Yes or No...should Trump appoint a special prosecutor?

[UTChE96]

He should absolutely appoint a special prosecutor to investigate especially the pay for play scandal with the Clinton Foundation. That is potential treason that must be discouraged at any cost.

 

[djimaplon]

Do words or promises mean anything or was it just campaign hyperbole? If you believe Trump meant what he said there is no escaping the conclusion. Otherwise, at some point, it was just rhetoric to get elected; and he is no different from the rest of them.

 

[NJlonghorn]

It will not be possible for BHO to craft a pardon to include the corruption on both the email (classified state department docs) and the huge amount of monies in multiple occurrences that were transferred through the CF.

Why would it be impossible? Pardons can cover specific people, or entire categories of people (e.g. all Vietnam War draft dodgers). Pardons can include specific acts, or entire categories of acts associated with a particular event (e.g., the pardons after the Whisky Rebellion, which covered "all treasons, suspicions of treasons, felons, misdemeanors and other crimes and offences by him committed or done against the United States, in relation to the Insurrection . . .").

If he chooses to, Obama can pardon everyone involved in any crime against the United States in connection with donations to or operation of the Clinton Foundation at any time up to the date of the pardon. With careful crafting, it would cover anyone and everyone involved in any of the corruption allegations.

 

[UTChE96]

If he chooses to, Obama can pardon everyone involved in any crime against the United States in connection with donations to or operation of the Clinton Foundation at any time up to the date of the pardon.

That would cast a pretty dubious shadow on his legacy if he were to pardon misconduct related to the Clinton Foundation. I could see pardoning her related to the email issue though since the FBI has already issued their findings.

 

[NJlonghorn]

That would cast a pretty dubious shadow on his legacy if he were to pardon misconduct related to the Clinton Foundation. I could see pardoning her related to the email issue though since the FBI has already issued their findings.

Agreed. I know most folks on this board will come in with the preconceived idea that Obama only cares about his legacy and would never grant that pardon. I'm not so sure, but I lean towards saying he won't.

 

[mchammer]

I say Trump talks to Comey, feels reassured, then announces he will wait for what the investigation brings.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Agreed. I know most folks on this board will come in with the preconceived idea that Obama only cares about his legacy and would never grant that pardon. I'm not so sure, but I lean towards saying he won't.

As most here have recognized, it would be in everyones best interest if Obama pardoned her. I truly believe he's a "team" player thus he likely will pardon her if he believes she wants to be pardoned. After all, the Obama's and Clinton's have developed a pretty cozy relationship over the years.

Of course, expect the conservative media to blast Obama for pardoning her even if its in Trump's best interest.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Rudy Guiliani is a putz but I agree with in this CNN interview:

"Do you believe that the value of that investigation is worth the political instability it would cause?" asked Cuomo.

"I told you, I think it's a very close question. I think that somebody should review that very carefully, as to how bad is that evidence. And if it isn't as bad as some of the exaggerators think it is, then maybe the best thing to do is forget about it and move on. If it is really bad, then somebody's got to look at it who is independent," Giuliani said.

Comey has demonstrated enough independence.

It should be noted that Christie and Guiliani waffled a bit on the "lock her up" question which may offer a leaning to the question of this thread. The email question seems to be closed for everyone but texasex_2000. The Clinton Foundation is the next shoe to fall. I did find Guiliani's use of the term "exaggerators" a little satisfying.

 

[djimaplon]

As most here have recognized, it would be in everyones best interest if Obama pardoned her. I truly believe he's a "team" player thus he likely will pardon her if he believes she wants to be pardoned. After all, the Obama's and Clinton's have developed a pretty cozy relationship over the years.

Of course, expect the conservative media to blast Obama for pardoning her even if its in Trump's best interest.

I don't accept the premise that it is in everyone's best interest to pardon her. The case can be made it is not in Obama's best interest. Elections have consequences. To the victor belong the spoils. LHU.

 

[Horn6721]

How can Bo pardon what she did against our country for her personal gain?
Do Dems think this was nothing more than unpaid parking tickets?
If she gets pardoned for what she did why bother trying to hold people like her accountable ever again?

 

[NJlonghorn]

How can Bo pardon what she did against our country for her personal gain?
Do Dems think this was nothing more than unpaid parking tickets?
If she gets pardoned for what she did why bother trying to hold people like her accountable ever again?

George Washington pardoned those who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion, and Andrew Johnson pardoned all Confederate soldiers. If armed insurrection can be pardoned for the good of the country, then a case can be made that Hillary Clinton's crimes should be as well.

Plus, this is not exactly a situation that is likely to set a meaningful precedent. Focusing only on what she has done, I agree that she should be investigated and, if anything comes up, she should be prosecuted. If Clinton had not just run for president and almost won, nobody would be talking about pardoning her. But there are almost 60 million people who think Clinton should be the president elect. Prosecuting her under those circumstances looks like political retribution, no matter how carefully you sugar coat it.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Do Dems think this was nothing more than unpaid parking tickets?

Many Democrats think it is nothing at all, i.e. less than unpaid parking tickets. Other Democrats think it was serious, but not nearly as serious as the exaggerations being thrown about by right wingers. Few Democrats see it as being nearly as serious as you do.

 

[djimaplon]

Looks like Trump wont investigate her after all.

 

[I35]

Looks like Trump wont investigate her after all.

I'm hoping he is just saying that so Obama won't pardon her. So if he does or doesn't, it's on his terms. I don't like that she is above the law and there has to be an example set so politicians won't try the stuff Hillary did. At the same time I can see how that would continual divide us as a nation. But leave it to the left to make the divide between us over a corrupt criminal that sold out America and be okay with it.

 

[texas_ex2000]

There's several factors at play here from my point of view:

A) The importance of a man, especially a leader, in keeping his promises.
B) The importance of equal justice for everyone.
C) The importance of brining the country together for this new administration.

IMHO, A is without a doubt the most important with B right behind there and C falling way behind. In addition, not appointing a special prosecutor doesn't really do anything to bring the country together. Hillary supporters won't change their opinion about the election or Trump, and it would only further enable their delusion that she did nothing illegal. Their delusional world views are why this country is so divided in the first place.

Also, Trump only promised to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate. To my knowledge he did not explicitly promise to prosecute. After the investigation was complete, he could have pardoned Hillary himself and still kept his promise.

B is critically important, however "justice" at this point in this case has become so subjective and politicized that we have no idea what it means. That's why I would just default to keeping your promises and reinvestigating with a truly independent special prosecutor.

I understand the importance of C, however the probability of actually achieving that is remote and not real if justice isn't equal and leaders aren't honest. And while remote, there are at least two other ways , 1) BHO pardon and 2) special prosecutor investigation leading to Trump pardon, to avoid prosecuting her while keeping your promises.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Also, Trump only promised to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate. To my knowledge he did not explicitly promise to prosecute. After the investigation was complete, he could have pardoned Hillary himself and still kept his promise.

Didn't Trump promise to put Hillary "behind bars"? I could be confused but it seemed to me that he went well beyond promising a special prosecutor to investigate but created controversy when he promised to jail his opponent. What else was the "lock her up" chant by his very nice and humble flyover state crowds intending to mean?

 

[Seattle Husker]

texasex- You've already convicted HRC even though James Comey has stated there wasn't enough evidence to charge. I previously held a top secret security clearance (74C - Army) thus know where you are coming from with HRC's handling of this private server. It seems to me that our security apparatus has been very lax in policing senior civilian roles for a long time which makes is difficult to prosecute. Now, could you get HRC on lying? Potentially. Obfuscating the investigation? Definitely.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Didn't Trump promise to put Hillary "behind bars"? I could be confused but it seemed to me that he went well beyond promising a special prosecutor to investigate but created controversy when he promised to jail his opponent. What else was the "lock her up" chant by his very nice and humble flyover state crowds intending to mean?

I'm not going through every media reel, but he explicitly promised to appoint a special prosecutor. Maybe he said or didn't say "behind bars" at some point. I don't remember. Can you link a video? I think I recall him saying something kind of like, "other people have been in jail for doing far less" or "because you'd be in jail," etc. I don't ever recall him promising to put her behind bars or put her in jail or "lock her up." Other people's chants are not a promise.

texasex- You've already convicted HRC even though James Comey has stated there wasn't enough evidence to charge. I previously held a top secret security clearance (74C - Army)...

Then you've lost all objectivity as far as your perspective on classified material handling/national security laws.

The best I can say here, is that you know that she should be prosecuted, but don't think it's worth the political fallout for our country. I disagree with that, but that's a defensible and completely understandable position. But to say that Comey's investigation is the bottom line of the facts and the law is hilarious. I don't dislike Comey at all, I completely disagree with his recommendations, but he's a human being and was in a no-win situation in July. He decided not to burn the country down by throwing the first woman presidential nominee from a major party in jail 3 months before the election.

 

[Seattle Husker]

not going through every media reel, but he explicitly promised to appoint a special prosecutor. Maybe he said or didn't say "behind bars" at some point. I don't remember. Can you link a video? I think I recall him saying something kind of like, "other people have been in jail for doing far less" or "because you'd be in jail," etc. I don't ever recall him promising to put her behind bars or put her in jail or "lock her up." When does a chant from other people constitute a promise?

Sorry, I guess if you're looking for the sentence "I promise..." you probably won't find it. In the last debate he following the special prosecutor commitment with "you'd be in jail" after HRC started her rebuttal. If that's your line then Trump may have all of 5 promises total in his campaign and each are ambiguous enough to wiggle out of. When Trump joins the "lock her up" chant you don't think that's a commitment to his supporters?

Then you've lost all objectivity as far as your perspective on classified material handling/national security laws.

We've both had a top secret security clearance. You have claimed the position of arbiter of objectivity. I'll be comfortable with Comey on my side, thank you.

 

[horninchicago]

So, the reports coming out today are rumors that Trump has said HE will not prosecute her. My guess is he will not handcuff the Dept. of Justice, however, and allow it to do its job.

 

[texas_ex2000]

In the last debate he following the special prosecutor commitment with "you'd be in jail" after HRC started her rebuttal. If that's your line then Trump may have all of 5 promises total in his campaign and each are ambiguous enough to wiggle out of. When Trump joins the "lock her up" chant you don't think that's a commitment to his supporters?

Husker, those aren't promises. It's obvious to people with common sense and people who take their word seriously what the difference is between an actionable promise and campaign rhetoric. It's impossible to guarantee someone would be in jail. What you can guarantee if you keep your promise is to appoint a special prosecutor. Everything else is rhetoric. And as Joe Fan pointed out in the 100 days thread, if you confuse rhetoric with promises..."if that's your line," then Obama is colossal disaster of a human being.

We've both had a top secret security clearance. You have claimed the position of arbiter of objectivity. I'll be comfortable with Comey on my side, thank you.

If you're objectively comfortable with Comey's recommendation, then your credibility on everything is questioned. You are deluding yourself if you believe she did not break the law.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Husker, those aren't promises. It's obvious to people with common sense and people who take their word seriously what the difference is between an actionable promise and campaign rhetoric. It's impossible to guarantee someone would be in jail. What you can guarantee if you keep your promise is to appoint a special prosecutor. Everything else is rhetoric. And as Joe Fan pointed out in the 100 days thread, if you confuse rhetoric with promises..."if that's your line," then Obama is colossal disaster of a human being.

OK. That could be why he media was so critical of the rhetoric. Since you're playing arbiter today, can you please translate all Trump's promises from his campaign rhetoric? I'd like to know what we can actually hold him accountable for.

If you're objectively comfortable with Comey's recommendation, then your credibility on everything is questioned. You are deluding yourself if you believe she did not break the law.

Yes, Comey stated she had 3 documents (email?) which had the (c) mark denoting classified. You're a smart guy (Ivy league education, right?). We don't know what level of classification those documents were. Could it be that Comey looked at the content of those documents and said "we can't prosecute her for this"? I'm sure you've seen many classified documents which were benign in nature that were classified like I did while in the Army. I have no idea the level of these documents just like you don't. Then again, my objectivity is questioned while your's is pristine.

 

[texas_ex2000]

OK. That could be why he media was so critical of the rhetoric. Since you're playing arbiter today, can you please translate all Trump's promises from his campaign rhetoric? I'd like to know what we can actually hold him accountable for.

I'm not an arbiter, on the contrary that's what you're playing by overlooking facts in Hillary's e-mail case. And again Husker, I'm not going to insult you by suggesting you actually believe when you claim to not know the difference between rhetoric and promise. I would expect everyone here on WM who graduated from Texas to know.

And by the way, I am disappointed that it appears he will not keep his promise on appointing a special prosecutor. I count this as a bad mark on his record to start.

Yes, Comey stated she had 3 documents (email?) which had the (c) mark denoting classified. You're a smart guy (Ivy league education, right?). We don't know what level of classification those documents were. Could it be that Comey looked at the content of those documents and said "we can't prosecute her for this"? I'm sure you've seen many classified documents which were benign in nature that were classified like I did while in the Army. I have no idea the level of these documents just like you don't. Then again, my objectivity is questioned while your's is pristine.

She had an unauthorized unsecure private e-mail server in her home. There was marked classified information in those e-mails on that server. That alone is in contravention of classified material handling laws. In addition to that, there was SCI level classified information on that server. Plus, she lied and lied and lied while under oath.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I have two problems with deferring to Comey. First, his "analysis" of the intent requirement is obviously BS to anybody who knows what "intent" (or the relevant culpable mental states) means when it's discussed in a statute. Second, the FBI doesn't decide whether or not to prosecute someone. The Justice Department does. The decision to punt the issue to the FBI coupled with Lynch's meeting with Bill Clinton just before the announcement makes me presume the worst. This case is a textbook example of why special prosecutors should be appointed to handle matters of public corruption by high-level officials. Every facet of it stinks.

Did Trump promise to prosecute her? You all are parsing words of the most rhetorically scattered presidential candidate in American political history. Even having such a discussion is entirely farcical. I'm sure he promised it to somebody and probably promised the opposite to somebody else.

Personally, I'd like to see the investigations into her e-mail server as well as the Foundation continue. I have no expectation that not doing so will "bring the country together." The country isn't divided because the GOP went after HRC. It's divided because there are very deep and fundamental cultural, political, and religious difference between Republicans and Democrats. That's not going to change based on what Trump does or doesn't do on this.

However, as a practical matter, if he does prosecute her, my fear is that it will dominate his first term. It may interfere with his ability to enact serious reforms to our tax system, infrastructure, and energy policy. These are areas where I have significant agreement with Trump and think there's a lot of room for bipartisan consensus. Do I want to see the opportunities to do these things blown just to prosecute HRC? I don't think so.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I have two problems with deferring to Comey. First, his "analysis" of the intent requirement is obviously BS to anybody who knows what "intent" (or the relevant culpable mental states) means when it's discussed in a statute. Second, the FBI doesn't decide whether or not to prosecute someone. The Justice Department does. The decision to punt the issue to the FBI coupled with Lynch's meeting with Bill Clinton just before the announcement makes me presume the worst. This case is a textbook example of why special prosecutors should be appointed to handle matters of public corruption by high-level officials. Every facet of it stinks.

Did Trump promise to prosecute her? You all are parsing words of the most rhetorically scattered presidential candidate in American political history. Even having such a discussion is entirely farcical. I'm sure he promised it to somebody and probably promised the opposite to somebody else.

Personally, I'd like to see the investigations into her e-mail server as well as the Foundation continue. I have no expectation that not doing so will "bring the country together." The country isn't divided because the GOP went after HRC. It's divided because there are very deep and fundamental cultural, political, and religious difference between Republicans and Democrats. That's not going to change based on what Trump does or doesn't do on this.

However, as a practical matter, if he does prosecute her, my fear is that it will dominate his first term. It may interfere with his ability to enact serious reforms to our tax system, infrastructure, and energy policy. These are areas where I have significant agreement with Trump and think there's a lot of room for bipartisan consensus. Do I want to see the opportunities to do these things blown just to prosecute HRC? I don't think so.

Are you sure you have no intention to run for public office?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Are you sure you have no intention to run for public office?

Yes, quite sure. I'm too fiscally and socially conservative to win a Democratic primary. I represented plaintiffs (some of whom were illegal aliens) in personal injury cases. That alone wouldn't necessarily ruin my chances in a Republican primary, though it would put me at a big disadvantage. However, the fact that I'm not ashamed of it and don't apologize for it would.

If I ran, groups like Texans for Lawsuit Reform (a shell organization for the insurance, construction, petrochemical, and homebuilding industries) would ask me if I'd be willing to support their agenda, despite my background (in other words, sell my soul to them). Not only would I not, I'd be a more outspoken and hostile critic than most Democrats would be, and I'd be too honest to tell them otherwise.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Clean]

Trump said he was going to "drain the swamp". Cleaning up Washington without investigating the Clintons is like trying to clean up Hazzard County without investigating Boss Hogg. He promised the American people he'd do it, so DO IT!

If Obama bails them out, like Ford bailed out Nixon, great. It spares the country the tribulation, but then the Clintons are branded with a scarlet "A", not that most Dems care.