• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NYT: Trump Camp Refuses to Close Door on Campaign Pledge to ‘Lock Her Up’

Status
Not open for further replies.

jtb

Banned
NYTimes: Trump Camp Refuses to Close Door on Campaign Pledge to ‘Lock Her Up’

WASHINGTON — Even as President-elect Donald J. Trump vows to unify a divided nation, he faces a momentous decision over whether to make good on his oft-repeated campaign pledge to have a special prosecutor “lock up” Hillary Clinton.

That decision will signal whether Mr. Trump intends to look ahead and “bind the wounds of division,” as he pledged to do in his acceptance speech early Wednesday, or look back and settle political scores, as he often seemed inclined to do during his campaign.

The possibility of a new investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email server has forced the White House to field questions about whether President Obama might offer Mrs. Clinton a pardon to insulate her from criminal charges.

Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, said last week that he would not discuss Mr. Obama’s thinking on any particular case for clemency, but he sent a strong signal that it would be inappropriate for Mr. Trump to revive the Clinton investigation.

He told reporters that the country had a long tradition of political leaders’ “not using the criminal justice system to exact political revenge.” Mr. Earnest said that “in fact, we go to great lengths to insulate our criminal justice system from partisan politics,” adding that “the president is hopeful that it will continue.”

Chants of “lock her up” became a frequent rallying cry at Trump campaign events, and Mr. Trump told Mrs. Clinton at the second presidential debate that if elected, he would instruct his attorney general “to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation because there has never been so many lies, so much deception.”

If he were president, he told her, “you’d be in jail.” That threat unnerved both Republican and Democratic legal analysts.

The decision he faces echoes one confronted by Mr. Obama and his first attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., over whether to investigate Bush administration officials for extreme interrogation tactics against terrorism suspects that the Obama administration later deemed to be torture.

While Mr. Holder said the country was owed “a reckoning” for torture carried out after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Obama administration ultimately did not conduct a broad criminal investigation. Mr. Obama declared that “we need to look forward, as opposed to looking backwards.”

The F.B.I. has concluded two times, including after a surprise review that began just 11 days before the election, that Mrs. Clinton should not face criminal prosecution over her handling of her private email server. Mrs. Clinton on Saturday blamed her loss in part on the F.B.I.’s last-minute intervention.

Even so, legal analysts said there was little doubt that as president, Mr. Trump would have the power to direct his attorney general — Rudolph W. Giuliani has been frequently mentioned for the job — to appoint an outside special counsel to reinvestigate the matter in light of new evidence that may have developed.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal that was published on Friday, Mr. Trump deflected a question about naming a special prosecutor.

“It’s not something I’ve given a lot of thought, because I want to solve health care, jobs, border control, tax reform,” he said.

But his top aides have left the door open to such a move.

In an appearance Thursday on Fox News, Mr. Giuliani — a top adviser to Mr. Trump on legal and national security issues — said he did not think that Mr. Obama should pardon Mrs. Clinton, and he raised the prospect that the Trump administration could investigate not only the private email server, but also the Clinton Foundation, the family charity. Several F.B.I. offices are known to have examined questions about the charity’s acceptance of gifts from foreign leaders, but those inquiries appear to have been paused.

Mr. Giuliani said that during the campaign Mr. Trump had “talked about an independent counsel doing it, who would be not a Republican, not a Democrat, somebody free of any political question.”

The decision about appointing a special prosecutor is a “tough” one, Mr. Giuliani said in a separate appearance on CNN. “It’s been a tradition in our politics to put things behind us,” he said. “On the other hand, you have to look at, how bad was it?”

Kellyanne Conway, Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, has also not ruled out a special counsel investigation, saying a decision would come “all in good time.”

But Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, who is also a Trump adviser, seemed to discourage talk of prosecuting Mrs. Clinton when he was asked about it Thursday on NBC’s “Today” show. “People get to speak through their vote, and they voted for Donald Trump to be the president of the United States,” Mr. Christie said. “It is now his job, and I am confident he will bring the country together.”

However, Mr. Christie’s influence in the Trump camp appears to be waning. A day after that interview, he was demoted from chief of the Trump transition team in favor of Vice President-elect Mike Pence. Mr. Christie was made a vice chairman.

Democrats say the lingering threats to “lock up” Mrs. Clinton are alarming. They say they hope that Mr. Trump, who has already shown signs of backing away from other campaign pledges, most notably his vow to repeal the Affordable Care Act entirely, will do the same when it comes to threats of prosecuting his defeated rival.

“It would be very, very unwise, in my view, for a new attorney general, acting presumably on the orders of the president, to start out a new administration on this note,” Richard Ben-Veniste, a prominent Democratic lawyer in Washington, said in a telephone interview. “It would be mimicking the tin-pot dictators of historical disgrace who seek to punish those who have run against them.”

personally, i think it would be a mistake for Obama to pre-emptively pardon HRC.
 

Kusagari

Member
As much as I hate him, it seems like Christie has lost relevance in Trump's administration because he's actually sane.
 

EMT0

Banned
As little sympathy as I feel for Clinton, it'd be the first death knell in our democracy if he were to do so.
 

Showaddy

Member
"as president, Mr. Trump would have the power to direct his attorney general — Rudolph W. Giuliani"

I'm not even American and that's just horrifying. How the fuck has it come to this?
 

guek

Banned
I actually want it to happen because it's the simplest, easiest way for trump to shoot himself in foot from the get go.

Kinda, yeah

The only reservation I have is whether or not the spineless Republicans in the House and Senate would have the gall to impeach him.
 

Blader

Member
Kinda, yeah

The only reservation I have is whether or not the spineless Republicans in the House and Senate would have the gall to impeach him.

Well, as this year so clearly proved, they're fucking spineless cowards down to the bone, so no. And many of them would probably love to see Hillary persecuted anyway, regardless of any larger implications that may have.
 

Zubz

Banned
So how much the FBI's resources are they going to waste on this? My only hope is that this administration is too petty to ever get anything done.
 

jtb

Banned
You can preemptively pardon someone?

Yes. Ford pardoned Nixon for crimes that "may have been committed"

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Proclamation_4311
 
Hillary's political career (and likely that of the Clintons) is dead. That's all republicans ever wanted. They are saying this now as to not to appear like they are going back on campaign pledges but I doubt they'll do anything. It'd be a waste of time for them. Still reprehensible that he ever even said it.
 

Sydle

Member
Of course not, it was one of the pillars of his campaign. He'll say he wants to focus on security, jobs, and the economy and eventually just forget it. He's not going to do anything.
 

Culex

Banned
In this new government, there would be many "trumped" up charges, I'm sure for his political opponents. Clinton #1.
 
The fuck? I may not be the biggest fan of Hillary Clinton but isn't this hypocritical of Trump.

I mean considering this fuck may have connections to Russia.
 

kswiston

Member
I doubt anything comes from it. Career Republicans aren't stupid enough to open that floodgate with all the shady shit that gets pulled in government.
 

adj_noun

Member
On the one hand, such a move would be the act of a petty despot taking revenge on a political opponent.

On the other, the crowds DID chant stuff. I mean, how can you go against what crowds chant.

It's a dilly of a pickle.
 
Kinda, yeah

The only reservation I have is whether or not the spineless Republicans in the House and Senate would have the gall to impeach him.

Trump to them right now is nothing more than a useful idiot. The minute he stops being useful they'll drop him like a bad habit.
 

SmZA

Member
Yup, certainly in keeping with this article Autocracy: Rules for Survival:
Masha Gessen said:
Trump rally crowds have chanted “Lock her up!” They, and he, meant every word. If Trump does not go after Hillary Clinton on his first day in office, if he instead focuses, as his acceptance speech indicated he might, on the unifying project of investing in infrastructure (which, not coincidentally, would provide an instant opportunity to reward his cronies and himself), it will be foolish to breathe a sigh of relief. Trump has made his plans clear, and he has made a compact with his voters to carry them out. These plans include not only dismantling legislation such as Obamacare but also doing away with judicial restraint—and, yes, punishing opponents.

Guess I'll be re-reading it regularly.
 

Ridisc

Banned
If Obamas last act as his legacy is to Pardon Clinton they will have already shot themselves in the foot 4 years from now.
 

jtb

Banned
Trump to them right now is nothing more than a useful idiot. The minute he stops being useful they'll drop him like a bad habit.

On the other hand, this is Trump's party now. The base doesn't give a fuck about supply side economics and they've already shown a proclivity for eating their own over the past six years. If they cross Trump, expect a 2018 primary.
 

Village

Member
Trump to them right now is nothing more than a useful idiot. The minute he stops being useful they'll drop him like a bad habit.

Yep.

As soon as they find a better not him guy people actually like, trumps done. That doesn't make the situation better though, the repubs would just like that guy more. The DNC isn't the only party in peril they both have the issue of having a candidates folks aren't really feeling.
 
On the other hand, this is Trump's party now. The base doesn't give a fuck about supply side economics and they've already shown a proclivity for eating their own over the past six years. If they cross Trump, expect a 2018 primary.

That's ultimately up to how quickly Trump does something stupid enough to merit dropping support. We almost saw it with "pussy-gate", though he overcame that, but that scandal kinda showed that he's not completely bullet proof. Republicans have control right now with or without Trump.
 
Easiest way to maintain power is to criminalize your opposition.

I doubt it would help him maintain power. Doing something like this would cause the US to be divided like never before. Even other Republicans many review their support of him. If he went after Clinton what about them? Democrats will probably go to war. The whole situation will not end well.
 

RPGCrazied

Member
I can't believe we are going to be run by these fucks. We really screwed up Democrats. :( We are going to feel this for decades to come.
 

SmZA

Member
Trump to them right now is nothing more than a useful idiot. The minute he stops being useful they'll drop him like a bad habit.

Can they though? Much as Australia copped ridicule for it, it occurred to me today that we should be thankful both our own major parties removed two heads of state, each for displaying just a subset of Trump's characteristics:

Rudd = narcissist
Abbott = general fuckwit

Can a US President be removed if they refuse to go, without the (suicidal for their party) impeachment process?
 
Can they though? Much as Australia copped ridicule for it, it occurred to me today that we should be thankful both our own major parties removed two heads of state, each for displaying just a subset of Trump's characteristics:

Rudd = narcissist
Abbott = general fuckwit

Can a US President be removed if they refuse to go, without the (suicidal for their party) impeachment process?

If the Senate votes for removal from office, outside starting a conflict, the law states they are done.
 
Mr. Giuliani said that during the campaign Mr. Trump had “talked about an independent counsel doing it, who would be not a Republican, not a Democrat, somebody free of any political question.”

And who will choose those "neutral" people? the republican congress? or Trump himself?
 

collige

Banned
Obama shouldn't pardon her because she hasn't done anything illegal. If Trump wants to ruin his approval ratings out of the gate, let him.
 
Pardon her for what
For any crimes she may have committed.

But I think the best action for Obama here is to not make a move. It would be something too easy to further damage Democrats with in 2 and 4 years.

She'll probably need to be left at the mercy of Trump's administration if he is actually serious.
 

DNAbro

Member
For any crimes she may have committed.

But I think the best action for Obama here is to not make a move. It would be something too easy to further damage Democrats with in 2 and 4 years.

She'll probably need to be left at the mercy of Trump's administration if he is actually serious.

Is there a legal precedent for pardoning someone for crimes they haven't been convicted for?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom