Guest post by Kyle McDonough
If you haven’t been living under a rock, you may have noticed that Hillary Clinton has found herself in hot water with the FBI for her private server activities.
She has lied repeatedly about the content of her emails, many of which contained classified information. She lied about how many devices she used to send and receive information during her tenure as Secretary of State. She and her staff have destroyed many of those devices and used highly technical and expensive services to erase any data they didn’t want to become public. There is an incredible amount of evidence that suggests she and Bill have been selling her future seat in office for donations from outside influences.
To get Hillary Clinton indicted for her crimes it would take Obama’s Department of Justice to act (spoiler: not in a million years will that happen), but let’s pretend for just a moment that there is still a modicum justice in this country among the ruling class. Let’s also pretend Hillary is elected the next President of the United States. First of all, Lord have mercy on our souls. Second of all, couldn’t President Hillary just pardon herself? She wouldn’t even have to be indicted per say. She could issue a blanket pardon for any potential or alleged misconducts as Secretary of State being investigated by the FBI.
Let’s see what the Constitution has to say:
According to Article Two of the Constitution, the President of the United States “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
Whether or not this is Constitutional is really an open question since no court has ever ruled on the subject. There isn’t anything in the Constitution saying that a president can’t pardon themselves, it simply states that they have the power. So we could logically assume it’s legal and Constitutional. Considering that the Constitution was written with the explicit purpose of dividing power throughout government, both horizontally (three branches) and vertically (federalism and the tenth amendment), it seems odd they would give the President of the United States the power to commit crimes and simply pardon themselves for it. However, check out the last part of that sentence. Perhaps the framers of the Constitution intended it to be this way.
“…except in Cases of Impeachment.”
Impeachment. That is the political tool to removing a President from office. If Hillary Clinton is elected President, she will do everything in her power to get away with what can only be described as the greatest heist in human history. She sold her influence to the highest bidder promising to deliver Lord knows what after becoming the single most powerful person in the world. It is corruption of the highest order. Interestingly enough, her husband Bill promised not to pardon himself as President for his misconduct. Should we expect the same from President Hillary? I wouldn’t bet on it. The framers didn’t either. They gave the House the power to remove a lawless President from office, and Hillary would be the textbook definition of such a leader. Furthermore, why should we depend on an Attorney General appointed by the President to indict that same President? It’s an unreliable and unrealistic check on the President’s power.
Personally, I think it’s unlikely that it will come to this in the end. Donald Trump’s chances of winning appear to be increasing by the minute, although the electoral college is a very difficult map for Republican presidential hopefuls. If Hillary Clinton does win on November 8th, I would expect President Obama to pardon her himself before the end of his term. That is why it is imperative that the Republicans in the House of Representatives start making the case NOW against Hillary Clinton and for her impeachment.
The question is, can we count on Paul Ryan to lead the charge? Send his office an e-mail and ask. I’m sure he’d love to hear from us.
Cross-posted at Constitution