The crimes of Hillary Clinton could hardly be contained to a list the length of this article, but beyond the more major ones, such as complicity in the deaths of 400,000 civilians in Syria, 1,000,000+ people in Iraq, and thousands of citizens of Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Haiti, more directly attributable roles can be found in the Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, Benghazi and personal email server scandals of recent years and years past.
Specifically, the latter two scandals have dogged Clinton during the second term of President Obama, with the email scandal particularly affecting her during her own run for the White House in 2016. Even though Clinton has testified numerous times before Congressional committees and to the FBI, each time she did so, it appears vital information was either obfuscated, omitted or completely lied about.
Critically, the FBI reopened the case into her email server just eleven days before the general election was to be held, citing new evidence that had to be considered. Although nine days later, FBI Director James Comey “cleared” Clinton once again in the media, ongoing investigations into the Clinton Foundation, Huma Abedin, Anthony Weiner, Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta and Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe all could potentially still land her a recommendation for indictment if any evidence of criminality can be found, which many of the initial reports on these cases point toward.
It’s long been acknowledged that both of the Clintons’ nearly world-record list of scandals has created a house of cards for the former Secretary of State that seem all but fated to pull her into a sinkhole of formal charges for one misdeed or another.
Critics point to an overwhelming sense of hubris and self-entitlement that prodded Clinton to continue engaging in her shenanigans, even after critical coverage of her existing scandals drew voters’ ire and her advisors privately worried that she’d crossed one too many red lines.
Before she formally announced her candidacy for president in 2015, conservatives began to loudly ring warning bells. Further examinations of the Clinton Foundation detailed in such books as Peter Schweizer’s excellent “Clinton Cash” have shown that her humanitarian charity organization is essentially a money laundering and tax evasion scheme for billionaires.
During Clinton’s time as Secretary of State, there was ample evidence of “pay-for-play” activities, with Clinton Foundation donors receiving meetings with key State Department officials or even with Clinton herself in order to arrange international transactions, such as weapons deals.
Sometimes, these meetings would be preceded by a speech given by Bill Clinton to the group or company in question which was trying to arrange a deal, for which the former president was paid handsomely — often $500,000 or more for a mere 90 minutes of talking time.
On numerous occasions, Clinton neglected to follow rules regarding documentation or conflicts of interest with particular individuals, officials and/or countries. There were dubious contract agreements made with Russia, Saudi Arabia, Haiti and many other nations.
Throughout this entire period, Clinton kept a private email server at home through which she conducted her State Department correspondence, against federal regulations. Then it came out that she had deleted 33,000 emails from this period, claiming they were “personal” in nature.
When it came time for Clinton to run for president, she believed she could leave all this business behind her, but new facts kept emerging — that she had not turned over all the emails in question; that some of her emails contained classified information; that it was possible or even highly likely that foreign hackers had penetrated her server security and stolen her messages.
As it stands, Clinton could be charged in at least five different ways for this illicit behavior: for lying under oath to Congress and/or the FBI, for obstruction of justice, for pay-to-play activities (bribery) or for racketeering under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) law.
In this latter fashion, the Clintons would basically be seen as a crime family. Typically, crime families have underlings that take the fall for their bosses, going to jail instead of testifying against them as former Clinton Whitewater partner Susan McDougal famously did when she served time in seven different prisons instead of admitting anything untoward about the Clintons.
Based on all of this, is it possible that President Obama could issue a pardon that would grant at least partial immunity to the former Secretary of State before he leaves office?
The White House has left that possibility open, as White House spokesman Josh Earnest recently said, “We have a long tradition in this country of people in power not using the criminal justice system to enact political revenge. In fact, we go a long way to insulate the criminal justice system from partisan politics.” Of course, when you’re talking about criminal charges, it’s hardly the same topic as political partisanship.
If Obama were to issue a pardon, it might soften the divisions that are still painfully in evidence after the election. Even some Trump supporters say that they don’t harbor ill-will toward Clinton now that she’s not going to become the country’s president.
Jennifer Walsh, a young Trump supporter in New Jersey, said, “I’d rather [Trump] focus on the economy and making sure what we’ve had these last eight years doesn’t continue. I didn’t vote for him so he could put Clinton behind bars… I think our country needs to focus on coming together now, instead of continuing to split apart.”
Obama pardoning Clinton could also be more acceptable politically than if President Trump were to issue a pardon, which would essentially force him to break his campaign promise of appointing a special prosecutor to investigate her.
But some people aren’t ready to let go of Clinton just yet. GOP Congressman Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, says, “It would be totally remiss of us to dismiss [the email investigation] because she’s not going to be president. I still have a duty and obligation to get to the truth about one of the largest breaches of security at the State Department, [and] tens of thousands of documents still have not been turned over to Congress.”
Finally, there’s one further possibility that relates to nagging theories proposed by some independent websites based on information gained from WikiLeaks regarding allegations of child trafficking and or sexual exploitation of minors on the part of the Clintons.
It appears that Clinton did do special favors for a convicted child abductor named Laura Silsby, and her campaign manager John Podesta had related artwork on his walls that at the very least is extremely inappropriate and creepy. If it comes out that any of these claims have a basis in reality, one can expect that all bets regarding the Clintons’ future will be off.