We Agree. It Would Send The Wrong Message.

A friend of ours has suggested that an immunity from prosecution for Hillary would be in exchange for the Clinton Foundation be shut down and the proceeds given to the government.  Hillary should not benefit from these ill-gotten assets,

What do you think?

Conservative Tom

Top aide: Trump won’t pursue Clinton investigation

BY HARPER NEIDIG - 11/22/16 08:41 AM EST 270

863

863

President-elect Donald Trump will not follow through on his campaign pledge to pursue an investigation into Hillary Clinton, one of his aides told MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

SPONSORED CONTENT

Homeowners in for a pleasant surprise in 2016

By FetchaRate

Don't make your next mortgage payment until you read this! If you're over 35 years old, you could save $4,000 a year Read More

"I think when the President-elect, who's also the head of your party, tells you before he's even inaugurated that he doesn't wish to pursue these charges, it sends a very strong message, tone, and content" to other Republicans, former Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway said Tuesday.

"I think Hillary Clinton still has to face the fact that a majority of Americans don't find her to be honest or trustworthy," she added. "But if Donald Trump can help her heal then perhaps that's a good thing."

Conway also said that "things that sound like the campaign" are not among Trump's priorities as he prepares his incoming administration.

Trump routinely attacked Clinton on the campaign trail over her use of a private server as secretary of State and for foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation while she was in the Obama administration.

He promised to appoint a special prosecutor to pursue the investigations, arguing that President Obama and the Clintons had used their influence to shape the Justice Department's investigation.

Supporters would often chant "lock her up" at Trump rallies when Clinton was referenced.

During one of the presidential debates, Trump quipped that Clinton would be in jail if he was elected.

Trump said in an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes" after the election, however, that prosecuting Clinton would not be a priority.

“I don’t want to hurt them,” he said of the Clinton family. “They’re good people.”

Hillary Should Be Pardoned Otherwise It Will Muck Up His First Two Years In Office. However, Others Disagree. Probably Because There Is NO Good Answer.

Don’t pardon Hillary Clinton

Justin Haskins11:02 p.m. EST November 18, 2016

(Photo: Cliff Owen / AP)

In his final days as president, Barack Obama faces perhaps his most difficult decision yet: Should he pardon Hillary Clinton for her alleged misuse of a private email server containing classified information and for her role in the Clinton Foundation?

Or should he choose to let a Donald Trump-led Justice Department make the call, despite promises from the president-elect he would continue investigations into Clinton’s past?

Either choice presents potential problems for Obama and his legacy. If he were to pardon Clinton, the decision would most assuredly be viewed as politically motivated, partisan and contrary to justice.

Experts agree that Obama has the power to pardon Clinton, and it’s true many other lame-duck presidents have made such controversial moves in the past. President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon. Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, who had been indicted on 65 criminal counts that included trading with Iran during an oil embargo, tax evasion and racketeering. George H.W. Bush pardoned six individuals involved in the Iran-Contra affair.

But something about this pardon is very different; the general perception across the country is justice has not occurred in Clinton’s case. She has continuously promised she did nothing illegal and that her actions were merely “mistakes.”

In the case of President Nixon, everyone knew he was guilty; he admitted as much. In the case of Marc Rich, most people believed he was guilty, and the evidence overwhelmingly proved it. In the case of Hillary Clinton, however, far more than half the nation believes, at the very least, Clinton did something, but what exactly happened and whether or not it deserves a conviction remains to be determined.

ADVERTISING

inRead invented by Teads

Obama knows all this, of course, but he, as any person in his shoes would, must consider the ramifications of a decision not to pardon would have on his party and his own legacy. How would it look if a person who was almost elected president were to be convicted of multiple crimes, or even simply dragged through the mud in a prolonged court case? How would it look for Obama, who campaigned on Clinton’s behalf and testified in the court of public opinion about her trustworthiness? Could the modern Democratic Party survive such a disaster?

Trump has far less to consider. He won the presidency in large part because of his rejection of the established political ruling class in Washington. If he were to pardon Clinton, it would completely undermine the persona he has spent years cultivating and only make the most dedicated of Democrats happy. That does not, however, mean there wouldn’t be any negative consequences for Trump. If Clinton is prosecuted, Trump will face intense scrutiny and vicious attacks from Democrats and many in the media.

A decision not to pardon, if it should result in a prosecution against Clinton, would be a nightmare for Democrats and for Obama, and it could start the Trump administration’s first days off mired in controversy.

But at least the American people would learn the full truth, which ought to mean something.

Justin Haskins is executive editor of the Heartland Institute. This has been adapted from InsideSources.