Posted on 12/29/2016 7:10:24 AM PST by COUNTrecount
Hillary and Bill Clinton are secretly negotiating framework for a potential pardon from President Barack Obama that would spare Hillary from looming criminal indictments, according to Justice Department sources.
But there’s a catch, as there often is when it comes to legal proceedings and the Clinton family. Neil Eggleston, White House Counsel to the President who oversees and approves all presidential pardons and commutations, was previously employed by President Bill Clinton’s White House as a key lawyer to the former president and Hillary Clinton. Also, Eggleston has previously represented Cheryl Mills, a key Hillary attorney believed to be involved in Clinton’s clemency negotiations.
Even though she has not been charged yet with any crimes, the Obama pardon would shield Hillary from any criminal charges she could face under a Donald Trump administration and a Sen. Sessions-led Justice Department.
Sources said Obama green-lighted the Clinton talks with Eggleston prior to departing for his last vacation in Hawaii. However, allowing the Clintons and their attorneys to negotiate directly with Eggleston smacks of a serious conflict of interest, whether or not the sides agree on acceptable clemency terms for the former secretary of state. In an corruption-free administration, Eggleston would step aside and recuse himself from such negotiations having served as a Clinton family lawyer during the most tumultuous period of Bill’s Clinton’s presidency, including his impeachment.
But the Obama administration is anything but corruption free.
Hillary Clinton is the target of at least one criminal FBI probe for mishandling classified and top secret emails and government secrets and possibly other criminal charges as the FBI is likewise investigating the Clinton Foundation for money laundering and pay-to-play involved crimes.
Clinton family legal consigliere David Kendall, who co-defended President Clinton with Eggleston during Whitewater and the Lewinsky affair, did not return requests for comment.
(Excerpt) Read more at truepundit.com ...
It can be a general pardon for acts she has done up to the point of the pardon but it can’t give a “preemptive” pardon for future acts. Ford’s pardon of Nixon was a broad general pardon for any acts during a specified time prior to the pardon.
Thank you for the clarification.
The President can’t pardon for state crimes and has zero authority over state courts. They can only pardon for crimes against the United States.
Agree.
The hell with her and her filthy family.
(The one advantage to prosecuting her, however, would be to watch how many others she would rat out, take down, utterly destroy in the process lol.)
The following link goes to the Justice Dept instructions regarding presidential pardons. Item 2 indicates federal crimes only.
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardon-information-and-instructions
Can they possibly pardon her for her pantsuits?
She can’t recall so now what?
Criminal investigation of Reid is also on the horizon, and I suspect Podesta will end up in the crosshairs too. Sessions has to indict them all or see Trump undermined.
Hope the Clintons have a healthy insurance policy. Obama may decide that they’re not worth the trouble and disappear them in a tragic airplane accident.
On second thought, never mind.
Let Obama do it!
It will put one final massive blemish on his record and will simulataniously brand Hillary guilty. And a pardon by Obama will clear the way for Trump to pardon General Petraeus and others.
Pretty sure it was never tested before the court. That’s why I say it was not a precedent.
Thanks
.............
Last time I looked it up seems it was legal however very un- professional and highly unethical seldom done.
............
http://www.inquisitr.com/3706867/can-obama-pardon-hillary-clinton-guilty-criminal-indictment-crimes-arrested-wikileaks-bill-clinton-foundation-richard-nixon-legal-precedent-clemency-2020/
................
Can Obama Pardon Hillary Before Indictment? Bill Clinton Ironically Provides The Answer
Prevailing expert opinion seems to be the belief that a Hillary pardon is even possible before a Trump-run FBI recommends the Department of Justice to have Hillary indicted for the email server scandal. Attorney Samuel T. Morison told the Charlotte Observer that Obama can pardon Hillary but the “only constraint is that he can’t pardon someone in advance of committing the offense” and “the Constitution says the president can pardon ‘offenses’ against the U.S., not ‘convictions’.”
As it so happens, we do not have to look too far back into history for a legal precedent for this unique situation. In 2001, Bill Clinton granted clemency to former CIA director John Deutch, who was accused of mishandling classified information, prior to any charges being filed. Deutch had failed to follow basic security precautions and rejected Pentagon requests that security systems be installed.
Is Hillary Guilty? It Depends On What The Meaning Of What The Word “Intent” Is Similar to the allegations against Hillary, Deutsch violated government rules by working with 31 classified materials on an unsecured computer at his home. Unlike Hillary, Deutsch admitted to his “error.”
“While serving as Director of Central Intelligence I erred in using CIA-issued computers that were not configured for classified work to compose classified documents and memoranda,” Deutch said in 1999, according to the Washington Post. “While it was absolutely necessary for me to work at home and while on travel, in hindsight it is clear that I should have insisted that I be provided the means of accomplishing this work in a manner fully consistent with all the security rules.”
When the FBI decided to not recommend Hillary’s indictment, they claimed that “there is evidence that [Hillary and her staff] were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information” since “110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.” However, the FBI claimed no “reasonable prosecutor” would consider Hillary guilty since the focus was on Hillary’s intent, or whether she willfully disobeyed the law. This is an important distinction since the U.S. Code on the Disclosure of Classified Information specifically notes that a person must “knowingly and willfully” mishandle the classified information.
Still, recent history also provides examples of where the FBI and the justice system successfully prosecuted someone who mishandled classified information without intent being the determining factor in judging guilt. According to the Associated Press, former Navy reservist Bryan Nishimura took classified Army records home with him after his deployment ended. Nishimura’s lawyer, William Portanova, argued that the military veteran had “never intended to break the law but was a pack rat.” Even though the violation was claimed to be a “technical and unintentional one,” the “Justice Department nonetheless thought it needed to punish ‘to make its point'” clear.
That is equivalent to an indictment for a political figure.
While they're at it, they should bring Articles of Impeachment against Obama too.
Putting Hillery in a position of actually being liable to perjury charges would be awesome. The only time she would ever get out of her cell would be when she was called to court to testify against another rat.
Just dreaming, but can you envision Hillery as a witness for the state being cross examined by the attorney for Huma Abedin or Cheryl Mills. How about John Podesta’s attorney trying to tear down her credibility. A pardon would be the best thing a severe opponent of Hillery could hope for.
Who would have standing to bring civil actions?
I have read that cases are being investigated in several states. Two are Arkansas and NY. No way NYS will file charges. I don’t know about Arkansas.
George Webb, on YT, is connecting dots in arms and WMD trafficking, pay-to-play in war zones among the oil pipeline, infrastructure, aircraft and related industries, *perhaps* child and female sexual trafficking (he is staying at arm’s length on these, although he mentions them and encourages researchers)and unethical representation of high powered indictees from within the government and other portions of the establishment. He includes *convenient* deaths & disappearances.
His videos are entitled “Where is Eric Braverman?” I have read that earlier videos on YT have been removed, which is why he’s avoiding the pedophilia questions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.