This law professor’s suggestion to Obama is exactly what’s wrong with today’s Democratic Party

( You have to hand it to America’s Left wing: When it comes to unity, they’re pretty good. They keep proving they’ll stay together even if it means destroying the country.

Case in point: A ‘law’ professor has come out and suggested, publicly, that the most corrupt president in modern history drop a preemptive pardon on the most corrupt presidential nominee in all of our history.

As noted by J. Stephen Clark, a professor of law at Albany Law School in New York, in the always Leftist-friendly ‘media’ outlet The Hill:

The allegations against Clinton seem minute compared to the subjects of previous efforts at reconciliation. Although FBI Director James Comey called Clinton’s handling of classified information “extremely careless,” he determined that it did not remotely rise to the level of a prosecutable violation. The endless carping about “Benghazi” has produced virtually nothing of moment, and neither formal nor media inquiries into the Clinton Foundation have uncovered any clear example of a “pay-to-play” scheme. Some Clinton opponents are now predictably grasping at the last resort: an attempted charge of perjury. Historians may ultimately see this as little more than an effort to criminalize political animosity.

A presidential pardon could short circuit some of this maneuvering.

Several things here.

First of all, yes, Comey did not recommend prosecuting Clinton for her criminal handling of classified email. But what Comey did not say at the time – and this goes to Clark’s supposed point about the Clinton Foundation – is that his department was hot on the trail of precisely the kind of “pay for play” Clark is preemptively denying. That’s implausible, given what we now know thanks to a torrent of emails leaked by WikiLeaks.

What happened in Benghazi was a scandal but not a criminal act. There wasn’t anything that Clinton, as secretary of state, or Obama, as president, did that was legally wrong. But Clinton’s incredible tone-deafness to the late Amb. Christopher Stevens’ requests for beefed up security and mounting evidence that the terrorist threat to his embassy demonstrates well that she simply lacks the appropriate judgment to be commander-in-chief. When you’re much busier selling access to the highest foreign bidder, you tend not to have much time to deal with matters of embassy security. Also, we have to wonder if Clark would have been “carping” endlessly if someone he loved had been among the dead.

Finally, doesn’t a preemptive presidential pardon indicate that Clinton is ripe for being indicted at some point? Otherwise, why would Obama bother? If there is “nothing there,” like she and he and every other sycophantic Leftist Democrat insists, then she’s got nothing to worry about – right?

Except that there is something there. Lots of ‘something.’ And according to sources who spoke with Fox News recently, indictments are “likely.”

What this sordid, backhanded and wholly political suggestion proves, again, is that the Democratic Party doesn’t care about the security of the country. It doesn’t care about the sanctity of our political system. It doesn’t care about the long-term survivability of our governing institutions and the people who inhabit them.

All it cares about is raw, naked power, which its operatives pursue at any cost. That’s because to them there is nothing greater than top-down, iron-fisted, in-your-face government. Who cares if the party’s presidential nominee let vital national security information fall into the hands of our enemies? She had ‘foundation money’ to raise!

That rumbling you hear isn’t the founding fathers rolling over in their graves. More likely, it’s them making their way to the nearest armory.


(c) 2016 USA Features Media.




comments powered by Disqus