I like the odds

[Libertarian666]

PredictIt has Obama pardoning Hillary at about 0.25 for "Yes".

I put $100 on "Yes". My reasoning:

1. If he pardons her, I win about $300.
2. If he doesn't, I get way more than $100 enjoyment from her prosecution and conviction.

Win-win!

[Cortopassi]

I still don't understand the process. Don't you have to first be convicted of something to get a pardon?

Otherwise, wouldn't getting a "pre-pardon" pretty much cement she did do something illegal?

[Libertarian666]

I still don't understand the process. Don't you have to first be convicted of something to get a pardon?

Otherwise, wouldn't getting a "pre-pardon" pretty much cement she did do something illegal?

No, you don't have to be convicted, or even charged. Here's probably the most famous example: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Proclamation_4311

[Maddy]

Even assuming that you could pardon a crime that has yet to be charged, much less established, you'd have to articulate in some manner exactly what act is being pardoned. Considering the whole laundry list of things for which the Clintons could potentially be prosecuted, how, as a practical matter, could you pull that off?

I'm not sure that President Ford's blanket pardon of Nixon is apposite. Ford wasn't on his way out of office, and the pardon wasn't an attempt to prevent a subsequent administration from prosecuting. (Some have speculated that the pardon was actually quid pro quo for Nixon's resignation.) To the contrary, Ford had just assumed the office of president. Since it would have been the Ford administration, if any, that would have been the one to bring charges against Nixon, the pardon was tantamount to a declaration that the new administration did not intend to prosecute. So depending on what the statute of limitations was, the "pardon" may have had no legal effect at all.

[clacy]

There has to be a way around a preemptive pardon, if the corruption is worthy of prosecution in the first place, like many believe.

[Tyler]

The most interesting thing about the entire discussion is partisan liberals admitting that Clinton may require a pardon to avoid criminal punishment for her actions. It's remarkable how the political tide has shifted. IMHO, the only positive outcome for Hillary is that there is no pardon and everything is swept under the rug. But that requires a very big rug.

[Maddy]

In today's news: When asked if he would pardon Edward Snowden, Obama said, “I can’t pardon somebody who hasn’t gone before a court and presented themselves, so that’s not something that I would comment on at this point.”

[Libertarian666]

In today's news: When asked if he would pardon Edward Snowden, Obama said, “I can’t pardon somebody who hasn’t gone before a court and presented themselves, so that’s not something that I would comment on at this point.”

Some Constitutional scholar he is.

Of course we can't believe anything he says anyway.

[Libertarian666]

Even assuming that you could pardon a crime that has yet to be charged, much less established, you'd have to articulate in some manner exactly what act is being pardoned. Considering the whole laundry list of things for which the Clintons could potentially be prosecuted, how, as a practical matter, could you pull that off?

Exactly the way Ford did it: "Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,1974."

https://fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/s ... 740061.asp

I'm not sure that President Ford's blanket pardon of Nixon is apposite. Ford wasn't on his way out of office, and the pardon wasn't an attempt to prevent a subsequent administration from prosecuting. (Some have speculated that the pardon was actually quid pro quo for Nixon's resignation.) To the contrary, Ford had just assumed the office of president. Since it would have been the Ford administration, if any, that would have been the one to bring charges against Nixon, the pardon was tantamount to a declaration that the new administration did not intend to prosecute. So depending on what the statute of limitations was, the "pardon" may have had no legal effect at all.

I've never seen this claim before, but it doesn't apply here anyway, as the incoming Administration is not the one being discussed.

[dragoncar]

There has to be a way around a preemptive pardon, if the corruption is worthy of prosecution in the first place, like many believe.

You can only pardon for past acts. So Congress can order her to testify and she will either be made to tell all the gory details (likely further hurting the Democrat party) or she will lie, which would be an offense which she could be charged with. Maybe some other stuff along those lines -- basically ongoing crimes.

[Libertarian666]

There has to be a way around a preemptive pardon, if the corruption is worthy of prosecution in the first place, like many believe.

You can only pardon for past acts. So Congress can order her to testify and she will either be made to tell all the gory details (likely further hurting the Democrat party) or she will lie, which would be an offense which she could be charged with. Maybe some other stuff along those lines -- basically ongoing crimes.

Yes, that is why the Democratic party is going to be lit up like a Christmas tree of felons.

Unless a terrible Arkancide happens to her somehow. Wouldn't that be ironic?

[Cortopassi]

Oh well:
----------
President-elect Donald Trump doesn’t want to pursue further investigations into Hillary Clinton once he takes office, Mr. Trump’s former campaign manager confirmed Tuesday.

“I think when the president-elect who’s also the head of your party now … tells you before he’s even inaugurated he doesn’t wish to pursue these charges, it sends a very strong message, tone and content to the members,” Trump transition official Kellyanne Conway said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
---------
Looks like at least on the surface she'll get a pass.

[Maddy]

Oh well:
----------
President-elect Donald Trump doesn’t want to pursue further investigations into Hillary Clinton once he takes office, Mr. Trump’s former campaign manager confirmed Tuesday.

“I think when the president-elect who’s also the head of your party now … tells you before he’s even inaugurated he doesn’t wish to pursue these charges, it sends a very strong message, tone and content to the members,” Trump transition official Kellyanne Conway said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
---------
Looks like at least on the surface she'll get a pass.

Regarding the reasoning for this decision, all that any of us can do is speculate. But it would be consistent with smart gamesmanship to hold this card back. Until it's played, Trump wields a great deal of power over who-knows-how-many political adversaries.

[Tyler]

My prediction: Trump does not actively pursue charges for the email scandal and allows the Comey decision to stand. That's a good thing, as it shows that he's not vindictive and trusts the system to do its job. In the meantime, he'll purge the DOJ of the people who obstructed the investigation to begin with.

But he also won't squash ongoing investigations into the Clinton foundation and won't stand in the way if they eventually turn up enough evidence to prosecute. That's not him attacking Clinton, it's just him allowing investigators to do their jobs without political interference. That's also a good thing.

[Tyler]

Yes, exactly. But the question is whether Obama falls for this and fails to pardon her.

I could easily see Obama pardoning her for the server. I could even see Trump encouraging him to do it. It would close the issue and they'd both win with their base.

Pardoning all crimes yet-uncovered with the Clinton foundation would raise a lot of eyebrows and make him look corrupt if anything leaked after the fact. That one is a lot more dangerous, and I'm not sure Obama cares enough about the Clintons to stick his own neck out on that. But who knows.

[Cortopassi]

A president can do something like that? Pardon for yet unknown stuff? I assume you can't pardon for any and all crimes possibly committed in the future, right?

If say there's some specific Clinton Foundation embezzling or something that starts in 2018, that can't be pardoned now, can it? Only things up to and including his last day in office?

[Libertarian666]

A president can do something like that? Pardon for yet unknown stuff? I assume you can't pardon for any and all crimes possibly committed in the future, right?

If say there's some specific Clinton Foundation embezzling or something that starts in 2018, that can't be pardoned now, can it? Only things up to and including his last day in office?

Yes, it must be for past offenses but doesn't have to be specific as to what those offenses are.