Did Trump really say he won’t prosecute Hillary Clinton?

It’s all over the MSM, that is, the Fake Media, that President-elect Donald Trump signaled he would not prosecute Hillary Clinton for her many crimes and misdemeanors, including her use of an unsecured email server when she was Obama’s secretary of state which jeopardized national security because of countless classified emails that were top-secret.

But is that true?

CLEVELAND, OH - JULY 20: A Florida delegate holds up a sign that reads "Lock Her Up!" prior to the start of the third day of the Republican National Convention on July 20, 2016 at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump received the number of votes needed to secure the party's nomination. An estimated 50,000 people are expected in Cleveland, including hundreds of protesters and members of the media. The four-day Republican National Convention kicked off on July 18. (Photo by Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

The source of Trump allegedly not seeking criminal prosecution against Hillary comes from a sit-down interview he had yesterday, Nov. 22, 2016, with a group from the New York Times — the openly pro-Hillary paper, 17% of which is owned by Mexican mogul Carlos Slim, which declared journalists should abandon objectivity in their coverage of Trump.

See “NYT openly advocates abandoning objectivity in reporting on Trump” and “NYT calls on Google to hide Hillary Clinton’s failing health”.

The group was comprised of NYT publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., editors, reporters and op/ed columnists.

Here’s the relevant part of the interview:

MAGGIE HABERMAN, political reporter: I’ll start, thank you, Dean. Mr. President, I’d like to thank you for being here. This morning, [Trump’s spokeswoman] Kellyanne Conway talked about not prosecuting Hillary Clinton. We were hoping you could talk about exactly what that means — does that mean just the emails, or the emails and the foundation, and how you came to that decision.

TRUMP: Well, there was a report that somebody said that I’m not enthused about it. Look, I want to move forward, I don’t want to move back. And I don’t want to hurt the Clintons. I really don’t.

She went through a lot. And suffered greatly in many different ways. And I am not looking to hurt them at all. The campaign was vicious. They say it was the most vicious primary and the most vicious campaign…. I would imagine. I would imagine. I’m just telling you, Maggie, I’m not looking to hurt them. I think they’ve been through a lot. They’ve gone through a lot.

I’m really looking … I think we have to get the focus of the country into looking forward….

MATTHEW PURDY, deputy managing editor: So you’re definitively taking that off the table? The investigation?

TRUMP: No, but the question was asked.

PURDY: About the emails and the foundation?

TRUMP: No, no, but it’s just not something that I feel very strongly about. I feel very strongly about health care. I feel very strongly about an immigration bill that I think even the people in this room can be happy. You know, you’ve been talking about immigration bills for 50 years and nothing’s ever happened.

I feel very strongly about an immigration bill that’s fair and just and a lot of other things. There are a lot of things I feel strongly about. I’m not looking to look back and go through this. This was a very painful period. This was a very painful election with all of the email things and all of the foundation things and all of the everything that they went through and the whole country went through. This was a very painful period of time….

CAROLYN RYAN, senior editor for politics: Do you think it would disappoint your supporters who seemed very animated by the idea of accountability in the Clintons? What would you say to them?

TRUMP: I don’t think they will be disappointed. I think I will explain it, that we have to, in many ways save our country.

Because our country’s really in bad, big trouble. We have a lot of trouble. A lot of problems. And one of the big problems, I talk about, divisiveness. I think that a lot of people will appreciate … I’m not doing it for that reason. I’m doing it because it’s time to go in a different direction….

ELISABETH BUMILLER, Washington bureau chief: I just wanted to follow up on the question you were asked about not pursuing any investigations into Hillary Clinton. Did you mean both the email investigation and the foundation investigation — you will not pursue either one of those?

TRUMP: Yeah, look, you know we’ll have people that do things but my inclination would be, for whatever power I have on the matter, is to say let’s go forward. This has been looked at for so long. Ad nauseam. Let’s go forward. And you know, you could also make the case that some good work was done in the foundation and they could have made mistakes, etc. etc. I think it’s time, I think it’s time for people to say let’s go and solve some of the problems that we have, which are massive problems and, you know, I do think that they’ve gone through a lot. I think losing is going through a lot. It was a tough, it was a very tough evening for her. I think losing is going through a lot. So, for whatever it’s worth, my, my attitude is strongly we have to go forward, we have so many different problems to solve, I don’t think we have to delve back in the past. I also think that would be a very divisive, well I think it would be very divisive, you know I’m talking about bringing together, and then they go into all sorts of stuff, I think it would be very, very divisive for the country.

Note that while Trump said he doesn’t want to “hurt” Hillary and prefers to “go forward” to tackle the many serious problems of this very divided country, he also said that he, as President, will have very little control over what happens. By that, Trump meant that it’s the Department of Justice that prosecutes, not POTUS.

But when pointedly asked whether he’s taking the criminal investigation of Hillary and the Clinton Foundation off the table, Trump said no:

MATTHEW PURDY, deputy managing editor: So you’re definitively taking that off the table? The investigation?

TRUMP: No, but the question was asked.

That point is reinforced by NYT in a tweet at 10:15AM yesterday, referring to its political reporter Maggie Haberman who was at the meeting with Trump:


Some other things Trump said in his NYT interview:

  • On the brutal campaign: “It’s been 18 months of brutality in a true sense, but we won it. We won it pretty big. The final numbers are coming out . . . far beyond what anybody’s wildest expectation was . . . . I would do, during the last month, two or three [rallies] a day. That’s a lot. Because that’s not easy when you have big crowds. Those speeches, that’s not an easy way of life, doing three a day. Then I said the last two days, I want to do six and seven. And I’m not sure anybody has ever done that. But we did six and we did seven and the last one ended at 1 o’clock in the morning in Michigan.”
  • Electoral College: “the popular vote would have been a lot easier, but it’s a whole different campaign. I would have been in California, I would have been in Texas, Florida and New York, and we wouldn’t have gone anywhere else . . . . I think that’s the genius of the Electoral College. I was never a fan of the Electoral College until now . . . now I like it for two reasons. What it does do is it gets you out to see states that you’ll never see otherwise. It’s very interesting. Like Maine . . . . “
  • Military votes: Votes from members of the Armed Services are still coming in and 85% of them are for Trump.
  • On the Alt-right, whom NYT executive editor Dean Baquet characterized as white racists: “First of all, I don’t want to energize the group. I’m not looking to energize them. I don’t want to energize the group, and I disavow the group . . . . What we do want to do is we want to bring the country together, because the country is very, very divided, and . . . I’m going to work very hard to bring the country together.”
  • Climate change: “But a lot of smart people disagree with you. I have a very open mind. And I’m going to study a lot of the things that happened on it and we’re going to look at it very carefully. But I have an open mind . . . . You know the hottest day ever was in 1890-something, 98. You know, you can make lots of cases for different views. I have a totally open mind . . . . It’s a very complex subject. I’m not sure anybody is ever going to really know. I know we have, they say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between the scientists. Where was that, in Geneva or wherever five years ago? Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about.”
  • Steve Bannon: Trump was questioned whether he should have appointed Bannon to be chief White House strategist because Bannon “is a hero of the alt-right” and “described by some as racist and anti-Semitic”. Trump answered: “I’ve known Steve Bannon a long time. If I thought he was a racist, or alt-right, or any of the things that we can, you know, the terms we can use, I wouldn’t even think about hiring him. First of all, I’m the one that makes the decision, not Steve Bannon or anybody else. And Kellyanne will tell you that . . . . Steve went to Harvard . . . he was a Naval officer . . . . I’ve known him for a long time. He’s a very, very smart guy. I think he was with Goldman Sachs on top of everything else . . . . In many respects I think his views are actually on the other side of what a lot of people might think . . . . Breitbart, first of all, is just a publication. And, you know, they cover stories like you cover stories. Now, they are certainly a much more conservative paper, to put it mildly, than The New York Times. But Breitbart really is a news organization that’s become quite successful, and it’s got readers and it does cover subjects that are on the right, but it covers subjects on the left also.”
  • Republican Party: “Paul Ryan right now loves me, Mitch McConnell loves me, it’s amazing how winning can change things . . . . Right now they’re in love with me. O.K.? Four weeks ago they weren’t in love with me.”
  • About Rust Belt jobs: In response to NYT columnist Thomas Friedman’s question if Trump is worried that manufacturing companies will keep their factories here, but the jobs will be replaced by robots, Trump answered, “They will, and we’ll make the robots too . . . . Right now we don’t make the robots. We don’t make anything. But we’re going to, I mean, look, robotics is becoming very big and we’re going to do that. We’re going to have more factories. We can’t lose 70,000 factories [since George W. Bush]. Just can’t do it. We’re going to start making things . . . we have companies leaving our country because the taxes are too high. But they’re leaving also because of the regulations. And I would say, of the two, and I would not have thought this, regulation cuts, substantial regulation cuts, are more important than, and more enthusiastically supported, than even the big tax cuts.”



50 responses to “Did Trump really say he won’t prosecute Hillary Clinton?

  1. Is it possible that Trump is playing “rope-a-dope” until he is sworn in as president? If he says it is hot to prosecute her, Obama will pardon her. If he says he is not interested, maybe Obama will leave office without saving her from the gallows. Once Trump is president, he can hunt her down like a rabid dog.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I fear that during the meeting with Obama a deal was made to not prosecute the Clinton’s. I hope not but am becoming rather suspicious.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Good points, RLJ.

      Obama can’t pardon her because he can’t pardon someone who hasn’t been arrested, prosecuted, and convicted. That would be like Obama pardoning you or me. Maybe there’s some method to FBI director James Comey after all….

      Liked by 2 people

      • Unfortunately Obama probably can.
        Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon and the Dems let him get away with it. So the ‘Precedent’ is there. I think it is on very shaky legal ground, but I am a Constitutionalist not a “lawyer”. (Bless God!)

        AWFUL TRUTH # 672:
        One of the problems we face is our “Legal System” has been suborned by “Admiralty Law”, or Case Law, and is no longer Constitutional Law or Common Law where each case is decided on its own merits.
        In Case Law, lawyers use “precedents” to argue their case for the outcome they want. No matter how irrelevant it may be to the actual evidence in the instant case.
        That is part of the difference between “Legal” and Lawful. Lawful is in accordance with the wording and meaning of the Constitution, “Legal” is whatever a judge or a court says.

        The good side is the Dems did not take the issue to any court, they didn’t have enough evidence of any actual “crimes” to risk a trial against Nixon. So the ‘precedent’ is not backed up any court decision. Nixon resigned to avoid the embarrassment both personal and National, so the Dems were happy, they won. Gerald Ford was a milk-toast, and the Dems put in the Socialist Jimmy Peanut.

        But Obama is the worst excuse for a lawyer there is for sneaky “legalisms” and hair-spliting, so he would jump on the “precedent” and let them fight it out in the courts over the next 3-4 years. They would have to take it from Federal Court, to Federal Appellate Court, to SCOTUS, with Dem lawyers getting a years worth delays and extensions at every level as long as their money held out. With the LibTARD Lap-dog Media making “Joan of Arc” out of Killary 24/7.

        Again, I’m not a lawyer, so it’s just my opinion on how the sleazy SOBs operate.

        Liked by 4 people

    • This is America, where we don’t put people who lose elections in prison, too… Trump has the “banana republic” impression working against him if he does take action (ironically, to restore rule of law) against her. He has to wait for the AG (not Loretta Lynch, obviously), Congress or SCOTUS to appoint a special prosecutor… probably when the Clinton Foundation investigation comes in (sometime after Jan 20, 2017).


    • If we have learned anything about Trump it is he never shows his hand. He want to get Sessions confirmed, he needs him to continue the agenda. If he puts it on the table he will attack Clinton with everything he has got, he won’t get him confirmed.
      Also, Just the wording of his statement almost makes me believe Trump has been contact by the Clintons admitting to her serious health problems and to please have mercy.
      The man isn’t even in office and he deserves our respect and patience. He has much to repair and first things first. There is no time limit on her crimes.


  2. I for one would regret having voted for Trump if he goes back on his word in not only this matter but on other issues as well.
    He doesn’t want to hurt the Clinton family? My God, look at how much they have hurt the people of this nation and the damage she was intent upon doing if she had been elected? And how about that phony charity her husband and daughter are running which is really a ‘pay to play’ instrument?

    Liked by 2 people

    • Revenge is a dish bet served cold. I’m with Mr. Trump. I don’t WANT to hurt them. But you can’t stop them from hurting themselves. And that’s what they have done. Every action one takes has consequences and doing the crime just might mean doing the time.


  3. It is important for justice that the Clintons be no longer able to live above the law.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. William Brandon Shanley

    Great work, Dr. Eowyn!

    Liked by 3 people

  5. Pingback: Did Trump really say he won’t prosecute Hillary Clinton? — Fellowship of the Minds | kommonsentsjane

  6. Dr Eowyn . . . this article has eased my heart somewhat. I have been rather dismayed when I read that Trump had decided to “not look into the email debacle and the fraudulent acts of the Clinton Foundation. (Why in creation would it be appropriate for a charitable foundation to pay three million dollars for the wedding of the daughter of couple whose started the foundation???) Either we are a land of law and order . . . . . or we are not! To actually read Trump’s words specifically, does not indicate that he is against this action, he just indicates that actually it is not the job of POTUS (which is true.) I just hope that Jeff Sessions has a stout spine . . . and has extreme protection via the Secret Service. We would not want another Arkincide! Great article!

    Liked by 2 people

  7. I certainly hope this is “Tactical Disinformation” and Trump distancing himself from the Investigation and trial. Also to put the Clintonistas to sleep, like RLJohnson stated above. Defusing the riots and crazyness would be very good. Let the evidence work on the Sheeple and the LibTARDs as the investigation proceeds, AFTER he is sworn in and his AG & others are confirmed.

    Obama has been so guilty of “Executive Interference” in so many, even minor legal matters, we have forgot that under Rule by Law that is NOT either a duty or a Power of the President. The President is head of the “Executive Branch”, to enforce the Laws as passed by Congress. His DoJ is to investigate crimes and prosecute them in court if appropriate. It is certainly inappropriate and possibly Unlawful (not that Obama cared) for the President to influence any criminal case.

    However, since in the campaign he had made such a big deal about it, BECAUSE the Obamunists were COVERING-UP SERIOUS VIOLATIONS of both National Security and bribery, selling govt influence, grants, and strategic assets (uranium), as President he should back off a bit and let the Govt function in a Constitutional Manner.

    That said, if Trump actually tries to quash the investigation if the investigators and prosecutors find sufficient evidence and probable cause to prosecute (and I think both exist for numerous serious crimes), he has become ‘more politician’ and a lot less Trump than I believed possible. In my Internet group, local people, and blogs, Trump will lose a Yuge amount of faith and support. “Drain the Swamp!” becomes meaningless if you let the worst predators escape untouched.

    Possibly imprisoning Hillary is politically unwise. (I personally prefer Public Execution, but I know that ain’t happening.) But the important thing is that these crimes be exposed and since all of these crimes carry a “Ban from ever holding Public Office” and it should be rigorously enforced against all of the “mice” that helped the “Rats” as well. Also fines can be imposed and the money go to paying off the Federal Debt.

    We need to remind Trump and his staff that this issue is very important to voters that supported him. His previous friendship with the Clinton’s is of no consequence, as is Ivanka’s with Chelsea (another thing that passes all understanding.) Trump ran on a program that we supported, so “do what you said.”

    Liked by 4 people

  8. The statue of Justice was blind folded for a reason. For the first time in history OUR nation was based on the simple fact that the We the PEOPLE held more power than the King who was placed in that position of power based on his birth rite. As such justice is SUPPOSED to be fair and impartial- regardless of status and ranking. A special Prosecutor is supposed to provide objective analysis of crimes, IF COMMITTED. If it was found that crimes were committed a fair trial should be set. No One Should Be Above The Law!

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Who makes that decision, the Attorney General or the President? And what would be the value of allowing the Attorney General to make that decision all by himself?

    Liked by 1 person

    • While I’m not a Constitutional expert on protocol & procedures, I believe that if others fail to appoint a Special Prosecutor, then the House of Representatives can do so on its own initiative. Someone correct me if this not true.

      Liked by 2 people

      • I believe you are CORRECT! On very solid Constitutional ground.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, if SCOTUS (which needs a justice nominated/confirmed) and AG (which is in the same branch as State) don’t, then they should… which also leads to, well, why haven’t they already?

        Liked by 1 person

        • ” why haven’t they already?”
          Excellent question! First guess: Paul Ryan. Even if Congresscritters are calling for it, he won’t let it come up.
          He is now saying he ‘won’t support limiting Muslim’ Rapeugees coming in, but the 1952 law empowers the President to limit immigrants.

          Liked by 1 person

  10. https://www.greatagain.gov/ click on Share your Ideas
    This is Trumps Transition Site. Below is the letter I posted there this morning.

    Dear President-Elect Trump,

    It gives me great pleasure to type those words!

    I hope your statements on not wanting to prosecute Hillary Clinton on her flagrant violations of Security and selling her influence as Sec State are “Tactical Disinformation” and also separating yourself from “Executive Influence” in the investigations. She must be held responsible for her willful, knowing, and intentional violations of National Security, and flagrant solicitation of bribes through The Clinton Foundation, or Rule of Law has no more meaning than it did under the Obamunist Administration.

    People I know, people in my Internet group, and commenters on several blogs I follow and comment on all are terribly disappointed in your “too strong withdrawal” from your promise to see Hillary investigated. How can “Drain the Swamp!” have any meaning if you allow the worst predators to escape? Perhaps actually imprisoning Hillary isn’t necessary, but she must be exposed and found guilty. Her crimes all have the punishment of “banned from holding any office of Public Trust” and fines, as well as prison. The ban and fines are certainly appropriate and no real hardship for her, but a great relief for millions of Americans. Hopefully many of her minions that aided in her criminal enterprises can also be banned and fined.

    If this does not happen, many, many of your strongest supporters will lose faith, and the present momentum will be severely damaged. We trusted you. We wanted TRUMP for President, not some mealy-mouth appeasing politician. I say that with the greatest respect and sincere hope and confidence that after you are sworn in the investigations will proceed as our Constitution requires.

    Thank you for this site and the opportunity to tell you how things are here.

    William Brayshaw Trump Gold Card 0009587.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Thank you, Longknife, for communicating so well your misgivings to the Trump Transition Team.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Actually, Doc, I not sure “misgivings” is quite the right word. But, come to think about it, I can’t come up with a better one, so you win again on points.

        I think Trump is smarter than most of us give him credit for, but it may only be “wishful thinking”. I think Trump is “crazy like a fox”. He may be saying these things to see what our reaction is. Some whom i know are about ready to take the scalping knife to him, if he really gives Hillary a pass.

        Like I wrote earlier to answer ‘marblenecltr’: “This may be the Constitutionalist Counter Revolution to the Marxist/Alinskyite “Social Justice Revolution” which is mostly refusing to obey the Law. Or actually an Anti-Revolution, we are demanding the Federal Govt obey the Constitution and the Laws passed.”

        This may be that Trump has the trust and confidence in US to demand that he ENFORCE the law as the Constitution requires him under Article II.
        This is only becoming clear to me as I try to organize my points to try to explain it to others.

        On the other hand, I may be as full of shit as a Christmas goose, but I hope not. I’m just trying to figure it out and trying to keep others from being too upset (because i’m kinda upset) before we see how this plays out.

        Liked by 2 people

  11. Donald Trump is more informed and intelligent than most people realise; this post and ongoing events may disclose such secrets.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Maybe so, but that is still political cover. That may well be the point of this whole “Theatrical” exercise – “See, Trump is a nice guy and wanted to let her go, but the citizen-voters demanded there be a fair investigation and the evidence was such to demand a trial under the laws as written. Not Trump’s fault! We tried to let the crooked old witch go.”

      This is OUR ANSWER to the Soros funded LibTard riots! Citizens demanding a fair investigation and trial in accordance with the LAW!

      Let the LibTARD Media bitch about that for awhile and see what that gets them!

      This may be the Constitutionalist Counter Revolution to the Marxist/Alinskyite “Social Justice Revolution” which is mostly refusing to obey the Law. Or actually an Anti-Revolution, we are demanding the Federal Govt obey the Constitution and the Laws passed.
      The Constitution is the Contract by the States, the People, and the Federal Govt that created the Federal Govt and gave it strictly limited Powers. If one party of a contract refuses to perform as required by the contract, and the other Parties have no remedy to enforce the Contract, the Contract becomes NULL and VOID!

      For 8 years the Obamunists have refused to obey the contract and perform as required. This is just the American We the People trying to enforce the Contract by replacing the failed and criminal “Public Servants” charged with operating the Federal Govt in accordance with the Contract.

      Liked by 2 people

  12. I think you’re right on this,and even if there’s a precedent,it’s still a coin-toss whether it’d stand up in Court AGAIN. So,until Hillary is actually arrested and prosecuted,Obama can’t LEGALLY Pardon her,because she hasn’t been convicted for anything. Another thing to consider is that if Trump starts anything on this at this point,he’s effectively under-cutting Jeff Sessions’ efforts,that’s not the way to start a Presidency. I have no doubt that there’s a plan in the works,and Killary WILL go down-it’ll just take a little time.
    Rush pointed out,rightly,that considering the publication Trump met with is the Leftist Bible,it’s extremely likely they’re taking EVERY sentence he said apart and re-interpreting it to indicate he’s walking most of his talking points back,when he really just isn’t telling them anything they WANT to hear. When they roll out their Demo-crafted version of the conversation,Trump’s supporters will lose all respect for Trump. THAT is their plan. See,Trump is relying on some of the BEST people there are to advise,to research,to help him get this show on the road-he’s NOT just throwing his fate to the wind. Have a little faith,and don’t believe anything the Leftists say.

    Liked by 2 people

    • As far as I know the precedent of Ford pardoning Nixon never went to any court. Everyone was relieved, if not exactly happy, about the outcome – no major National Embarrassment of an Impeachment and Senate Trial.
      I’m like you, I don’t think it is Lawful to pardon anyone before they are at least charged, and I don’t like that. A pardon should only be given after conviction.

      Liked by 4 people

      • From http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-ford-pardons-former-president-nixon:

        “There were no historical or legal precedents to guide Ford in the matter of Nixon’s pending indictment. In the end, he decided to give Nixon a full pardon for all offenses against the United States in order to put the tragic and disruptive scandal behind all concerned. Ford justified this decision by claiming that a long, drawn-out trial would only have further polarized the public. Ford’s decision to pardon Nixon was condemned by many and is thought to have contributed to Ford’s failure to win the 1976 election.”

        Liked by 3 people

        • I think that any lawyer could argue that the “precedent” was CREATED by Ford, and was unchallenged in the courts, therefor Obama could use it.
          I disagree with it on Common Law and common sense grounds, and it should not stand up in court, but that doesn’t mean that Obama would not go for it.
          I really think this is to defuse the riots, discourage Obama pardoning Hillary, and get a little breathing room to see what the Justice Department really has, and what Congress wants to do..

          I’m confident there is enough to convict her a dozen times over. It is almost like a person being seen shop-lifting on video, and caught by the Store police with the goods in their hands outside, and then saying “I didn’t do anything wrong!”
          I’m almost sure they will let her plea bargain out and avoid prison, but they must enforce the “Ban on Public Office” as well as a fine.
          I don’t understand why Trump would want to let her go. It is a total violation of necessary law. But I understand they want to defuse the riots and all the political infighting to protect Hillary. And Obama, if Hills goes to Court, she will drag him into it to spread the blame and excuse herself.
          The Lib/Progs are exposing their contempt for Law & Order, National Security, and responsibility for anything. I think this will haunt them for a long time. if the Repubs play this right, the2018 mid-terms – with 24 Dem Senators up for re-election, should be a blood-bath. By then the Dems will look like common criminals and their willing accomplices.
          But Trump is playing “Free Hillary!” a little to well to suit me, I’ll admit.

          Liked by 3 people

  13. It’s not complicated if you look at all 64 squares, not just one.

    Obama will be the bigger menace in the long run: he’s younger, and he has the devil’s trifecta of unslakeable ambition, unmovable ideology, and unrepentant laziness. He’s the king in this chess game: the ultimate target of all the maneuvers.

    Hillary, as queen, is flashy, powerful, and certainly a piece to be reckoned with, but the Left can continue the game if she’s captured (or sacrificed).

    So what Trump may be doing here, is pinning Obama’s pardon pen. If Obama pardons Hillary, where will she go? How do you run an influence peddling racket when you just got your chops busted, and have no influence left to peddle? “We’ll take good care of you, Hillary, so long as you sing like a canary and give us enough to put Obama away forever,” might sound awfully tempting, especially since there’s no love lost between the Clintons and Obamas.

    So the Left can’t move the queen to safety, because that would put the king in check. And to get out of a pin, you either go after the attacking piece, or move the other piece that you control out of the way. But if Don and the Deplorables–heck of a band name, that!–won’t be threatened, then the king has to move out of the way, and leave the queen exposed.

    That’s what this looks like to me: keeping an eye on the more important quarry. Capturing the queen is nice, but it’s the fate of the king that ultimately decides a chess game.

    Liked by 1 person

    • “I’m almost sure they will let her plea bargain out and avoid prison”
      I don’t believe America will settle for that,considering the magnitude of her crimes. A plea bargain wouldn’t fix,change or solve anything except to leave the Clintons once again unscathed. Hillary is in so deep she is OUT of options.

      Liked by 2 people

      • I’m with you, she should go to prison! Actually, her case is so flagrant and with the bribery for access thrown in, she should face the death penalty. But the sad reality is most Americans don’t have the guts and gumption to enforce the law on “Poor old Granny”. And the Lib/Prog Media pulling that “Third World Politics of imprisoning political enemies” is pure crap. She is being tried for willful violation of National Security and Military Secrets, as well as taking bribes for gov’t favors, even from potential enemies from countries known to harbor terrorists. Unless she got caught ritually sacrificing children to Satan and eating them, I don’t see how it gets any worse.
        The problem is we have watched Hillary do stupid selfish stuff for over 30 years, then lie and give nonsense excuses, and it has become “normal” to give her another pass. Because she is Hillary Clinton? Because she is a Lib/Prog that promises good stuff for “free”? Because the feminist Media says so? This woman has made a public mockery of truth, honesty, and Rule of Law from her time as the Rose Law ‘bag-man’ for “Slick Willie’s Governor for Sale or Rent” back in Arkansas in the 80’s. If the full truth is ever known, the woman is probably guilty of more crimes than Al Capone and the entire Comanche Nation put together.

        Liked by 2 people

        • True,but when it comes down to brass tacks,the People have only their votes to control what happens when a Public Official who commits high crimes against the US. I think there’s a large enough body of Americans who want Justice to finally be done that there won’t be much likelihood of Trump’s Administration going lightly on Clinton. BTW-couldn’t the Judge make part of the sentence include restitution of all funds illegally gained through the “Pay for Play” and money laundering of the Clinton Foundation when THAT part of the Circus comes to pass? Sorry,but I kinda like the image of the Clinton clan leaving Court “dirt poor” again. “Wheah EVAH will Ah go? Whatevah will Ah DO?” Frankly,Hillary,I don’t give a Damn….

          Liked by 1 person

          • TJ, you bring up several good points.here.
            1. The Trump Movement is something new, especially for Dem Lib/Progs who have been winning consistently. The Dems are just realizing they are losing big in “Middle America”. It might be “Fly-over Country to the Bi-Coastal Metrosexuals, but is the strength of America. The dems are becoming only a Bi-coastal Party. And they are losing some in their “Safe Demographics”.
            2. We have the Internet. They have lost control of the news. Education & Truth is a powerful thing. Now 51% Hispanics agree we need a “pause” in immigration because many realize that the “Criminal Invaders” are depressing their wages and even job opportunities, too. Sites like this that try to develop sound ideas and solutions, that discuss the problems and bad results openly and accurately, with common sense and basic morality that appeals to people at a gut level, are going to change more minds.
            3. We have more voice with Trump than ever before. Check his Transition site. make suggestions if you have one. If you see a local problem, tell them. It is not just the vote every 4 years for President. The Mid-terms in ’18 can have a huge impact on the Senate. 24 Dem seats are up. We can win half and get a super majority in the Senate. Plus we need to thin the RINO herd, but some of them will “get their mind right” as they see the power shift. Start pushing at the Local Repub Party Level. Push for 10th Amendment Solutions, Get the power back to the States where you can make the politicians pay attention, or be replaced easier. Like the big National Pro-Life Orgs have been fighting the Radical Abortionists for 45 years and losing because the Federal Govt is too far from the People to listen, so the Party and lobbyists control them.
            4. We need to raise Hell about demanding “Drain the Swamp1”. We may have to send some new Congresscritters & Senators, or threaten too for some Repubs. We need to get rid of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, but in the mean time convince them to do what we want. We need to start talking to Congress about Federal Judges that lied in their Confirmation hearings (Kagan & Sotomayor), or make flagrant Anti-Constituional decisions, impeachment proceedings are in order..
            5. On Hillary – The specific penalties listed for the violations may not state it, but I think Restitution is an excellent idea, and could easily be part of a ‘sentencing bargain’. Hillary is sentenced to 10 years in jail, but will be Suspended after $100 million is paid in for that crime. She would only spend a couple of weeks in jail, but would have to go through the “processing”, and the first week would be YUGE shock to the Empress Hillary! (LMAO!) I really think getting the money is better than having to put her in jail. She would just be a heroine to the Idiots and require all sorts of Special Handling, like Nelson Mandela in South Africa. I say, skin her and turn her loose, with a long suspended sentence with the stipulation she stay out of politics and off the media. a STFU Sentence! She and Bill should both lose ALL retirement and perks from their Govt service, including Secret Service protection. If they have to live in Tom Hanks basement with his Mexican Gardener as their bodyguard, that’s all right with me.

            Liked by 2 people

  14. We’re talking about treason here:
    Muslim World League London Office:
    Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs:
    Under JMMA editorial board- we find Huma Abedin’s Mother (maiden name: Mahmood) and Brother.
    Muslim World League- is the media arm of the Saudi Government.

    Never before in the history of our country has a Presidential candidate’s right hand ‘man’ had such a close relationship to a foreign Government?
    All a bit too cozy- honor among thieves is understandable for fraud- BUT TREASON?
    Al Capone got busted for tax evasion- if Hillary Clinton gets taken down by e-mails- so be it.
    If she doesn’t- somewhere along the way the Deep State showed Trump a close up of the Zapruder film- and Trump was reminded of the consequences of Presidential “free thinking”.

    Liked by 3 people

  15. Trump as POTUS can’t prosecute anyone.

    But that doesn’t mean his AG can’t.

    Before everybody lines up to crucify Donald Trump for supposedly backtracking on his campaign promises (he really hasn’t), stop paying attention to the BS you are seeing and hearing from the MSM, because many are reacting the way the lying propagandists want you to.

    Inauguration Day is still nearly two months away.

    Give the man a chance.


    Liked by 5 people

    • Dave is absolutely right!
      Also it is OK if the Clinton investigations go on the back burner for now, as long as it doesn’t get pushed off the stove.
      I think this is a tactical measure, A priority issue to see how the Lib/Progs react. Trump has to get his Cabinet confirmed. I also think that the Romney for SecState is another tactical decision. A little nervousness is to be understood. BUT….
      Like Dave says, “Give the man a chance.”

      Liked by 5 people

    • AMEN,Dave!

      Liked by 2 people

  16. From what I have read, a POTUS can pardon an individual even if they have not been indicted or found guilty of any crime. It would not, however, cover future crimes. Re. Ford’s pardon of Nixon, it is believed that Nixon stepped down so Ford could pardon him, as he could not pardon himself. It is also believed by some that, since Obama is complicit in emailgate, he may consider stepping down; then POTUS Joe Biden could pardon him. These criminals know all the tricks, don’t they? If the Trump administration doesn’t stop the corruption and drain the swamp, it will only get worse.


    • If that was true,then EVERY President,VP,etc. etc. would just collect their “Pardon-In-Advance” before they take office,”just in case”. Trying to Pardon someone without an arrest,prosecution and conviction would be a meaningless effort. Pardon him-for WHAT? It’s not on any legal documents,not on any court papers. The subject of the Pardon doesn’t yet exist. It’d be like trying to put out a forest fire before it’s ignited.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Oddly not EVERY President and /or vice President are this corrupt and in need of a pardon! Obama has blatantly lied to the public on many occasions – I can’t believe at any other time in our history – the media would have ignored these facts. The Left Wing media love the race card- and this gives Obama the ability to be as crooked as he wants- with complete media immunity. Would it have been any different with Clinton? Anyone who disagreed with her policies would be labelled a chauvinist and vilified, case closed!

        Liked by 2 people

        • You’re right,but it wouldn’t hurt to have one,just in case something goes sideways for no apparent reason. Not every driver needs a spare tire in his car,but it sure doesn’t hurt to have one anyway,for the same reason…

          Liked by 1 person

      • EXCELLENT!!
        Perhaps after the Swamp is actually drained, and we return to some semblance of Constitutional Govt, immigration is controlled, govt officials honor their Oaths of Office, the “natural born Citizen” and “Anchor Baby” issues are CORRECTLY decided, Trump’s AG can push for a decision on Pardons.
        I ask, “How can Obama pardon Hillary when he is an un-indited co-conspirator in her Email crimes?” There is proof that he knew about her server, knew it was illegal, used it anyway, and used an alias.
        He is simply pardoning her to avoid an investigation and trial that would expose his own guilt of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. And everybody with 3 or more brain-cells to rub together knows it.
        This is the problem with Govt Corruption. If you allow any, then where do you stop?

        It is like the bucket of beer problem? if you pour a cup of horse-piss in a bucket of beer, what do you have? (tick, tock) Most will say, “Horse piss! I ain’t drinking that!” So how about just an ounce, nobody will know, right? Or just a cc?
        It is either beer or adulterated horse piss. Truth and Justice are kinda like that. We can bend the law with mercy in sentencing for “evil old Granny”, but not ignore the law. Let’s not ruin the whole bucket of beer for everyone.

        Liked by 2 people

  17. I have said that a President Trump MUST prosecute the Clintons, or else lose all moral authority. That being said, maybe—MAYBE—there is more going on here, at this point.
    The media and the Establishment are still having their hissy fit over this man’s legal, lawful victory over his opponent. Now I hear people are begging him personally. So he is making nice—FOR NOW.
    Maybe—just maybe—Trump is playing a game of tit for tat here. A sort of chess game. From a legal perspective, although the President is the highest law enforcement officer in the Country, in a sense HE won’t be prosecuting the Clintons: The Attorney General will. Whatever….

    The Establishment is trying to wring a definite answer out of Mr. Trump here. It seems to me he really doesn’t want to give one. Again, he had better press forward on it. But he has to assemble his Cabinet, his team, NOW. He has this to do FIRST. So I see the hysterical media and Establishment’s BAD FAITH here. I don’t see bad faith on the part of Mr. Trump YET.
    There is ONE POSSIBLE EXCUSE for a President Trump letting this one go, and ONLY ONE: Why waste millions of dollars pursuing a defendant that will not live to the end of a trial? That is a consideration—not of Justice, but of expedience, excused by circumstance. I don’t like that. Maybe Mr. Trump doesn’t like it, either. Either way, Mr. Trump cannot afford to get bogged down in a political fight he cannot win. But it looks to me that, for now, he is trying to fend off an hysterical media and Establishment, one which really wants to derail him before he takes the oath. Certainly, Mr. Trump knows that much.
    Time will tell.

    Liked by 3 people

    • “Why waste millions of dollars pursuing a defendant that will not live to the end of a trial? ”
      I didn’t expect her to survive the Election,but she appeared to rally her strength to an amazing degree and actually pull herself relatively together.
      I remain convinced that if Trump makes any kind of move to have Sessions begin indictment proceedings on Clinton,Obama will EO a blanket Pardon retro-dated to begin 30 or fewer minutes after he leaves office.
      Therefore,ANY legal pursuit must wait until Obama has left and has no authority to Pardon anyone. THEN,once there’s an indictment,arrest,trial,prosecution and conviction,Trump will have the option of a Pardon for her,which I’m quite sure he would not only refuse to do,but would laugh at the suggestion.
      This is just my opinion,but what do I know-I’m just a dumb Biker. I’m NOT an Attorney,but I DID sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

      Liked by 3 people

      • I like TJ’s idea of BIG Restitution! That as a condition of a suspended sentence. Hopefully a long one with a condition of keeping out of politics or go back to prison and do every day of her time if she lives that long.
        She should not get a pass on this, and damn shouldn’t get a Pardon! There is no excuse for her willful and intentional violation of National Security! If she gets away with it, the next Arrogant Lib/Prog will do it, or something worse.

        Liked by 1 person

  18. Isn’t Clinton foundation in NY? Can’t the NY prosecutor bring charges up? The NYPD would be involved as well. Maybe the charges won’t be on the Foundation but something much more evil? The server and Foundation may be small fish compared to other things they found on Weiner’s laptop. Who knows? I just want to see justice done. I had thought that Trump was scared that Hillary had some goods on him so therefore was going to let this slide. I think the next four years are going to be bumpy. Buckle up!

    Liked by 3 people

  19. Reblogged this on necltr and commented:

    This all could go a few ways for many reasons.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s