Will Obama grant Clinton a blank pardon if Trump wins?

[MechAg94]

IMO, the corruption has gone way to far for nice or magnanimous gestures.  An example needs to be made of some of these people as a warning to the others as well as future politicians.  I would like to see a whole bunch of voter fraud and election law violations prosecuted also.  

I agree with bluestarlizzard that he should avoid prosecuting Obama.  The people who work for him are another matter.

[RoadKingLarry]

Depends on how deep in the cesspool Obama has dipped. If there is a bunch of stink that can be hung on his legacy we may see broad pardons for any and all that could tie him to corruption.
What Obama does will be the tell.

[Fitz]

I guess I would start by asking who is going to respect Trump for pardoning Clinton?  His supporters?  The media?  The establishment?  Democrats?

IMO, no not a smart move.  Democrats will still hate Trump and Republicans.  It will gain nothing with the opposition and piss off a great many of his supporters.  He didn't get where he was by playing nice with those who oppose him.  I don't think it would be smart to change hit spots now.  I hate to say it, but that really sounds like something W. Bush would do.  He made nice gestures to Democrats a lot.  He never got anything in return and just looked weak while the same Democrats talked trash about him in the media.  

No pardon whatsoever.  Prosecute her and her family and associates.  Commuting their sentence could be done afterward, but I wouldn't advise it myself.  

fair enough. I stand corrected

[BlueStarLizzard]

Oh, I've got no issue with going after Obama based on criminal acts reveled by an investigation into Hilary. I was simply saying that reopening the whole birth certificate thing all by itself would be stupid.
If the investigation into Hilary leads to findings of criminal acts on the part of other, up to and including Obama, then by all means, prosecute.
I'm only opposed to going after Obama solely based on no more evidence than a media scandal that is no longer relevant.

[Perd Hapley]

Depends on how deep in the cesspool Obama has dipped. If there is a bunch of stink that can be hung on his legacy we may see broad pardons for any and all that could tie him to corruption.
What Obama does will be the tell.

Not really. Obama likes to gratuitously anger/annoy/alienate the Right. IOW, he a instigator. He would pardon his criminal cronies, just for the lulz.

[Scout26]

Making her a martyr and firing up the D's is bad strategy.   Being magnanimous will actually go a long way to keeping the D's in check while doing the important work that needs to get done.

Did no one google Burdick vs United States?

Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that:

    A pardoned person must introduce the pardon into court proceedings, otherwise the pardon must be disregarded by the court.
    To do this, the pardoned person must accept the pardon. If a pardon is rejected, it cannot be forced upon its subject.
    A pardon carries an "imputation of guilt", and accepting a pardon is "an admission of guilt".

    A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power intrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed. It is the private though official act of the executive magistrate, delivered to the individual for whose benefit it is intended. A private deed, not communicated to him, whatever may be its character, whether a pardon or release, is totally unknown and cannot be acted on.

Bolding mine.  A pardon would drive a stake through Hillary's heart.  

[Hawkmoon]

A pardon would drive a stake through Hillary's heart.  

She doesn't have a heart to drive the stake through.

[freakazoid]

Something I've never understood is why the president has that power.

[De Selby]

Something I've never understood is why the president has that power.

From the king mate - it's one of the royal prerogatives

[Scout26]

Something I've never understood is why the president has that power.

Checks and Balances.  Congress overrides a presidents veto and passes a bad law.   Courts prosecute under said bad law.  President can pardon those convicted.

Doesn't anyone teach or learn civics anymore?

[De Selby]

Checks and Balances.  Congress overrides a presidents veto and passes a bad law.   Courts prosecute under said bad law.  President can pardon those convicted.

Doesn't anyone teach or learn civics anymore?

Courts don't prosecute.  The president (or his executive delegate) does.

The pardon is a royal hangover

[Scout26]

Courts don't prosecute.  The president (or his executive delegate) does.

The pardon is a royal hangover

He appoints (some Federal and not state) prosecutors.  And it's considered undue influence for the President to decide which cases get prosecuted, IIRC, there's something about faithfully discharging the laws or some such.  Lower levels decide what gets prosecuted.  (Google Saturday Night Massacre, for details).

Yes, it's part royal leftover, but more brilliance of the Founding Fathers and their studies of history, to give the president a check on the other two branches.   

[Ben]

Trump could pardon her for violating the Espionage Act with her email server.  It would seem magnanimous.  (accepting the pardon would imply guilt, and be the end of her political career)  Also revoke any clearances she has, just in case. 

The foundation is a separate matter; let that investigation go where it may.

If he did anything like that, seems like he'd have to also pull an Obama and revisit a bunch of previous prosecutions, from Cartwright on down. Otherwise it looks like he's doing the same "protecting the elite" thing that already happened with Clinton. Getting her off while others sit in Leavenworth for less might fly with the punk ass kids protesting and whining right now, but it won't make them stop protesting and whining, and it will anger his base.

[MechAg94]

If he did anything like that, seems like he'd have to also pull an Obama and revisit a bunch of previous prosecutions, from Cartwright on down. Otherwise it looks like he's doing the same "protecting the elite" thing that already happened with Clinton. Getting her off while others sit in Leavenworth for less might fly with the punk ass kids protesting and whining right now, but it won't make them stop protesting and whining, and it will anger his base.

I think most of his supporters would see it as a betrayal. 

[MechAg94]

Making her a martyr and firing up the D's is bad strategy.   Being magnanimous will actually go a long way to keeping the D's in check while doing the important work that needs to get done.

I would have to disagree with the martyr concern.  Most democrats know she is a crook.  She was uninspiring as a candidate.  I don't see how she would ever become a martyr.  I think I see a much greater chance of Obama being seen that way by some people than Clinton.  That is the main reason I would advise leaving him alone unless something major is uncovered.   

1.  Stepping back, what more would Democrats do in the name of a martyr that they are not already doing?  Riot in the streets?  Illegal voting?  The democrats who might see her that way are already dead set against Republicans, Trump, and anything associated with them.  The rednecks with guns are generally Trump supporters. 

2.  I think the Democrats in the media and Congress are going to oppose anything Trump does whether Hillary is around or not.  Nothing changes. 

3.  The process to prosecute Hillary is something that would take months/years.  If President Trump appoints a special prosecutor, he can go about his business and let that person lead the fight.  

4.  Trump's supporters expect him to prosecute criminals in D.C. and clean up out the corruption.  They expect Hillary to be prosecuted.  Pardoning known criminals is the path to failure.  He already made the comment about seeing her in jail in the debate. 

As a side note, I think people get too caught up with martyr concerns in general.  It seems to come up all the time with killing terrorists and stuff.  I think it is usually not near as big a concern as people make it out to be.  It always seemed to be used as an excuse to do nothing.  I never liked it. 

[KD5NRH]

Depends on how deep in the cesspool Obama has dipped. If there is a bunch of stink that can be hung on his legacy we may see broad pardons for any and all that could tie him to corruption.

Then the entertaining question becomes, with the admission of guilt upon accepting a pardon, would the Fifth Amendment ever apply to that person in regard to the crime pardoned?  i.e. couldn't they then be compelled to testify against others, since it can't really incriminate them anymore, and refusal to testify would be a separate offense not covered by the pardon?

[AmbulanceDriver]

Then the entertaining question becomes, with the admission of guilt upon accepting a pardon, would the Fifth Amendment ever apply to that person in regard to the crime pardoned?  i.e. couldn't they then be compelled to testify against others, since it can't really incriminate them anymore, and refusal to testify would be a separate offense not covered by the pardon?

Ooooh....  I like the way you think....

[BlueStarLizzard]

Making her a martyr and firing up the D's is bad strategy.   Being magnanimous will actually go a long way to keeping the D's in check while doing the important work that needs to get done.

Did no one google Burdick vs United States?

Bolding mine.  A pardon would drive a stake through Hillary's heart.  

So which is worse? A firing up the Dem's or maintaining the status quo of different standards for the rich and powerful that has everyone else upset and distrustful of their own government?

[Scout26]

It's not maintaining the status quo or giving cover or approval to her actions.  Look, I think she should be buried under Leavenworth.  However, giving the left someone to rally around (to avenge) will do more damage than what putting her in shackles and a orange jumpsuit (however glorious that vision is). 

Because the thing is, more and more about what she's done and her actual guilt will continue to come out, especially after she's pardoned. The media will want to break those stories without fear of giving the prosecution ammo for a trial.   

It time to put country first and do what is needed to turn things around.  Getting the Trump Agenda and appointments (especially USSC) passed and through Congress will require just about all the political capital he can muster.   Prosecuting Clinton would be a YUUUGGGEEE distraction.

[wmenorr67]

It's not maintaining the status quo or giving cover or approval to her actions.  Look, I think she should be buried under Leavenworth.  However, giving the left someone to rally around (to avenge) will do more damage than what putting her in shackles and a orange jumpsuit (however glorious that vision is). 

Because the thing is, more and more about what she's done and her actual guilt will continue to come out, especially after she's pardoned. The media will want to break those stories without fear of giving the prosecution ammo for a trial.   

It time to put country first and do what is needed to turn things around.  Getting the Trump Agenda and appointments (especially USSC) passed and through Congress will require just about all the political capital he can muster.   Prosecuting Clinton would be a YUUUGGGEEE distraction.

Hell no, she can serve her time here but we don't want her around here forever.

I now work in this town.

[JN01]

It's not maintaining the status quo or giving cover or approval to her actions.  Look, I think she should be buried under Leavenworth.  However, giving the left someone to rally around (to avenge) will do more damage than what putting her in shackles and a orange jumpsuit (however glorious that vision is). 

Because the thing is, more and more about what she's done and her actual guilt will continue to come out, especially after she's pardoned. The media will want to break those stories without fear of giving the prosecution ammo for a trial.   

It time to put country first and do what is needed to turn things around.  Getting the Trump Agenda and appointments (especially USSC) passed and through Congress will require just about all the political capital he can muster.   Prosecuting Clinton would be a YUUUGGGEEE distraction.

If the full scope of the crimes committed by Clinton and her minions are uncovered, yet no one is held accountable, it will be another serious blow to any hope of justice in this country.  Corruption always has and always will be with us, but when they can blatantly thumb their noses at those they are supposed to be serving, we are no better than a banana republic.  The BATFE, IRS, FBI, Justice Department must be cleaned up, or anarchy (or totalitarian subjugation) are just around the corner.

[Chester32141]

 If he does pardon her he'll be linked w/ Clinton and her crimes for ever more, where as if he doesn't, Obama leaves the Republicans w/ a Tar Baby ... a huge distraction that Trump's base wants to see prosecuted but the other half the country doesn't ... Along w/ the idea of no love lost between the Clintons and Obama I don't think he's gonna pardon her ...
  

[MechAg94]

It's not maintaining the status quo or giving cover or approval to her actions.  Look, I think she should be buried under Leavenworth.  However, giving the left someone to rally around (to avenge) will do more damage than what putting her in shackles and a orange jumpsuit (however glorious that vision is). 

Because the thing is, more and more about what she's done and her actual guilt will continue to come out, especially after she's pardoned. The media will want to break those stories without fear of giving the prosecution ammo for a trial.   

It time to put country first and do what is needed to turn things around.  Getting the Trump Agenda and appointments (especially USSC) passed and through Congress will require just about all the political capital he can muster.   Prosecuting Clinton would be a YUUUGGGEEE distraction.

I think your fears of a martyr are overblown.  So far overblown that I am having a hard time even imagining why you would fear such a thing.  The simple fact is that fears of creating a martyr should not stand in the way of Justice. 

The media should have wanted to break any number of stories about Clinton over the years.  They didn't.  Depending on the media to enact Justice is a losing proposition. 

[Scout26]

I think your fears of a martyr are overblown.  So far overblown that I am having a hard time even imagining why you would fear such a thing.  The simple fact is that fears of creating a martyr should not stand in the way of Justice. 

The media should have wanted to break any number of stories about Clinton over the years.  They didn't.  Depending on the media to enact Justice is a losing proposition. 

Hillary will suddenly fall very ill.  The prosecution will be seen a political act and not a criminal/justice being served act.   "Big, Bad, Mean Donald is picking on poor Hillary, isn't it enough that he won the election, now he wants to put his political opponents in jail." 

I think the FBI should go after the Clinton Family Crime Fund.  And nail to the wall whoever was involved. 

But right now the D's are in disarray, that won't last for ever.  There is no D leader (Schumer?  Pelosi?  Obama is about done, all he wants to do is play golf now.)  Putting Hillary on trial (as glorious as that sounds), especially once all her "infirmaries" come out will give the left an even boost to fundraising and a figure to rally behind.  "Avenge Hillary !!!"

A Pardon gets her to admit guilt and ends her ability to attract fundraising and giving the D's a central figure to rally around.   

Accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt.  Unless you want her trial to still be pending (and it will be drug out for as long a possible) both through the 2018 mid-terms and into 2020.

[KD5NRH]

Hillary will suddenly fall very ill.

Affirming that she wasn't physically capable of being President, and knew it all along.