Should Hillary be prosecuted for her crimes? I wrote for The Federalist today about why she should be pardoned, instead
Should Hillary be prosecuted for her crimes? I wrote for The Federalist today about why she should be pardoned, instead
Your well-written article has teased me out into the open. Almost all your points are well-taken and advisable to our representatives who will be pursuing this matter. However I’d like to hear how the rule of law informs your opinion. Not in a formal, judiciary sense but in a common sense. Two points: one, historically the Clintons have gotten away with every bit of their corruption (including but not limited to merely violating code and statute); two, if she doesn’t publicly confess to her wrong doing, for which she subsequently would be pardoned, her life will go on. Unlike President Nixon she has a friendly press and billions of dollars.
She has to be prosecuted otherwise why do we have laws? She must be held accountable because:
1. We are a country of everyone is equal under the law.
2. If we don’t nip this in the bud, what will stop others from doing the same?
I’d reply to both comments in the same way: pardons are not always about justice. They’re about mercy. I would love to see the Clintons get their just desserts as much as the next conservative, but how does it serve the country to put an old lady in jail? The double standard of letting a big shot get away with it bothers me, too, but it’s already in effect. If she weren’t a big shot, she’d already be in jail.
Long story short, I think the interests of the country are better served by moving forward with a new conservative agenda, not looking back to the past and settling scores.
Dear ms. Sammin: Hmm:
“As much as conservatives rightfully recoil at Clinton corruption and leftist policies, the prospect of putting a presidential candidate and former secretary of state in an orange jumpsuit should appall people who want to avoid relegating the United States to the status of a tin-pot dictatorship. In this country, we remove our political enemies from office but, outside of a few truly unusual situations, we do not jail them.”
So you think Hillary’s crimes are not “a truly unusual situation”? Novel interpretation. Further, “tin-pot countries” typically have a rich, corrupt political class. “rich and corrupt” sure sounds like the Clintons to me. Next, you can’t pardon Hillary without also pardoning Bill. The email scandal is tied up to the “pay for play” access the Clinton Foundation had with HIllary and the colossal “speaking fees” Bill earned after Hillary did her favors for those able to pay.
As for the Nixon-Ford “healing” precedent, can you tell me anything Ford was able to get through after the pardon? Worse, Nixon promptly started spitting in Ford’s face after getting the pardon. For example, Nixon went off to China in the spring of 1978, despite the political problems that caused Ford.
Do you really think that liberal bigots such as Paul Krugman, or the Washington POST editorial page will give Trump one iota of credit for a pardon? Well, how much credit did Geo. W. get for the Medicare prescription drug benefit?
So far as replacing corrupt politicians instead of jailing them, the left will never play by any such rules. Mercy will be seen as weakness, and be repaid with bad faith.
If there must be a pardon, let it be after the trial, the conviction (which can be done by a special prosecutor, not the corrupt hacks of the Obamaized Justice Department), the appeals, with a full confession going back to Arkansas days, and a fine equal to all the loot the Clinton Foundation has made. Let Chelsea’s husband take of Bill and HIllary in their penurious old age.