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.

She, together with her attorneys, would have to decide how likely it is that the Trump administration would prosecute her, and, if they did decide to prosecute, how likely it is they would be able to prove she had committed crimes.

Since being elected, Mr. Trump has been remarkably warm towards the person he used to call “crooked Hillary.” But how confident could Mrs. Clinton be that the Justice Department, under a Trump administration, would not prosecute?

Prosecutorial decisions are supposed to be independent of political considerations, so Mr. Trump’s recent friendliness should not be controlling once the new Attorney General is in office.

If Mrs. Clinton believes prosecutors might be able to make a strong case against her, the value to her of a pardon increases. If she is confident that any case against her would be weak or even futile, the pardon has less value.

If Mrs. Clinton decides that, everything considered, she would prefer to receive a pardon, she would no doubt be able to convey that message to Pres. Obama, and then the ball would be in his court. Thus, the second question is: Would Pres. Obama grant Mrs. Clinton’s request for a pardon?

From Pres. Obama’s perspective, the decision to grant or withhold a pardon is a political and a personal one. Legal considerations do not directly arise.

Like all presidents at the end of their terms, he is concerned about the “legacy” he leaves for history. Does he want his legacy to include a pardon of the secretary of state who served under him during the entirety of his first term in office?

Because acceptance of a pardon amounts to a confession of guilt, the acceptance by Mrs. Clinton would, to a degree, besmirch both Mrs. Clinton and also Pres. Obama. After all, Mrs. Clinton was Pres. Obama’s secretary of state. If she was committing illegal acts as secretary, it happened literally on his watch.

On the other hand, if the new administration were to prosecute and convict Mrs. Clinton of crimes committed while she was secretary, that might be an even greater embarrassment for Obama post-presidency.

In addition to calculations regarding his legacy, Pres. Obama and Mrs. Clinton surely have developed over many years, both as opponents and as teammates, a personal relationship. If Mrs. Clinton were to ask Pres. Obama for a pardon, how would that personal relationship play into his response? I cannot say.

Days after Mr. Trump won the election, the White House press secretary was asked by Jordan Fabian of The Hill whether Pres. Obama would consider pardoning Mrs. Clinton. He carefully avoided a direct answer.

Instead, the press secretary said that, in cases where Pres. Obama had granted pardons, “[w]e didn’t talk in advance about those decisions.” He also expressed hope that the new administration would follow “a long tradition in this country of people in power not using the criminal justice system to exact political revenge.”

Of course, there is also a long tradition in this country that no one is above the law, no matter how high a position in government he or she might have formerly occupied.

So, those are the main considerations that would go into deciding a very complex question. It’s time for all of us to show our hands.

I’m saying yes, he will pardon her. Can you beat that?

David E. Weisberg is a semi-retired attorney and a member of the NYS Bar. He currently resides in Cary, N.C., and has published pieces on the Social Science Research Network and The Times of Israel.

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

She, together with her attorneys, would have to decide how likely it is that the Trump administration would prosecute her, and, if they did decide to prosecute, how likely it is they would be able to prove she had committed crimes.

Since being elected, Mr. Trump has been remarkably warm towards the person he used to call “crooked Hillary.” But how confident could Mrs. Clinton be that the Justice Department, under a Trump administration, would not prosecute?

Prosecutorial decisions are supposed to be independent of political considerations, so Mr. Trump’s recent friendliness should not be controlling once the new Attorney General is in office.

If Mrs. Clinton believes prosecutors might be able to make a strong case against her, the value to her of a pardon increases. If she is confident that any case against her would be weak or even futile, the pardon has less value.

If Mrs. Clinton decides that, everything considered, she would prefer to receive a pardon, she would no doubt be able to convey that message to Pres. Obama, and then the ball would be in his court. Thus, the second question is: Would Pres. Obama grant Mrs. Clinton’s request for a pardon?

From Pres. Obama’s perspective, the decision to grant or withhold a pardon is a political and a personal one. Legal considerations do not directly arise.

Like all presidents at the end of their terms, he is concerned about the “legacy” he leaves for history. Does he want his legacy to include a pardon of the secretary of state who served under him during the entirety of his first term in office?

Because acceptance of a pardon amounts to a confession of guilt, the acceptance by Mrs. Clinton would, to a degree, besmirch both Mrs. Clinton and also Pres. Obama. After all, Mrs. Clinton was Pres. Obama’s secretary of state. If she was committing illegal acts as secretary, it happened literally on his watch.

On the other hand, if the new administration were to prosecute and convict Mrs. Clinton of crimes committed while she was secretary, that might be an even greater embarrassment for Obama post-presidency.

In addition to calculations regarding his legacy, Pres. Obama and Mrs. Clinton surely have developed over many years, both as opponents and as teammates, a personal relationship. If Mrs. Clinton were to ask Pres. Obama for a pardon, how would that personal relationship play into his response? I cannot say.

Days after Mr. Trump won the election, the White House press secretary was asked by Jordan Fabian of The Hill whether Pres. Obama would consider pardoning Mrs. Clinton. He carefully avoided a direct answer.

Instead, the press secretary said that, in cases where Pres. Obama had granted pardons, “[w]e didn’t talk in advance about those decisions.” He also expressed hope that the new administration would follow “a long tradition in this country of people in power not using the criminal justice system to exact political revenge.”

Of course, there is also a long tradition in this country that no one is above the law, no matter how high a position in government he or she might have formerly occupied.

So, those are the main considerations that would go into deciding a very complex question. It’s time for all of us to show our hands.

I’m saying yes, he will pardon her. Can you beat that?

David E. Weisberg is a semi-retired attorney and a member of the NYS Bar. He currently resides in Cary, N.C., and has published pieces on the Social Science Research Network and The Times of Israel.

This is nuts !!! How can you pardon anyone when there are no charges, no trial and no conviction !!!

Originally Posted by Guest

This is nuts !!! How can you pardon anyone when there are no charges, no trial and no conviction !!!

Actually it happened when Ford pardoned Nixon . Unlike Bill Clinton , Nixon was never Impeached or char=ged with any crime .
However Pres. Ford pardoned Nixon .

Pardoning the Clinton Crime Family would be a fitting final act for the Lawless Obama Administration .

Seriously, you must do something illegal before a pardon. Trump could require a pardon before his term ends is more likely than Clinton needing a pardon. Move on and if you voted for Trump accept congratulations and be a graceful winner. Clinton was gracious in her loss and Trump in his win.

The key phrase to this issue is if she accepts a pardon its tantamount to accepting guilt.

I suspect that if Obama did pardon Hillary it would diminish him all the more, and if Clinton accepted such a pardon it would demonstrate enough proof that the allegations against her were factual. but then Obama, FBI, DOJ are already diminished by not seriously looking in to a possible indictment on Clinton. It was a manifest dereliction of duty on their parts. It flew in the face of this nation's rule of law

I also suspect if any organization, etc who is moved to want to prosecute Clinton will search the law to determine if Obama's pardon actually was all inclusive

Frankly I believe it is would b a foolish move on both Obama's and Clinton's part to breach this issue.

Trump and Company have an aggressive agenda and the last thing they need is to tie up resources going after Clinton. so again Obama and Clinton may be better off to let lying dogs lie

Another factor is Clinton's health which pundits speculate is more serious then she is letting on.

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

Clinton was gracious in her loss .

Not sure how you figure that, sent Podesta out that nite, no speech till the next day she wore purple giving that speech.


She told Trump: ‘We must accept this result and then look to the future.’

Then she put the phone down and started wailing.

We know this because friends revealed she was ‘too distraught’ to come out and speak to her supporters later that night, despite the fact they’d been waiting up for her to so.

Joined the recount by backing Jill Stein’s shameless recount stunt is to make herself a TWO-TIME loser and drag America’s reputation as a democracy through the mud.
When Stein launched her shameless stunt, Hillary should have made it absolutely clear she still accepts the election result, wants nothing to do with any baseless recount, and urged her howling supporters to do the same.

Instead, she picked up all the toys she threw out of her stroller at 2am on November 9, and has now promptly thrown them up in the air again.

‘What a pack of sore losers,’ blasted Kellyanne Conway.
She’s right, they are.

How very Clinton of her!


"Swing-state voters made their decisions in the final days breaking against me because of the F.B.I. letter from Director Comey," she said.

The Russians, she said, sought to "undermine our democracy" through cyberattacks on Democratic targets. She said the hacking into the Democratic National Committee and into the emails of her campaign chairman, John D. Podesta, were a result of Mr. Putin's "personal beef" against her, pointing to her accusation that Russia's 2011 parliamentary elections were rigged.

Hillary sat back and let her enraged supporters march around with their protest placards mocking and abusing Trump, and burning and hanging effigies of him in the streets.

She could have stopped it with a few firm words, in the spirit of Michele Obama’s ‘When they go low, we go high’ entreaty.

But Hillary preferred to say nothing, as she usually does about the grubbier, nastier end of her political operations.

Source

I don't think O will pardon her to protect his shrinking legacy.
That admission of guilt will fall on him as well.

She will be indited and Trump will pardon her to help unify the country.

Originally Posted by Guest

Seriously, you must do something illegal before a pardon. Trump could require a pardon before his term ends is more likely than Clinton needing a pardon. Move on and if you voted for Trump accept congratulations and be a graceful winner. Clinton was gracious in her loss and Trump in his win.

You don't get it. Hillary has done plenty of illegal "somethings." It is possible for a president to pardon without having an indictment.

To say Clinton "was gracious in her loss" is rubbish. Clinton was involved in the voter re-count. Is that "gracious?"

Trump is probably NOT pursuing the Clinton indictment because he knows that Obie would immediately pardon her. By acting like he is not interested, he is probably hoping that Obie will disregard her and leave the White House on Jan 20th without bailing her out. Then, when Trump is sworn in, the GOP can pursue her indictment. Shoot, I could easily get a conviction, based solely on what she has admitted under oath, let alone the evidence produced by the investigation. The only reason I can think of preventing an indictment now is that either the evidence was obtained illegally, or the chain of custody was corrupted, or they are trying to cover for Obie. I know that Obama's can't stand the Clintons, so it can't be that they are trying to protect her, unless the evidence can pull Obie down with her.

Originally Posted by Guest

I don't think O will pardon her to protect his shrinking legacy.
That admission of guilt will fall on him as well.

She will be indited and Trump will pardon her to help unify the country.

Interesting thought, but I don't see Trump dissing his supporters by pardoning Crooked Hillary as a way to unify the country.
The very large "lock her up" crowd wants her locked up...nobody should be above the law.
Besides she can take the conviction, serve a little time at a country club prison, and in few years nobody will remember her bad deeds (think about Slick Willie here).

Originally Posted by Guest

Interesting thought, but I don't see Trump dissing his supporters by pardoning Crooked Hillary as a way to unify the country.
The very large "lock her up" crowd wants her locked up...nobody should be above the law.
Besides she can take the conviction, serve a little time at a country club prison, and in few years nobody will remember her bad deeds (think about Slick Willie here).

That is a possible scenario. Trump is as sly as a fox, even if he sounds pretty dumb sometimes. And I do not mean that to disparage him. I voted for him and support him. But, sometimes I wonder if he has any control of what he says. He has the capability to be one of history's best.....if he can stay off the Twitter and keep his mouth closed. I like his choices for advisors, regardless of the fear it instills in the left.

Originally Posted by jimbo2012

Not sure how you figure that, sent Podesta out that nite, no speech till the next day she wore purple giving that speech.


She told Trump: ‘We must accept this result and then look to the future.’

Then she put the phone down and started wailing.

We know this because friends revealed she was ‘too distraught’ to come out and speak to her supporters later that night, despite the fact they’d been waiting up for her to so.

Joined the recount by backing Jill Stein’s shameless recount stunt is to make herself a TWO-TIME loser and drag America’s reputation as a democracy through the mud.
When Stein launched her shameless stunt, Hillary should have made it absolutely clear she still accepts the election result, wants nothing to do with any baseless recount, and urged her howling supporters to do the same.

Instead, she picked up all the toys she threw out of her stroller at 2am on November 9, and has now promptly thrown them up in the air again.

‘What a pack of sore losers,’ blasted Kellyanne Conway.
She’s right, they are.

How very Clinton of her!


"Swing-state voters made their decisions in the final days breaking against me because of the F.B.I. letter from Director Comey," she said.

The Russians, she said, sought to "undermine our democracy" through cyberattacks on Democratic targets. She said the hacking into the Democratic National Committee and into the emails of her campaign chairman, John D. Podesta, were a result of Mr. Putin's "personal beef" against her, pointing to her accusation that Russia's 2011 parliamentary elections were rigged.

Hillary sat back and let her enraged supporters march around with their protest placards mocking and abusing Trump, and burning and hanging effigies of him in the streets.

She could have stopped it with a few firm words, in the spirit of Michele Obama’s ‘When they go low, we go high’ entreaty.

But Hillary preferred to say nothing, as she usually does about the grubbier, nastier end of her political operations.

Source

Exactly, calling killarys behavior gracious is more ridiculous liberal brainwashed mentality.

What is the opposite of gracious?

Originally Posted by Guest

Actually it happened when Ford pardoned Nixon . Unlike Bill Clinton , Nixon was never Impeached or char=ged with any crime .
However Pres. Ford pardoned Nixon .

Pardoning the Clinton Crime Family would be a fitting final act for the Lawless Obama Administration .

Wasn't Nixon's resigning the presidency in disgrace an admission of guilt?

Originally Posted by Guest

.if he can stay off the Twitter .

No way I love it

Originally Posted by Guest

You don't get it. Hillary has done plenty of illegal "somethings." It is possible for a president to pardon without having an indictment.

To say Clinton "was gracious in her loss" is rubbish. Clinton was involved in the voter re-count. Is that "gracious?"

Another stupid comment !!!You accuse Hillary Clinton of doing illegal things, how about you offer some proof so she can be charged with a crime ?? So with your thinking, a person can be pardoned for a murder before the person has done the killing.