Jesse Jackson: Obama should pardon Hillary Clinton

  1. Jesse Jackson: Obama should pardon Hillary Clinton
    Speaking at President Gerald Ford's alma mater, The Rev. Jesse Jackson called for President Obama to issue a blanket pardon to Hillary Clinton before he leaves office, just like Ford did for Richard Nixon.

    Stopping short of saying Clinton did anything wrong, Jackson told a large crowd of University of Michigan students, faculty and administrators gathered at daylong celebration of his career that Obama should short-circuit President-elect Donald Trump's promised attempt to prosecute Hillary Clinton for use of a private e-mail server.
    I think that I have to agree with Rev. Jackson, it is beyond time to let this go.
    •  
  2. Poll: Should Mr. Obama grant Ms. Clinton a blanket pardon?

    • Yes

      0% 0
    • No

      100.00% 3
    3 Votes
  3. 59 Comments

  4. by   Spidey's mom
    This has been all over the internet today and the main question is . . . Jesse thinks she is guilty?!?

    I think the system should be allowed to work and Obama should steer clear of this.
  5. by   herring_RN
    Can a president pardon a person who has not been convicted of a crime?
  6. by   chare
    Quote from herring_RN
    Can a president pardon a person who has not been convicted of a crime?
    Yes, Mr. Ford pardoned Mr. Nixon.
  7. by   elkpark
    IMO, it would be worth it just to pi$$ off the conservatives.
  8. by   toomuchbaloney
    Meh
    Let them come up with charges and spend millions of tax payer dollars on a indictment and trial. It will keep their voting base occupied so that they won't notice the changes to their social security, Medicare, and and social safety net.
  9. by   elkpark
    Quote from toomuchbaloney
    Meh
    Let them come up with charges and spend millions of tax payer dollars on a indictment and trial. It will keep their voting base occupied so that they won't notice the changes to their social security, Medicare, and and social safety net.
    That will be the game they try to play, I'm sure. This AM, on "Morning Edition" (NPR) as I was driving to work, they were interviewing a hedge fund manager who is on Trump's transition team, and the interviewer pointed out that Trump ran his entire campaign on how Washington is too cozy with Wall Street, the corruption is hurting "the little people" (that he claims to care so much about, and who fell for his line of bull and voted for him), and he demonized Clinton throughout the campaign for being too close to Wall Street and the corrupt Big Finance community -- but, now that he's elected, he's got more Wall Street insiders on his transition team, and being talked about for cabinet positions, than any presidential campaign anyone can recall, and how does this hedge fund manager explain that? He said something about how Trump said repeatedly he was going to have the best, smartest, "A plus plus" people on his team, helping run the country, and these are really smart people who are the most capable of knowing how to run the country and manage the economy. The interviewer asked what about all the people who blame the housing crisis, from which many of the "little people" who supported Trump are still suffering, on Wall Street, and the guy explained that that wasn't really Wall Street's fault, it was partially due to Wall Street greed but it was also the fault of Washington (the Federal government) for not regulating them carefully enough, and of the individual people who wanted more house than they could afford. Then he talked about how the Dodd-Frank legislation is ruining the economy and the Trump administration is going to be undoing a lot of the provisions of Dodd-Frank.

    I hope all the yahoos who actually believed anything Trump said during the campaign are going to be happy with what they get. It will be interested to see how they respond when they actually start to realize they've been played for suckers.
  10. by   azhiker96
    I think President Obama will issue some kind of blanket amnesty for Hillary. It needs to cover more than the email server. There are allegations surrounding the Clinton Foundation as well. However, an amnesty for deeds might not keep her out of prison.

    Suppose she gets amnesty, that prevents the use of the 5th since she would not face criminal charges for admitting to wrongdoing. She could then be served a subpoena and forced to answer questions. If she answers honestly it could be embarrassing and potentially career limiting. If she lies, she could go to prison for perjury.
  11. by   toomuchbaloney
    Quote from azhiker96
    I think President Obama will issue some kind of blanket amnesty for Hillary. It needs to cover more than the email server. There are allegations surrounding the Clinton Foundation as well. However, an amnesty for deeds might not keep her out of prison.

    Suppose she gets amnesty, that prevents the use of the 5th since she would not face criminal charges for admitting to wrongdoing. She could then be served a subpoena and forced to answer questions. If she answers honestly it could be embarrassing and potentially career limiting. If she lies, she could go to prison for perjury.
    Meh
    There has been no evidence that she broke any laws which would send her to jail nor that the Clinton Foundation is anything but a good charity.

    I still maintain that if the political right wants to send Clinton to jail they are required to prove that she did something which deserves such treatment. Until then I will read with amusement the breathless claims about the Clinton Foundation while people pretend that President Elect's Trump Foundation has any altruism or charity at it's core.

    There is no reason for Obama to pardon Clinton or to proactively give her amnesty when he knows that these beliefs of her criminality are largely fabrication and hyperbole, in my view.

    Where is the evidence of crime?
  12. by   heron
    It's all very Orwellian, if you think about it. "Lock her up, lock her up" is Trump's mandatory two minutes hate.

    One would think that thirty years of very hostile, very expensive investigations would have turned up something. After all, look at the piles of dirt dug up on Trump in only a few months.

    When it comes to being innocent until proven guilty, it's clear that some animals are more equal than others.
    Last edit by heron on Nov 20, '16
  13. by   heron
    To address the question in the OP - frankly, I think a pardon would be an empty gesture. The Nixon pardon served as a period at the end of a long and nasty episode. It enabled the country to move on.

    I think pardoning Clinton would do no such thing. The witch-hunt is too good a political tool for distracting attention from Trump's lies and blatant corruption, in addition to the issues named by TMB.

    We, as a country, like to feel superior to nations like Haiti and Nigeria that have been looted to the point of impoverishment by corrupt governments. I suspect we are about to find out how it feels to live under such a regime.

    That Clinton won the popular vote by over 1.5 million (so far) gives me hope that enough citizens will see exactly what's going on to pull us through this. For the rest, maybe rubbing their noses in his poop will make the point ... since the Republican Party now controls both the executive and the legislative branches of our national government, they have no excuse for failing to produce results. Those results will be highly educational, I think. At least for anyone not addicted to hate or psychotically racist.

    There's something to be said for having the vermin out in plain sight, for a change. After all, the first step in fighting a potentially fatal infection is identifying the pathogen.
  14. by   elkpark
    Quote from heron
    ... since the Republican Party now controls both the executive and the legislative branches of our national government, ...
    (You forgot the judicial branch, also, as soon as they appoint another right-wing partisan to replace Scalia.)
  15. by   heron
    Quote from elkpark
    (You forgot the judicial branch, also, as soon as they appoint another right-wing partisan to replace Scalia.)
    Ya never know ... remember Justice Souter? Even a conservative strict constructionist, if s/he's honest, would be able to address Trump's more egregious threats.

    Anyway, sufficient unto the day ...

close