Don’t know about that. So far, her felonious activity hasn’t hurt anyone, so it seems, and Obama might post it out there, just like Ford did with Nixon, that it’s in the national interest. I don’t know who wrote the Ford speech, but it was pretty impressive and gave a pretty good argument, and of course it cost him the reelection, which was good in only that it brought in the numbskull Carter, who giveth our Reagan.
I don’t disagree with that. What I do want to offer up in hindsight, is Clinton and Obama. How telling would it have been for Nixon to have been convicted of high crimes for what he did, when Clinton and Obama got away with what they did?
To this day I still believe Nixon was an accessory after the fact. He tried to stand behind his men. It cost him.
Now while that was wrong, and I recognize that, I was not convinced at that time nor am I today, that what he did went beyond what other presidents have done up until then, or even until now.
Hillary and Bill Clinton have been crime family members for decades. They have benefited direction from all manner of criminal acts including murder.
There is a VERY compelling reason to tie Hillary Clinton to the deaths of Jerry Parks and Vince Foster.
There a a multitude of criminal scandals surrounding Hillary, and a multitude of dead people floating in their wake.
This is why I can understand Nixon’s pardon. I cannot grasp the legality of giving Hillary a pardon for all past deeds.
Nixon was a president, and it was unseemly to place our ex president in prison. He was essentially exiled to San Clemente. That to me seemed a reasoned outcome.
What compelling issue necessitates Hillary being pardoned? I don’t see a one. Just to clear her so she can run for president? No.
Of course this is a Conservative argument, and the Left won’t bother to think along these lines, so I wouldn’t say you are wrong to speculate as you have. I certainly hope you are wrong though.