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.
What a dumb statement! You may want to clue us in about when she was exonerated. She has NEVER been exonerated. It was a choice not to charge her.
Two peas in a …… you fill in the blank. Lol
The Sargent at Arms should arrest both of them up for their treasonous acts!!!!
Better not pardon her. He may welll do it BUT only because she has the goods on him.
No. I would rather see her expend the rest of her life in prison. Make an example of her to the rest out there doing the same c**p….
To pardon her would be admitting she’s a criminal , which she most definitely is !!
They both did dirt together . Traitors.
he can’t pardon anybody he has to think who is pardoning him he is going the same way as her
would the families then be able to sue her civily since she would be admitting guilt?
Not correct, sir. A pardon does not require any conviction. Richard Nixon was pardoned for any crimes that he committed or may have committed. One of the concerns at the time was whether there were crimes committed that we knew nothing about. It was a blanket pardon for his entire term of office.