Receiving a pardon is no doubt something that a person would receive with joy and gratitude. However, there can be a problem: Accepting a pardon does imply that you committed the crime for which you are being pardoned, right? If there were no crime committed, then the pardon wouldn’t make any sense.
Such is the problem in which Mrs. Clinton might well find herself. That she has another potential legal issue to contend with is certainly no surprise. In would be interesting to see just how much money the Clintons or their supporters have spent defending them all these decades. The figure must be staggering.
So with Obama in the waning days of his presidency handing out pardons with wild abandon, what of Hillary? More on page two.
Exactly. There had to be a crime…but both are guilty and with collusion of each other.
Why would you pardon someone who had never committed a crime??
Nah na,nah nah hey, hey goodbye!!!!
I would settle for a pardon if HRC accepts it. That would be an admission of guilt, would spare the taxpayers the cost of prosecution and would preclude her from ever holding public office again. She could then retire in ignominy and her name would be a black mark on the pages of history books – a suitable legacy.
thought u had to be convicted first??????????
No one brought INDICTMENT yet ,so what’s he going to pardon her for?
To give a pardon doesn’t that mean he had to know and have knowledge of illegal activity?
AMERICA WILL GET HER NO MATTER WHAT !
Neither one of these criminals deserves to be pardon for there crimes. They both deserve a prison cell serving time for their crimes….
She hasn’t been charged yet. Pardon would hVe no meaning