No idea, just speculation if someone can be pardoned for "any and all acts that he or she may have committed " or if they need to be listed. Each classified email for example would be an individual count. Her bff Sidney Blumanthal was a reporter and she bounced everything off him

" it might be hard to quantify on the scope of the corruption"
Why? I mean, if couldn't they pick a ten that they have the strongest case? What about these particular charges makes it hard to quantify?

I wonder how broad it can be. I would think it couldn't be "any wrongdoing that might be found through examination of her correspondence."

Can only pardon the guilty! From what I have read HRC has to ASK for the pardon. Would that mean HRC would have to grovel?

Oh. I still think it does not make sense.

Ford pardoned 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.

He can, but the question really is would it hurt or help Obama. who knows how complicit he is with her. You can believe the admin is trying desperately to cover their tracks.
Anything else from them is chaff. BTW, military aircraft and warships have chaff dispensing systems for self-defense.

Not without first admitting guilt. I'm not altogether certain treason can be pardoned or that O wouldn't be found complicit.

Obama can pardon Hillary.

United States Supreme Court, in EX PARTE GARLAND, Decided December 1, 1866, is clear the President may pardon at any time after the commission of an offense.

“The Constitution provides that the President 'shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

“The power thus conferred is unlimited, with the exception stated. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. This power of the President is not subject to legislative control. Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon, nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders. The benign prerogative of mercy reposed in him cannot be fettered by any legislative restrictions.”

It would be best let the law actually determine her guilt. Then when she's handcuffed and taken to prison, President Trump, out of graces of his heart, could pardon her. That would get her out of politics and perhaps any public office. Or would it?

How can he if she hasn't been charged with anything? That is silly to think he can pre-pardon someone, isn't it?

Unless they can pull off getting her charged and found guilty within the next 7 days, how can he pardon her. Unless she was willing to admit guilty and get carged, the investigation is not closed and how can he pardon her?

Article II, section 2

He (the president) shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

According to the Heritage Foundation “The power to pardon is one of the least limited powers granted to the President in the Constitution. The only limits mentioned in the Constitution are that pardons are limited to offenses against the United States (i.e., not civil or state cases),”


So perhaps a civil or state case could be brought against Clinton

If he does, it will be on Thursday of next week.

That is my line of thinking as well, it might be hard to quantify on the scope of the corruption, unless she just blanket-confessed in some way. We're talking 1000s of transactions it seems like.

I would think she would need to confess to all crimes to be pardoned (?) And that might be hard to do.

He would no doubt incriminate himself as well, as he would have knowingly been transmitting classified material (emails) to "@clintonmail.com"

I listened to Judge Napolitano explain the Pardon process on FNC a while back. According to him, a president can pardon anyone including himself charged or un charged. He said a pardon must be asked for by the individual and it is highly unusual for an individual guilty of No crime to ever seek a pardon. So, if Hilly and Billy were to ask for a pardon it would be because they know they are in fact guilty of crimes. I expect him to pardon both Burghdall and Manning as a last parting shot.

They are all criminals and will protect one another whenever possible in the hopes that should the same be needed by the pardoner he will also be pardoned and live happily ever after.

As I understand it, if he were to pardon her, and if she were then called to testify in an action against HIM, she could not plead the 5th, because she would already be immune from prosecution.

Perhaps that's merely my own misunderstanding, but I sure would like 0bama to worry that it might be just so.

technically NO...she has not been charged with anything...

Working off of the Nixon pardon, no citation of charges is necessary. The key paragraph

Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant 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.

You know, when I started looking back at the Nixon case, I started wondering if Ford's pardon was in fact illegal since Nixon hadn't been brought up on formal charges. He resigned before being arraigned. What did come out of that was precedent, however, which in the legal world is a very powerful thing.

Could Obama (after the fashion of Ford) pardon Clinton? Until the precedent is challenged and declared illegal, one has to argue yes. (Anyone know if a Governor has ever issued a pardon sans conviction?) Personally, my definition of a pardon is the commutation of an actual sentence, which is only given upon conviction. Thus IMO, a pardon may not be issued until conviction has taken place.

As Technocracy points out, however, if Obama does pardon Clinton, he would have to cite the charges for which she would be immune. Given the list of things she could be brought up on, that could be a very long list sure to politically embarrass her. It would end her political aspirations permanently (one would hope). It would also politically damage him as well, as he publicly supported and campaigned for her. So it will be interesting to see what happens.

I would much rather see Obama slide out of office without giving her a pardon and then see an independent prosecutor bring Hillary up on charges of corruption and quid pro quo for the Clinton Foundation. My dream would be a conviction and penalties of confiscation of all Clinton Foundation moneys.

A pardon for hillary would put her in the same drawer as Nixon -- That's pure poetic justice in my humble opinion.

That's my question, too.

It is generally assumed that accepting a pardon is a tacit admission of guilt.

Much like pleading the 5th amendment protections is generally assumed as a tacit admission of guilt.

Both are cultural assumptions.
A pardon is legal absolution from pardoned actions/activities, making any trial and/or conviction moot.

Pleading the 5th is a constitutional protection available to all, and has no legal bearing on a case.
Technically that is, people being people, that cultural assumption hurts the defendant with a jury and some judges.