The question here is do you think he will, not so much is it a good idea. The closest analogy is Ford pardoned Nixon.
It's a catch 22. Either she's innocent and doesn't need a pardon (and is open to future prosecution) or she's guilty and accepts the pardon. Unlike the movies, though, pardons have to be explicit (rather than general) in their language to be binding. So if she were to accept one, she'd first have to detail the crimes for which she's being pardoned. Can't have it both ways. Personally, I think she'll not take the pardon and any investigations will be held as leverage for future use. Leverage is always better than justice or revenge, for politicians.
pretty sure she has to be convicted before she can be pardoned. could just as easily ask if obama will pardon trump
the question is will Trump pardon her. and since its the Clinton Foundation that is still under investigation I suppose Bill is on the line as well. I wouldn't take that threat seriously though unless a special prosecutor is appointed. and considering that his goal now is to unify and get things done, I don't expect that to happen. his supporters will be plenty appeased if he focuses on obamacare, the wall, and supreme court nominee. they wont need blood.
Quite the opposite, the only thing a pardon cannot touch is impeachment. Other than that it can be any offense or crime at any time during legal proceedings. You can't pardon an idea though, you have to state what is being pardoned so that's why I wrote that she's have to admit guilt first.
It's technically not required for someone to be convicted to be pardoned. For example, Nixon resigned instead of going through impeachment, and was later pardoned by Ford prior to trial. Here's the full text of the Proclamation: "Richard Nixon became the thirty-seventh President of the United States on January 20, 1969 and was reelected in 1972 for a second term by the electors of forty-nine of the fifty states. His term in office continued until his resignation on August 9, 1974. Pursuant to resolutions of the House of Representatives, its Committee on the Judiciary conducted an inquiry and investigation on the impeachment of the President extending over more than eight months. The hearings of the Committee and its deliberations, which received wide national publicity over television, radio, and in printed media, resulted in votes adverse to Richard Nixon on recommended Articles of Impeachment. As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States. Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and on the discretion of the authorized prosecutor. Should an indictment ensue, the accused shall then be entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury, as guaranteed to every individual by the Constitution. It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States. The prospects of such trial will cause prolonged and divisive debate over the propriety of exposing to further punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the unprecedented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office of the United States. 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. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and ninety-ninth." In Nixon's case, he was almost certainly going to be indicted and stand trial, so a pardon did make some sense. In Clinton's case, she is not expected to be indicted and has not admitted to any wrong-doing, so there's really nothing to pardon.
It's probably concrete and rebar. But we need to be sure don't we? I would assume that the Wikileaks information would be seen as illegally obtained.
@Ragic It would most likely be admitted. The persecution would treat it as written/recorded evidence and the defense would repeatedly call in to question the chain of custody. If the defense presented a verifiable example where an email had been adjusted, even slightly, by any 3rd party, they'd all be thrown out. End result is a slight win for prosecution. The federal attorneys definitely wouldn't file charges on just the emails though, that's way too risky. So in the future, if you see charges filled, they will either be posturing to get Clinton to settle, or she's cooked because they got something. Even then, it's risky for both sides which brings me back to my original prediction, the leverage of this whole thing has more value than it's actual execution.
Im more curious about process than result in this thread (though im sure youre right). Do ppl's subsequent behavior as a result of a wikileak speak to its validity in a legal sense? It took a long time before anyone thought to say 'that wikileak is fake'. Instead we saw people getting fired. So I guess the question is if you react to a wikileak in a way that implies that its valid does that then give it credibility in the eyes of the law?
I could see Obama going either way and I don't have any feeling on how this will turn out at this point. Pardoning her could certainly be seen as a tacit admission she was guilty. Why pardon her if she wasn't guilty of anything? On the other hand a pardon ends it for all and would close the investigations down. He could do that if there might be something that could implicate him even if he didn't care what happened to her now. In any event we'll find out in the next 2 months or so. I expect if there is a pardon, it will be just before he leaves. A pardon would have a bigger impact if Trump did it. I can see him pardoning her due to pragmatic reality. Even if she was indicted and realizing she is such a polarizing figure, could she get a fair trail? As the accused she would be entitled to that. I could see Trump having a change of heart to close that rotten chapter because of that. I can see him not doing it to show no one is above the law. Those are decision presidents have to make. I just don't know how it will go.
Russia!!!! Forget the specifics of the emails, and just blame Putin. Evil!!!! Wikileaks and Project Veritas scored YUGE on the bang for your buck metric. As an egotistical pragmatist, I could see Trump wheelin & dealin with Clinton... perchance in a plane on the tarmac.
Another interesting question would be whether Trump could actually pardon HIMSELF. Keep in mind that unlike Clinton, who doesn't have a trial date or anything, Trump is actually at the heart of several upcoming court cases. I am pretty sure that there is nothing in the Constitution preventing him from doing so, but it'd definitely be awkward.
the ones i hear about are the trump uni one and the child **** one at least one of those is likely criminal
Clinton and Obama are passing eachother in a narrow hallway, Clinton nearly walks into Obama and says: "Pardon me." Obama doesn't