g********2
发帖数: 6571 | 1 Gregg Jarrett: 10 questions and answers in the Hillary Clinton case
By Gregg Jarrett Published October 31, 2016 FoxNews.com
1.) Did FBI Director James Comey violate the “Hatch Act”, which prohibits
federal employees from using their position to influence an election?
No, not even close. By leveling the accusation, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.,
demonstrates he is not an authority on the law. There is no evidence Comey
was deliberately attempting to influence the election. His disclosure may
have had that effect. But his intent is what’s relevant and essential. It
appears Comey felt he had a legal duty to notify Congress that his earlier
sworn testimony stating that the Clinton investigation was closed was no
longer true. If he did not intend to influence the election, then there is
no violation of law.
Comey was facing a Hobson’s choice. If he withheld the new information
until after the election, he would be accused of protecting Clinton and
violating the Hatch Act. By disclosing the information before the election,
he stands accused of hurting Clinton and violating the Hatch Act. So, forget
all that. As long as Comey’s intent was honesty and not partisanship,
then he did not violate the law. It is important to note that the Hatch Act
is not a criminal statute. Jail is not a penalty.
2.) Did the FBI need to get a warrant to examine these emails found on
Anthony Weiner’s devices?
Not initially, but later, yes. When the disgraced former congressman was
caught texting an underage girl, the FBI launched an investigation into
whether he committed various crimes under both state and federal law. Agents
issued a subpoena to seize Weiner’s various electronic devices. That is
when the questionable emails relating to the separate Clinton investigation
were discovered. At that point, the agents were wise to seek a search
warrant based on “probable cause” that the new emails might constitute
evidence of a crime. It was easy to get a judge to sign off on the warrant.
It’s like police discovering bags of white powder in the backseat of a car
stopped for speeding. They can seize the bags, but they should get a warrant
to examine and test the contents.
3.) Can this be resolved before election day?
It seems impossible. The FBI needs to examine tens of thousands of emails.
The Wall Street Journal reports there are around 650,000 emails, so this
will be a Herculean task. It will take a long time for the feds to determine
what documents were classified, whether they passed through Clinton’s
server, and whether Clinton herself sent or received them. A government
source confirms that the metadata on the Weiner devices turned up positive
hits for Hillary Clinton emails. But it could take months to analyze all of
them and determine if any laws were broken.
4.) If newly discovered classified emails are connected to Clinton, is that
a crime?
Not necessarily. Even if the new emails show that classified documents were
sent or received by Clinton from her private server (an unauthorized place),
there is still the legal standard of intent and/or gross negligence that
must be met by prosecutors --and we remember how that worked out last July 5
when Comey held his infamous news briefing and recommended no prosecution.
He might reach the same conclusion all over again. Or, he might reverse
himself. Much will depend on the content of this newly discovered evidence.
But Comey must have seen something in the evidence that alarmed him enough
to re-open the investigation.
5.) Could Clinton pardon herself if she becomes president?
She most certainly can. The power of pardon is without limitation. A
president can pardon any person, including the president. Richard Nixon
contemplated pardoning himself. In the end, he did not. His successor,
Gerald Ford, did it for him. But it was immensely unpopular and contributed
to Ford losing the 1976 election to Jimmy Carter. It would be even worse, if
a president pardoned him or herself. So, if Clinton were to issue her own
pardon, she would be poisoning herself politically. It is the equivalent of
admitting guilt, but evading the consequences. The public outrage would be
deafening.
6.) What would happen if Clinton is indicted after being sworn in as
president?
This is where it gets dicey. Presidents have broad constitutional immunity
against prosecution for ordinary crimes. The Framers wrote about it in The
Federalist Papers. Law students are taught in their classes on
constitutional law that a president could murder someone in the Oval Office
and not be prosecuted, at least until the term of office expires. But it is
unclear whether that same immunity applies to acts committed before taking
office. The Founders wanted a president to be free of prosecutorial threats
over actions taken in the course and scope of a commander in chief’s duties
. They did not contemplate potential criminal acts of a candidate prior to
an election or inauguration. So, the issue of immunity is unclear.
7.) Could Clinton step aside temporarily to face prosecution upon
indictment?
She could do so by invoking the 25th Amendment if she decides she is “
unable to discharge the powers of the presidency” due to public anger
surrounding an indictment. Clinton could notify Congress in writing that she
is temporarily stepping aside and submit herself voluntarily for trial. If
she is acquitted, she could notify Congress that she is able to discharge
her duties to as president and reassume the position. This, however, is the
most unlikely of scenarios.
8.) Could Clinton be prosecuted after she leaves office?
Probably, but expect a legal challenge. Here’s why: if Clinton is indicted
after being sworn in and thereafter invokes constitutional immunity, she
could be prosecuted after leaving office only if the statute of limitations
have not expired. Thus, it depends on how long she serves and the nature of
the charges. Some statutes could lapse during her presidency, especially if
it runs more than one term. However, prosecutors might argue the statutes
are “tolled,” or suspended, due to “legal impossibility,” thus allowing
prosecution of Clinton.
9.) Could Clinton be impeached over this?
Historically, no. Presidents can only be impeached for actions committed
during their presidency. Alleged crimes committed before a president takes
office were never considered impeachable offenses. At least that was the
conclusion of Congress dating back to the latter half of the 19th century.
But an examination of Article II, section 4 of the Constitution reveals no
defining limitation. Other than precedent, there is nothing to prevent a new
and different Congress from taking a completely different view. As Gerald
Ford famously said, “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the
House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”
So the question is an interesting one… and the answer is debatable.
There is one obvious caveat: If Clinton were to do something as president
which constitutes new alleged crimes, such as obstructing an investigation
or lying about what she did, then she could be impeached.
10.) Will congressional investigations of Clinton continue after she takes
office, assuming she wins election?
If Republicans retain control of the House of Representatives, various
chairmen are vowing to pursue multiple investigations of Clinton. They
include potential perjury, obstruction of justice, bribery, fraud, “pay-to-
play” corruption, and illegal use of a non-profit (her foundation). Clinton
could end up mired in scandal from the outset of her presidency in the same
way that Nixon was disabled by Watergate. He squandered the trust and good
will of the American people, and lost the ability to work with Congress to
pass any meaningful legislation for the benefit of the American people.
Clinton could suffer a similar fate.
Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News Anchor and former defense attorney.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/10/31/gregg-jarrett-10-questions-and-answers-in-hillary-clinton-case.html | g********2
发帖数: 6571 | 2 5.) Could Clinton pardon herself if she becomes president?
She most certainly can. The power of pardon is without limitation. A
president can pardon any person, including the president.
——WTF！ | r**********f
发帖数: 2808 | | A**H
发帖数: 4797 | 4
那是该在弹劾之前就赦免自己还是弹劾成立之后赦免自己呢？
美国法律漏洞太多啊 ---- 主要是立法者们没想到还能有今天这样一群没有道德的人，
高估了某些人的道德下限
【在 g********2 的大作中提到】
: 5.) Could Clinton pardon herself if she becomes president?
: She most certainly can. The power of pardon is without limitation. A
: president can pardon any person, including the president.
: ——WTF！
| c********i
发帖数: 1489 | 5 So, if Clinton were to issue her own
pardon, she would be poisoning herself politically.
根据我对老太太的多年了解，这个她做的出来。这次选举就是不停刷新下限的过程。 | G*******h
发帖数: 4091 | 6 这个pardon我觉得是免于刑责的意思吧，总统之位坐不坐得稳是另一回事。 | g********2
发帖数: 6571 | 7 专家就是没法回答一个问题：出了这么大的事，希拉里会被选为总统吗？ | g********2
发帖数: 6571 | 8 “a president could murder someone in the Oval Office and not be prosecuted,
at least until the term of office expires”
——这法律得改改了。 | g*k
发帖数: 1797 | |
|
