a. She needs to not be elected president and b. Obama needs to not issue her some blanket pardon (not sure he could do anything like that)
If I am right, that would put Obama (and her) in a world of bother from November 2016 until Jan 2017 if nothing comes of the congressional investigations.
Would he just step up and pardon her for no reason if she hasn't been indicted, or a grand jury called? That would seem like a clear admission of guilt and maybe an obvious cover up on his part -at which point he might have to pardon himself too.
From Ford's pardon of Nixon:
"... 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." \
I think we need an amendment to limit the President's pardon power to specific offenses. Blanket pardon's are for those with something to hide.
At the very least, Congress should have grilled Nixon to learn what was on the erased 18 minutes of erased tape and to identify any co-conspirators not yet identified.
Welcome to the club.
I've been asking those questions since Hillary was allowed to decide on her own which emails she would provide to satisfy all the Federal laws that were never in her power to interpret.
AND SHE WAS ALLOWED TO ACTUALLY DO IT.
THAT EVENT IS MORE PROFOUND AND FRIGHTENING THAN JUST THE CRIMES OF AN OLD ENTITLED ARROGANT WOMAN, clearly engaging in RICO activity. No one is immute to prosecution from that.
No one even bothered to ask the now famous question, "How many divisions does the Supreme Court have?
"Or the Legislature?"
I can only repeat that to initiate accusation of RICO activity, no Attorney General is necessary, Far as I know, any citizen can file the charge. And the evidence for the prosecution has already been found.
Ford/Nixon 1974