problem here?  A judge does not need to have a charge submitted or have a trial and simply say "not guilty".  Isn't this the same thing?

And I know about Ford pardoning Nixon without charges brought.  I submit it was not a defensible pardon legally or Constitutionally, although for national healing it was the correct thing to do.

[Frank Cannon]

I think its hillarious watching the Alt Right fight. Now they're calling Milo a cuck.

LOL. When I think of that term, a person like Milo comes to mind.

[corbe]

   Please @Frank Cannon you HAVE to lose that Red Sweater, brings back to many bad memories.
    May I suggest, a little lighter tone?

[240B]

I believe no one can be pardoned for an offense that has not been charged against that individual.  Can you imagine the problem here?  A judge does not need to have a charge submitted or have a trial and simply say "not guilty".  Isn't this the same thing?

And I know about Ford pardoning Nixon without charges brought.  I submit it was not a defensible pardon legally or Constitutionally, although for national healing it was the correct thing to do.

You are making the common mistake that Obama, or anyone else in his administration, cares about any of that stuff. Obama and his crew laugh openly at the 'law' and do whatever the hell they want to do. And the very last thing that Obama would ever care about is 'national healing'.


Whichever way it goes, Obama will simply do whatever he wants to do at the time regardless of any laws or precedents, and let Trump sort it all out.

[DB]

" A pardon must be accepted by the person who is pardoned if it is to effectively stymie any prosecution."

Why would a pardon have to be "accepted"??? I've never heard that a person who receives a pardon has to sign some document accepting the pardon. And haven't people been pardoned after death?

[corbe]

   Not sayin Nixon was guilty of anything other than political suicide based on bad decisions grounded in paranoia, BUT, Gerald R. Ford changed the constitutionality of the 'pardon' just as radically as obummer's fixin to, politically.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

   Not sayin Nixon was guilty of anything other than political suicide based on bad decisions grounded in paranoia, BUT, Gerald R. Ford changed the constitutionality of the 'pardon' just as radically as obummer's fixin to, politically.

No way.  What Ford did was likely NOT constitutional. No one contested it.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

You are making the common mistake that Obama, or anyone else in his administration, cares about any of that stuff. Obama and his crew laugh openly at the 'law' and do whatever the hell they want to do. And the very last thing that Obama would ever care about is 'national healing'.


Whichever way it goes, Obama will simply do whatever he wants to do at the time regardless of any laws or precedents, and let Trump sort it all out.

That has no bearing on whether Sessions obtains a charge against Hillary and arrests her.

A pardon is not a pardon if it is illegal.