Sessions' Testimony Strengthens Case For Clinton Pardon by Obama

WASHINGTON - Jan. 10, 2017 - PRLog -- Although many have made a strong case that outgoing President Barack Obama should pardon Hillary Clinton before he leaves office, in view of the many threats incoming president Donald Trump made to put her in jail (sic, prison), testimony this morning by Sen. Jeff Sessions that he would recuse himself from any investigations involving her greatly strengthens this case, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf.

        Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, in asking how Sessions would deal with any investigations regarding Clinton, also recognized that same very distinct possibility.

        Since both are clearly indicating that such investigations are possible if not probable, and recognizing that the Justice Department will be firmly in the hands of a party which has repeatedly condemned her allegedly illegal activities, even if Sessions does completely recuse himself, the need for a presidential pardon to prevent not only unfairness to Clinton, but also to prevent a further rift between the two parties and among members of the public, is now much stronger, argues Banzhaf.

        There is clear precedent for a president to grant a "full, free, and absolute pardon" "for all offenses against the United States" even without naming the offenses; that's what President Gerald Ford did for Richard Nixon in order to prevent further "prolonged and divisive debate." The same argument could now be made regarding Clinton.

        Ford's action was seen by some as controversial and divisive, and it may have used up valuable political capital and weakened his presidency.  On the other hand, if Obama does the same for Clinton just before he leaves office, it would not impede or undermine what he had already accomplished.

        It should certainly be understood, despite some reassuring but vague statements by Trump, that Clinton might always be prosecuted based upon newly discovered evidence.

        This new evidence could come from FBI investigators looking into her email problem, or into concerns related to the Clinton Foundation, etc.   It could also come from congressional investigations.

        For example, Republican House Member Jason Chaffetz, who leads the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has pledged that his committee would continue to investigate the matter because "we've got to get to the truth."

        New evidence which might justify further investigation, and possibly even prosecution, could also come from other legal proceedings.  Judicial Watch, for example, which has already obtained thousands of pages of Clinton's State Department documents through litigation, is vowing to continue its legal onslaught despite her presidential defeat.

        Banzhaf also notes that, even if there is in fact no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, forcing Ms. Clinton to go through additional Justice Department investigations could harm the Democratic party as well as Clinton herself.

     Although outgoing Attorney General Lorette Lynch promised to follow the FBI's recommendations regarding this matter, there is no guarantee that the incoming political appointees just under Sessions at the Justice Department will do the same.

        A Clinton pardon might spare the country a great deal of unnecessary grief, concludes Banzhaf

JOHN F. BANZHAF III, B.S.E.E., J.D., Sc.D.
Professor of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School,
FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor,
Fellow, World Technology Network,
Founder, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
2000 H Street, NW, Wash, DC 20052, USA
(202) 994-7229 // (703) 527-8418
http://banzhaf.net/  jbanzhafATgmail.com  @profbanzhaf