4 ms·

President’s pardons are part of the presidents powers as defined by laws. I would have no problem if Mr President pardoned Hillary for her misuse of classified

by lsh123 5y ago

President’s pardons are part of the presidents powers as defined by laws. I would have no problem if Mr President pardoned Hillary for her misuse of classified information, etc. This is not ethical from my pov but it is legal. Edit: I would also have no problem with Mr President pardoning the NSA employee from the parent post.

shadowgovt 5y ago
The shortcut we usually see is the Judiciary will not press the issue when it's obvious the President will just pardon the offender (waste of taxpayer money to do so). As "Will the President just pardon" is often back-room knowledge, it isn't necessarily something that comes up in the public-facing conversation all the time. But this is why the entire question of whether the Secretary of State broke the law is something Congress would have to press in the first place.
- lsh123 5y ago
  So again, you admit that Hillary broke the law but JD “read the mind” of Mr President and just let her off the hook. Just for the record, compare this with other case (e.g. Flynn) where JD failed to “read the mind” and pushed all the federal government force against a person.
  - lern_too_spel 5y ago
    Comey didn't read anybody's mind. He explained why the case wasn't prosecutable. "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." Flynn's case followed existing precedent.
    - lsh123 5y ago
      I can copy/paste the Comey’s quote to apply it to the case of the NSA employee from the article. BTW, in Clinton’s case there is a clear effort to go around FOIA so you can call it obstruction of public justice if you want.
      - lern_too_spel 5y ago
        The indictment says you can't. "[The accused] willfully transmitted that information to another person who was not entitled to receive it." Comey found there was no clear effort to go around FOIA either and that Clinton complied with all requests to the best of her ability. I don't know why you're making stuff up when all of this is written in plain English that any of us can read.

by lsh123 5y ago

shadowgovt 5y ago

The shortcut we usually see is the Judiciary will not press the issue when it's obvious the President will just pardon the offender (waste of taxpayer money to do so). As "Will the President just pardon" is often back-room knowledge, it isn't necessarily something that comes up in the public-facing conversation all the time. But this is why the entire question of whether the Secretary of State broke the law is something Congress would have to press in the first place.

lsh123 5y ago
So again, you admit that Hillary broke the law but JD “read the mind” of Mr President and just let her off the hook. Just for the record, compare this with other case (e.g. Flynn) where JD failed to “read the mind” and pushed all the federal government force against a person.
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  Comey didn't read anybody's mind. He explained why the case wasn't prosecutable. "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." Flynn's case followed existing precedent.
  - lsh123 5y ago
    I can copy/paste the Comey’s quote to apply it to the case of the NSA employee from the article. BTW, in Clinton’s case there is a clear effort to go around FOIA so you can call it obstruction of public justice if you want.
    - lern_too_spel 5y ago
      The indictment says you can't. "[The accused] willfully transmitted that information to another person who was not entitled to receive it." Comey found there was no clear effort to go around FOIA either and that Clinton complied with all requests to the best of her ability. I don't know why you're making stuff up when all of this is written in plain English that any of us can read.