There has been very little discussion about the power of the president of the United States to issue pardons in relation to Hillary Clinton and her use of personal servers. The decision of FBI Director James Comey, quickly affirmed by Attorney General Loretta Lynch, that Clinton would not be indicted for any crimes she may have committed regarding classified information, shocked a lot of people but it should not have. All Comey’s statement did was make it official that under Barack Obama, the USA has officially become the U-BRA, the United Banana Republic of America.
But in the end, Comey’s decision made absolutely no difference. No matter what he and Lynch did, Hillary was never going to see the inside of a jail cell.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution gives the president the power to issue reprieves or grant pardons for offences committed against the United States. There are very few limitations to the president’s power under this clause. Pardons and reprieves are limited to crimes against the United States rather than offences against the states or civil matters. And the crime must have already occurred; future crimes cannot be covered by a presidential pardon. There is no doubt any crime Clinton could have been indicted for was a crime against the United States.
Nothing fetters the discretion of the president. A pardon can be issued to remedy an injustice or because the president likes the person.
When Richard Nixon left office in disgrace on Aug. 9, 1974, he was facing no criminal charges. Yet one month later President Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon. He granted a “full, free and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offences against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, committed or may have committed or taken part in.” The pardon covered both terms of Nixon’s presidency from Jan. 20, 1969 to Aug. 9, 1974.
Ford’s pardoning Nixon was controversial at the time and helped define Ford’s presidency along with the fact he won the presidency with the smallest landslide in history (he got no votes and carried no states). But the important thing was after the pardon was granted there was no talk about charging Nixon with anything he did or might have done regarding the Watergate break-in and subsequent cover up. Others went to jail but Nixon was permanently spared that fate after he left office.
Trump talks about re-opening proceedings against Clinton should he become the next president. But there is no way Obama will allow that to happen. Although Obama could pardon Clinton at any time, it is pretty well a certainty he will do it before leaving office if Donald Trump becomes the next president of the United States. And he could do it before the election or even after Clinton wins.
It is significant that at the time Comey made his announcement, Obama was out on the campaign trail with Clinton. The president and the Democrats do not want Clinton to be indicted and charged. That is why Comey made the decision he did.
It is practically unheard of for prosecutors or police to announce someone will not be charged and then to outline the evidence against them. But that is exactly what the FBI Director did. Had he chosen to recommend an indictment, Lynch would have said she was leaving the decision to career prosecutors who would have been given their marching orders. Comey likely would have been fired. Comey’s role was all for show; he had no real say in the matter.
Since the fix was in Comey performed a public service by pointing out what the FBI found that contradicted what Clinton had previously said. Examples of this were Clinton’s statements she did not send or receive classified information on her private server, that she provided all her work emails, and that her server was never hacked. His statements have no legal relevance but may have political ramifications for the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee and will certainly provide fodder for the election campaign.
It is hard to believe Obama will not, at some point, pardon Clinton for any crimes she may have committed. Should Comey have recommended an indictment? As a famous American once asked, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
There has been very little discussion about the power of the president of the United States to issue pardons in relation to Hillary Clinton and her use of personal servers. The decision of FBI Director James Comey, quickly affirmed by Attorney General Loretta Lynch, that Clinton would not be indicted for any crimes she may have committed regarding classified information, shocked a lot of people but it should not have. All Comey’s statement did was make it official that under Barack Obama, the USA has officially become the U-BRA, the United Banana Republic of America.
But in the end, Comey’s decision made absolutely no difference. No matter what he and Lynch did, Hillary was never going to see the inside of a jail cell.
