Why Obama, Trump Should Reject Calls for Clinton Pardon

In his final days as president, Barack Obama faces perhaps his most difficult decision yet: Should he pardon Hillary Clinton for her alleged misuse of a private e-mail server containing classified information and for her role in the Clinton Foundation, or should he choose to let a Donald Trump-led Justice Department make the call, despite promises from the president-elect he would continue investigations into Clinton’s past?

Either choice presents potential problems for Obama and his legacy. If he were to pardon Clinton, the decision would most assuredly be viewed as politically motivated, partisan and contrary to justice.

A recent McClatchy-Marist Poll conducted just days before the November 8 election shows 83 percent of respondents believed Clinton did “something wrong” while 51 percent said she engaged in illegal activities. According to CNN’s presidential exit poll, which seems to have had a greater proportion of Democratic Party supporters than the election results showed, 63 percent of voters said they were bothered by Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server.

Experts agree that President Obama has the power to pardon Clinton, and it’s true many other lame-duck presidents have made controversial pardons in the past. President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon. Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, who had been indicted on 65 criminal counts that included trading with Iran during an oil embargo, tax evasion and racketeering. George H.W. Bush pardoned six individuals involved in the Iran-Contra affair.

But something about this pardon is very different; the general perception across the country is justice has not occurred in Clinton’s case. She has continuously promised she did nothing illegal and that her actions were merely “mistakes.” A pardon of her conduct would leave the issue open forever; for the rest of her days she’d be able to tell the world with a straight face the accusations weren’t true, and no one could say a court had ruled otherwise.

In the case of President Nixon, everyone knew he was guilty; he admitted as much. In the case of Marc Rich, most people believed he was guilty, and the evidence overwhelmingly proved it. In the case of Hillary Clinton, however, far more than half the nation believes, at the very least, Clinton did something, but what exactly happened and whether or not it deserves a conviction remains to be determined.

For many, including former Justice Department prosecutors and Republican members of Congress, the evidence against Clinton is overwhelming; but without a conviction, the debate and hostility on both sides will never subside. It’s odd then that so many are calling for Clinton to be pardoned in the name of “healing” the nation. Until we have a determination from a court, there won’t be any healing. Tens of millions of people will feel there is no justice, and, quite literally, they will be right.

Obama knows all this, of course, but he, as any person in his shoes would, must consider the ramifications of a decision not to pardon would have on his party and his own legacy. How would it look if a person who was almost elected president were to be convicted of multiple crimes, or even simply dragged through the mud in a prolonged court case? How would it look for Obama, who campaigned on Clinton’s behalf and testified in the court of public opinion about her trustworthiness? Could the modern Democratic Party survive such a disaster?

Trump has far less to consider. He won the presidency in large part because of his rejection of the established political ruling class in Washington. If he were to pardon Clinton, it would completely undermine the persona he has spent years cultivating and only make the most dedicated of Democrats happy. That does not, however, mean there wouldn’t be any negative consequences for Trump. If Clinton is prosecuted, Trump will face intense scrutiny and vicious attacks from Democrats and many in the media.

A decision not to pardon, if it should result in a prosecution against Clinton, would be a nightmare for Democrats and for Obama, and it could start the Trump administration’s first days off mired in controversy. But at least the American people would learn the full truth, which — and call me old-fashioned — ought to mean something.

an alternative viewpoint

To the winner goes the spoils. And having won the White House in a surprising upset, Republicans are understandably giddy, perhaps no one more so than Rep. Trey Gowdy, who once again has Hillary Clinton in his investigative crosshairs.

And why wouldn’t he be? His party’s president-elect, Donald Trump, was clear on his plans for Mrs. Clinton. In the second presidential debate, Mrs. Clinton said, “It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.” Trump’s immediate response: “Because you’d be in jail.” Candidate Trump then went on to promise that, if elected, he would assign a special prosecutor to investigate Mrs. Clinton’s exploits as secretary of State.

Democrats, understandably, are calling for President Obama to issue Mrs. Clinton a blanket pardon before leaving office in early 2017. Obama shouldn’t pardon her. President Trump should. And he should announce his intention to do so immediately.

There is evidence that Obama was aware that Clinton was storing classified communications outside of protected government computer systems in clear violation of federal law. If he was aware, then Obama also lied to the public about his knowledge. Further investigation into Clinton’s emails would bring Obama under scrutiny, which gives him a strong incentive to pardon Clinton at the 11th hour of his presidency.

But if we are serious about healing the divisions that plague our nation, Obama should have absolutely nothing to do with pardoning his own former secretary of State. Even if he were ignorant of her malfeasance, he should have nothing to do with pardoning a fellow Democrat. Because Obama potentially has much to gain from pardoning Clinton, his doing so would exacerbate the animosity between those on the left and the right.

But a pardon from Trump, who has nothing to gain, would go a long way toward quelling that animosity.

The pardon should be strictly restricted to Clinton’s actions while secretary of State. If she violated the public trust, it was in this capacity. One cannot violate the public trust when behaving as a private citizen. On that note, there is evidence that the Clinton Foundation has engaged in the trading of political favors for donations. For the type of non-profit the Clinton Foundation is, engaging in politics is strictly prohibited. If there is wrongdoing here, the foundation and its directors should have to answer to the IRS.

But did Clinton commit crimes while secretary of State? FBI Director James Comey didn’t think so. Then he did. Now he doesn’t. About half of Americans seem to agree that the Wikileaks evidence, if not enough to convict her of being a criminal, is more than adequate to disqualify her from holding public office. To this half of Americans, a rigged system gave Clinton a pass that a “regular” person in a similar situation would never have received.

Meanwhile, the other half of Americans would argue that our criminal justice system, after considering the facts and giving her a fair hearing, determined that she committed no crime. To this half of Americans, pursuing Clinton further has nothing to do with justice. It is merely about using the veneer of legal action to extract a pound of political flesh.

Dragging this out further will cost far more than the effort is worth. And the cost will be paid in the form of a widening rift between the American people. The only path to healing is for President Trump to pardon her.

At this point, whether she did or did not breach the public trust is a lesser concern. What matters more is that we have become a people divided. To survive the many challenges that lie ahead, we must unite. To unite, we need to let festering wounds heal. President Trump will have a rare opportunity to demonstrate that he is everyone’s president by healing those wounds. He can do this by pardoning Hillary Clinton.

First, he can not pardon her for something she is not charged with.
Second, put her in prison for the rest of her miserable life.

He can pardon her before hand that's been established

The Obama's hate the Clintons. There will be no pardon as Obama's legacy is more damaged by a pardon. Barry is all about himself and blm and mlm.

Mlm = Muslim lives matter

Clinton should quickly convert if she wants the pardon. Her hotsauce blackface just won't be enough.

Originally Posted by Guest

Why Obama, Trump Should Reject Calls for Clinton Pardon

In his final days as president, Barack Obama faces perhaps his most difficult decision yet: Should he pardon Hillary Clinton for her alleged misuse of a private e-mail server containing classified information and for her role in the Clinton Foundation, or should he choose to let a Donald Trump-led Justice Department make the call, despite promises from the president-elect he would continue investigations into Clinton’s past?

Either choice presents potential problems for Obama and his legacy. If he were to pardon Clinton, the decision would most assuredly be viewed as politically motivated, partisan and contrary to justice.

A recent McClatchy-Marist Poll conducted just days before the November 8 election shows 83 percent of respondents believed Clinton did “something wrong” while 51 percent said she engaged in illegal activities. According to CNN’s presidential exit poll, which seems to have had a greater proportion of Democratic Party supporters than the election results showed, 63 percent of voters said they were bothered by Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server.

Experts agree that President Obama has the power to pardon Clinton, and it’s true many other lame-duck presidents have made controversial pardons in the past. President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon. Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, who had been indicted on 65 criminal counts that included trading with Iran during an oil embargo, tax evasion and racketeering. George H.W. Bush pardoned six individuals involved in the Iran-Contra affair.

But something about this pardon is very different; the general perception across the country is justice has not occurred in Clinton’s case. She has continuously promised she did nothing illegal and that her actions were merely “mistakes.” A pardon of her conduct would leave the issue open forever; for the rest of her days she’d be able to tell the world with a straight face the accusations weren’t true, and no one could say a court had ruled otherwise.

In the case of President Nixon, everyone knew he was guilty; he admitted as much. In the case of Marc Rich, most people believed he was guilty, and the evidence overwhelmingly proved it. In the case of Hillary Clinton, however, far more than half the nation believes, at the very least, Clinton did something, but what exactly happened and whether or not it deserves a conviction remains to be determined.

For many, including former Justice Department prosecutors and Republican members of Congress, the evidence against Clinton is overwhelming; but without a conviction, the debate and hostility on both sides will never subside. It’s odd then that so many are calling for Clinton to be pardoned in the name of “healing” the nation. Until we have a determination from a court, there won’t be any healing. Tens of millions of people will feel there is no justice, and, quite literally, they will be right.

Obama knows all this, of course, but he, as any person in his shoes would, must consider the ramifications of a decision not to pardon would have on his party and his own legacy. How would it look if a person who was almost elected president were to be convicted of multiple crimes, or even simply dragged through the mud in a prolonged court case? How would it look for Obama, who campaigned on Clinton’s behalf and testified in the court of public opinion about her trustworthiness? Could the modern Democratic Party survive such a disaster?

Trump has far less to consider. He won the presidency in large part because of his rejection of the established political ruling class in Washington. If he were to pardon Clinton, it would completely undermine the persona he has spent years cultivating and only make the most dedicated of Democrats happy. That does not, however, mean there wouldn’t be any negative consequences for Trump. If Clinton is prosecuted, Trump will face intense scrutiny and vicious attacks from Democrats and many in the media.

A decision not to pardon, if it should result in a prosecution against Clinton, would be a nightmare for Democrats and for Obama, and it could start the Trump administration’s first days off mired in controversy. But at least the American people would learn the full truth, which — and call me old-fashioned — ought to mean something.

Excellent post, including the alternative view that follows.

I think the FBI should investigate the Clinton Foundation and pursue evidence, where available of Hillary violating the Espionage Laws (ie protection of classified info etc). There is almost certainly going to be more than enough to indict her on multiple counts.

After the legal battles have been conducted and won, with her convicted, I then would strongly urge President Trump to pardon her.

The point would have been made, accountability established along with deterring future law breakers. But there is no point in "locking her up" and on humanitarian grounds and given her age, she should be pardoned.

Originally Posted by Guest

First, he can not pardon her for something she is not charged with.
Second, put her in prison for the rest of her miserable life.

Originally Posted by Guest

He can pardon her before hand that's been established

"However, what many do not realize is that the presidential pardoning power “extends to every offence known to the law,” other than impeachment, “and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.”Aug 23, 2015"

https://www.google.com/search?q=can+...utf-8&oe=utf-8

Originally Posted by Guest

Excellent post, including the alternative view that follows.

I think the FBI should investigate the Clinton Foundation and pursue evidence, where available of Hillary violating the Espionage Laws (ie protection of classified info etc). There is almost certainly going to be more than enough to indict her on multiple counts.

After the legal battles have been conducted and won, with her convicted, I then would strongly urge President Trump to pardon her.

The point would have been made, accountability established along with deterring future law breakers. But there is no point in "locking her up" and on humanitarian grounds and given her age, she should be pardoned.

IF she's really guilty of what they say...she should be hanged, or better, put in a stockade for a while, let the people take a whack at her before she's hanged.

Originally Posted by TexaninVA

Excellent post, including the alternative view that follows.

I think the FBI should investigate the Clinton Foundation and pursue evidence, where available of Hillary violating the Espionage Laws (ie protection of classified info etc). There is almost certainly going to be more than enough to indict her on multiple counts.

After the legal battles have been conducted and won, with her convicted, I then would strongly urge President Trump to pardon her.

The point would have been made, accountability established along with deterring future law breakers. But there is no point in "locking her up" and on humanitarian grounds and given her age, she should be pardoned.

Good points, don't forget her ailing health.

No one should pardon her. She is a criminal that is probably responsible for at least four American deaths. If so, then she should serve time for it. At the very least, she needs to be prosecuted and persecuted for her breaking the laws regarding handling of classified information. She should be prosecuted to the extent that anyone working under her would have been if they had handled classified as she did.

That said, if Obama pardons her then Trump will not have to be the bad guy that puts the bit*h in jail. So, as much as I want her to pay for what she did, if she is pardoned then Trump is off the hook for a campaign promise that he made to throw her in jail. It will be hard to find jurists that are willing to convict a Clinton. Their spawn of Satan royalty puts them in a semi-protected level above the average American citizen.

Added after:

If she was to disappear or suddenly have a unrecoverable seizure, I would not mourn her in the slightest.

Originally Posted by Guest

"However, ..."

IF she's really guilty of what they say...she should be hanged, or better, put in a stockade for a while, let the people take a whack at her before she's hanged.

In all honesty, I think you genuinely need to find a good counselor, or maybe go all the way and call a psychiatrist.

Can we all chip in a few bucks

Originally Posted by Guest

In all honesty, I think you genuinely need to find a good counselor, or maybe go all the way and call a psychiatrist.

what is wrong with this community, we are living in paradise and most of the responders have so much hate in their hearts! They need medication!

So far so good on this thread. J-Bo starts off with two ponderous posts and then the same old Clinton/Obama rehash, and, of course, Donny B is there to add his crazy as a loon take on things. Anyhow, I'm sure there's more to follow. Sorry for interrupting.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Guest

what is wrong with this community, we are living in paradise and most of the responders have so much hate in their hearts! They need medication!

Personally, I do NOT hate her. I just believe in law enforcement. Equal law enforcement. I believe she should get the same treatment as any black person being stopped and arrested by the police. EQUAL.

Originally Posted by Guest

In all honesty, I think you genuinely need to find a good counselor, or maybe go all the way and call a psychiatrist.

Why? For knowing and speaking of facts?

You need to stop being a sensitive whiny woman.

Why do women deceive themselves so? You know I'm right, you just CAN'T bring yourself to agree. Like it's forbidden. Like sex and alcohol was when you were a teen...you wanted to, you may have done it, but you'd deny it in public. You're "Peter" with the truth. You know what it is, yet you deny it. Why? We've given up trying to figure you out, we just basically ignore you. You wonder WHY married men never hear you? You have NOTHING to say and if we sit there...maybe you'll go away.

Oh Snap!

Originally Posted by Guest

So far so good on this thread. J-Bo starts off with two ponderous posts and then the same old Clinton/Obama rehash, and, of course, Donny B is there to add his crazy as a loon take on things. Anyhow, I'm sure there's more to follow. Sorry for interrupting.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Crazy as a loon CHI baby? I've yet to hear you or anyone shoot me down...exactly WHAT is untrue in what I said?

Informing people that the sitting president can in fact PARDON someone BEFORE they are indicted, is "crazy as a loon"? Obama can pardon her in advance of any charged being filed.

MOST of MY posts are informational.

What about yours?