It probably wouldn’t even have been on the table for discussion if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency, but on Wednesday, only hours after she conceded the 2016 race to Republican Donald Trump, there were discussions appearing online about the possibility of President Obama pardoning Hillary Clinton.

Amid FBI probes of Clinton’s handling of classified information and pay-for-play by the Clinton Foundation, Trump, now the president-elect, has insisted she be held accountable.

Having been given a pass for her “extremely careless” handling of national security secrets while secretary of state, it would seem unlikely she would face additional scrutiny if she had won the White House.

But under a law-and-order, build-a-border-wall President Donald Trump, it could be another matter entirely.

Which apparently is what prompted the Washington Times to note, “The White House refused to rule out Wednesday whether President Obama might grant a pardon to Hillary Clinton to spare her from President-elect Donald Trump prosecuting her after he takes office.”

“Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare Is Becoming Our Reality” chronicles how America has arrived at the point of being a de facto police state, and what led to an out-of-control government that increasingly ignores the Constitution. Order today!

White House spokesman Josh Earnest has noted Obama “has offered clemency to a substantial number of Americans who were previously serving time in federal prisons.”

Obama’s commuting of sentences, mostly of convicted drug dealers, already has impacted hundreds of people.

Earnest said that Obama “was encouraged by Mr. Trump’s ‘tone’ in his victory speech early Wednesday, suggesting that the White House believes it’s an indication that Mr. Trump wouldn’t call for a prosecution of her when he takes office,” the report said.

Bloomberg noted that while Trump threatened Clinton with jail in one fiery faceoff during a presidential debate, the White House was being quiet about its plans.

The report noted crowds at Trump rallies frequently chanted “lock her up” in reference to Clinton.

The report said issuing a pardon under some circumstances isn’t without precedent.

In 1974, President Gerald Ford granted Richard Nixon an unconditional pardon for any crimes he might have committed while in the Oval Office.

Ford later lost his bid for re-election, but Obama cannot run again for the White House, so would be spared such political ramifications.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram noted that while Obama has commuted the sentences of hundreds of drug dealers, Bill Clinton in 2001 extended clemency to former CIA Director John Deutch for misdemeanor mishandling of classified information.

During the second presidential debate, Trump said: “If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation. Because there has never been so many lies, so much deception. There has never been anything like it.”

At the American Thinker blog, Thomas Lifson opposed a pardon for Clinton.

“President Obama reportedly called Donald Trump to congratulate him, a fine gesture in the direction of unity,” he wrote. “But if President Obama issues a blanket pardon for any Hillary Clinton crimes, as is his prerogative, that unity will be shattered, and his legacy will be damaged, as an enabler of crime.”

He explained that the machinations that already have occurred have damaged the reputation of the FBI and the Department of Justice.

“The election of Donald Trump is a message that the American people are appalled and want a housecleaning. Frustrate that at your peril, Mr. President.”

At the American Center for Law and Justice, there’s already word that Obama’s actions during his final days in office will be watched closely.

“The time between Election Day and Inauguration Day is always one of uncertainty in Washington, D.C. It is often marked with a decided uptick in displays of executive power (both legitimate and illegitimate). But this election cycle is shaping up to be particularly problematic in this regard. The 73 days between November 8, 2016 and January 20, 2017 present a unique opportunity for political mischief, and there are three main reasons for it,” the ACLJ said.

Obama will be focusing on his legacy, the lame-duck session of Congress is typically less accountable to voters and “the upcoming 73 days will occur at the end of eight years dominated by troubling usage of executive power.”

“To give you just a few examples, the Obama administration has used executive action to usurp Congress’ constitutional authority over immigration policy, bypass the Senate’s advise and consent role, and mandate religious employers violate their conscience,” the report said.

“In short, this is a president who has regularly pushed the limits of executive power, and has done so in the regular course of his administration. It is incumbent upon us to expect a dramatic increase in this tendency during the final 73 days of the Obama administration, who has seemed more obsessed with his own legacy than any other modern president.”

The ACLJ said its Government Accountability Project will monitor any executive actions by Obama, and when a “suspicion executive action” is found, it will be analyzed and documented, with the results delivered to the American people.

“This check is critical in terms of public policy, but also to ensure that the balance of power envisioned by our founders is preserved,” the ACLJ reported.

“Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare Is Becoming Our Reality” chronicles how America has arrived at the point of being a de facto police state, and what led to an out-of-control government that increasingly ignores the Constitution. Order today!


Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.