The seminal case is Burdick v. US, 236 U.S. 79 (1915). In that case Burdick, a newspaper editor, literally refused to accept a piece of paper containing Woodrow Wilson’s pardon of him for any crimes relating (oddly enough, considering this thread!) to the unauthorized disclosure of supposedly secret Treasury Department information. Burdick had been responsible for articles in the New York Tribune about fraudulent Customs activity and a federal grand jury subpoenaed him to inquire as to the paper’s sources. Burdick refused to answer their questions by taking the Fifth – that is, that his answers might tend to incriminate him. He was summoned again and handed a pardon from the President – the implication being that now the Fifth Amendment would no longer be available to him because the pardon meant that he was no longer incriminated by his answers.
Refusal generally does not have to mean rejecting a piece of paper, though, because acceptance of the pardon means invoking its effects. That is, the presence of a pardon is for the accused to assert. It does not serve as an automatic dissolution of a prosecution attempt; the person being charged is obligated to bring the pardon to the court’s attention.
A convicted prisoner would need to invoke the pardon as a reason for his immediate release, and thus accept it.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. If Obama issues a pardon to Clinton over that bullshit email issue, he may as well make it a blanket pardon to cover Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell as well
People are prosecuted under federal law (not to mention other) or pressured into plea, immunity, testimony type deals with less evidence than against Hillary Clinton. You’re really in the left bubble if you won’t acknowledge that. Keep in mind, that includes plenty of cases where they arguably should not be, and/or where somebody else is not on the same evidence.
So the idea of absolute legal protection for her by way of ‘the truth’ is seriously flawed, and a private person under those circumstances would be foolish to rely on it, as opposed to just taking the pardon.
However she is not a regular private person but one with a high profile public reputation as a big part of her ‘possessions’ in life, even though not successful in her long term and ultimate goal of reaching the presidency. And the implicit admission of guilt would extend politically, not legally but politically, to Obama and the Democratic Party (among other things, the reaction of the Democratic loyalists likely to say ‘but she didn’t do anything wrong AT ALL!’). So Obama has his own reasons not to do this whatever Clinton may feel.
When last this came up it seemed likely Clinton would win, and if so no reason to take on such a reputational stain at the start of her admin when her VP might pardon her or even she pardon herself (not excluded by the wording in the Constitution) if the need arose later. I said at the time it was a lot more likely on the apparently smaller chance that Trump would win, especially as he was explicitly saying at the time he’d go after her. Now on reflection I still think it’s not that likely. But of course Trump winning ‘wasn’t that likely’. So who knows.
The right-wing fantasy porn of Clinton actually being convicted of anything is not relevant to reality. And that’s what 90+% of the bullshit that the GOP was pushing onto Clinton in the last 30 years has been. Right-wing revenge fantasy porn.
No pardon needed. No pardon issued. No pardon accepted.
I admit I haven’t followed this controversy as closely as others, but is there any allegation she transmitted classified information to an unauthorized person, even negligently? I thought the allegation was she received and kept classified information on an unsecured server. No one, as far as I recall, who was unauthorized ever got any classified documents from her.
I disagree, assumes facts not in evidence. “gross negligence” has not been shown.
So, she might have committed a crime.
Going back to the feather- You find a cool feather on the ground, and put in your hat. You have no idea what bird it comes from. Later a ranger informs you it is from a Bald eagle. Up to that point, “knowingly” is a relevant issue.
Comey said no one in the hundred years of the law’s existence had been prosecuted under a similar set of evidence and intent. Is he in the left wing bubble?
He said:
“In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.”
So yes as we all know but just to have it in thread, he said he believed similar cases hadn’t resulted in prosecutions, though no ‘100 years’. But somebody else could say differently. To me the left bubble is to pretend she was clearly blameless enough to rely on ‘the truth’. Again note, this is not a statement of the absolute truth of her criminal culpability. But it’s easy for federal authorities to go after who they want to go after, without that person having high confidence of an acquittal or a conviction eventually being thrown out, though either would probably be quite possible in this case.
I doubt the partisans saying she’s totally obviously innocent would really feel that way if in the cross hairs themselves and a lawyer gave them the obvious legal advice: “take the pardon”. But I don’t think one will be offered in this case, largely based on Obama’s consideration of the political reaction from folks like you, as well as the one on the other side saying ‘see we told ya’. This is somebody he (ostensibly at least) strongly supported.
But if Trump were to decide to pursue an investigation, he would be president. Obama would already be out of office so how could he pardon her? Unless I’m missing something, I don’t think as president elect he has the authority to do anything and hypothetically, if he did, things would have to move at the speed of light to investigate and then pardon if one were necessary.
It is possible to prosecute for just about anything and I respect that writer’s right to his opinion. My opinion is that nothing that Mrs. Clinton did rises to the level of a crime. Thus far, she has not been convicted of anything, so I don’t see where my opinion needs to be revised.
Unfortunately, the Merv Griffin Show is still under copyright protections and all I’ve been able to find are short clips of the 1979 interview used as advertising to hock selling copies of the interviews … as such any claims I would make about this interview five years after the fact could not be properly cited …
stpauler has a quote from 1974 concerning this event … so I would carry that forward and say “I am compelled to conclude that many months and perhaps more years will have to pass before Hillary Clinton could obtain a fair trial by jury in any jurisdiction of the United States under governing decisions of the Supreme Court.”
But of course that the Saudi prince got two hours face-time with The Donald had absolutely nothing to do with the $10m donation to the Trump Foundation the day before … honest … [wink wink nudge nudge] …
I’m sorry … The Other Waldo Pepper … I don’t think The Donald’s presidency will be a lame duck the entire four years … and I honestly don’t think The Donald will invest all his time into prosecuting Hillary … remember back during the Watergate scandal … how all the media and politics was so consumed by the affair … how it so dominated the nation’s mind at the expense of all the other pressing matters … I can’t blame Ford for dropping the matter … not with everything else he had to deal with …
Are you kidding? Her fucking maid was printing off the daily presidential brief or somesuch. The whole episode is so fucking insane I still can’t believe it. The whole state department shitshow passed through unsecure computer servers, to include satellite imagery and all kinds ot TS stuff, was downloaded to thumbdrives, and posessed by folks with no clearance, or even members of the administration. Conducting official .gov business, even if not classified, on homebrew computers and a Hotmail account is just major league stupid.
Nobody has every adequately explained any convincing manner why she would legitimately need to do this.
This conclusion rests on what the standard for gross negligence is under federal law.
Can you share your understanding of that standard here?
That’s essentially correct. “Knowingly,” requires the government to prove that you knew, or should have known, that the feather came from an eagle. It does not require the government to prove you knew the possession of eagle feathers was a crime. But constructive knowledge is sufficient.