if hillary wins and obama pardons her over her baggage ?

Someone pointed it out to me that if Hillary wins the election pres Obama might just pardon her for anything that happened while she was sec of state so she dosent get hassled after becoming pres
And he dosent look bad for picking her in the first place …

Is that a viable course of action ? I mean it wouldn’t look good but I’m sure it could be spun in a way like " we just need to get past this for the good of the country"

No. Obama could only protect her from criminal prosecution. He could not protect her from being impeached and removed from office.

I could be wrong, but I don’t believe the word “Gucci” is in the constitution.

I’ll bet the Supreme Court could find it there if they wanted to.

I’m sure he would spin it that way - he’s already used that excuse once to justify protecting the CIA’s rapists and torturers from justice. It’s still complete bullshit: if refusing to hold criminals accountable for their crimes made the problem go away, we wouldn’t have one of the two leading Presidential candidates getting away with openly advocating torturing people.

In the secret part on the back that only they are allowed to read?

Can Obama legally pardon her for all those murders she did…?

My reading of the OP says he/she is asking about Obama pardoning HRC for illegal acts she may have committed before the election, should she win.

My understanding of the Constitution is that impeachment and removal from office on conviction is limited to actions taken while in office. I’ve never heard of someone being impeached for things they did before their election.

Given that I’m curious what you mean when you state “He could not protect her from being impeached and removed from office.”

There is no judicial review of impeachment, so it’s limited to whatever the two houses want.

Impeachment is for whatever crimes a majority of HR and 67 senators think is a crime. If they wanted to impeach her for what she did as Secretary of State, they could just call it a High Crime and go ahead.

A HS teacher of mine once opined that if Andrew Johnson had been impeached the US might have evolved to a kind of parliamentary system. I kind of doubt that, since 2/3 required for conviction is a high bar. Notice that Johnson was impeached for having ignored a patently unconstitutional act that requred him to get senate approval to fire a cabinet secretary.

I really want to see a president removed from office for a High Misdemeanor.

I assume it would involve weed.

It would be a tawdry end to his presidency - Ford pardoned Nixon almost as soon as he came in, and never really recovered from it.

I may be incorrect, but don’t you actually have to be convicted of something before you can be pardoned for it?

Ford pardoned Nixon.

Find the text of Ford’s Pardon - it was along the lines of “for any acts or crimes he MAY HAVE committed”.
This precluded prosecution, even if proof was found.

To be fair, Mrs. Clinton does not advocate torture, but has merely indicated her willingness to sign warrants, if the investigatory bodies assure her it is really, really, really, really necessary. Only the president must make the decision in each case — an added inducement to her presidential aspiration. Plus such torture as is her choice is mainly [?] limited to Extreme Cold ( Hypothermia ) and Waterboarding, which last America has decided is not torture. Her record is such that her supporters decide to claim her positions are ‘nuanced’. However for some reason Mr. McCain was less enthusiastic.
Bubba was wont to point to the influential Fox TV documentary 24 to show why torture was permissible: Sanders was always opposed; Biden chose it as a matter for self-congratulation for America that she could first do bad stuff, then investigate it.

Although he was more muted on prosecutions for torturers — unlike Hillary, who felt such would be wrong: “…didn’t want people to be criminally prosecuted, people who were doing what they were told to do, that there were legal opinions supporting what they were told to do.

Still, she was a big supporter of the Contras back in the day, and they too eschewed rigorous self-criticism sessions.

Can’t decide. This is one of these things that to me is beyond the realm of the possible, but yet possible at the same time.

I would be surprised if he did that.
Would not surprise me one bit.

A president can only issue a pardon for federal crimes. So any pardon Obama might theoretically issue would not preclude any prosecution under a state law (again, hypothetically assuming such could be proven). But a pardon cannot prevent impeachment.

Charges do not have been filed nor a conviction entered before a pardon can be issued. Nor does a pardon have to be specific to an individual. President Ford famously gave a broad reaching “conditional amnesty” to Vietnam War ear draft dodgers as an exercise of his pardon power.

And the Congress may impeach for whatever they consider to be High Crime and Misdemeanors. The term is not well defined and there is nothing that would seem to limit that to acts taken while serving in the office from which the person is being impeached.

It was one thing to pardon a disgraced outgoing president. It would be a different dynamic to pardon an incoming president who is under scrutiny for prior acts. Such a preemptive pardon might push an opposition party to push to impeach if it is seen as the only official sanction remaining available for a federal crime. And since a conviction upon impeachment results in a bar to holding further federal office in the future.

The text of the Constitution states:

That could raise a question the Supreme Court could theoretically be called upon to answer: Does removal from office by impeachment mean that a person previously pardoned who is removed from office by impeachment can still be tried for the crime for which they were pardoned?

I stand corrected. There never has been a Federal official impeached for acts committed before they were appointed or elected so that may be the source of my confusion. I suppose the Tea Party types in Congress would try this since they have such a blinding hatred of HRC but I highly doubt they could ever get the votes to pull it off.