Wednesday, March 18, 2015

NY Post: Pardon Hillary !

As the administration of George W. Bush came to an end, media speculation of last-minute Clintontesque pardon binge was, well, epic. Even the most serious looking anchor-persons, reporters and commentators would predict, or suggest the distinct possibility, that Bush would pardon every recently convicted notorious criminal and/or every criminal with ties to Bush, Texas or the Republican Party. The only apparent boundry on such "reporting" was the shamelessness of the person talking. So far as we are aware, this blog was the only voice condemning / mocking this "trash time" exercise (equivalent to stupid shots taken at the end of a basketball game).

Will the Obama administration end in the same fashion? Hard to say. But Seth Lipsky of the New York Post seems to be stretching his muscles, in anticipation of the exercise. He notes:
President Obama doesn’t need his phone for this job — just the pen. With but a stroke of it, he could pardon Hillary Clinton for any crimes she may have committed in E-mailgate and spare the rest of us the long drama. 
Lipsky recognizes that Clinton "hasn’t been formally accused of anything" but adds, "that doesn’t mean that she couldn’t get a presidential pardon." After all, Nixon wasn't convicted of anything either! What a great idea, Obama can grant a pardon comparable to that of Richard Nixon! It is the stuff of genius!

Lipsky then informs readers:
... Fact is that the pardon is the least-fettered presidential power. The president can pardon anyone for any offense against the United States, save for treason. He doesn’t have to get the consent of the Senate. He doesn’t have to get it cleared by a federal judge. Nor does he have to run it past any prosecutor or even the attorney general. He could write it out by hand on a napkin, and the deed would be done. 
Prone to understatement, he observes that a pardon would "put [Clinton] under a cloud" if "she’s innocent." He also wonders if  President Obama might "have his own interests in a Benghazi coverup?" Finally, this idea:
Clinton would always have a fallback position if she thought a pardon would do more harm than good: She could refuse it. The Supreme Court tends to view a pardon as an act of grace that can be spurned. The record is not entirely uniform, but that’s the gist of it. 
See post here.

No comments:

blogger templates | Make Money Online