Post by tantalyr on Feb 17, 2016 2:31:53 GMT
Yes, I'm a long-time political junkie, so I offer some random observations about both parties' candidates and issues surrounding them. This one--Part I in a series I hope to conclude with various posts this week--offers some thoughts (and some legal observations) about Hillary Clinton.
First, as I have opined previously on this forum, Hillary substantially lacks both the political skills and charisma of her husband. Bill could go into a room with four folks and walk out with five shirts. Hillary would be lucky if she kept her own blouse. The fact that she barely squeaked out a tiny, tiny popular caucus vote victory in Iowa, and decisively lost the popular vote in the New Hampshire primary, to an avowed socialist pretty much confirms my view.
Second, Hillary has recently decided to wholly embrace Obama's policy and has repeatedly stated, directly and indirectly, that she is essentially running for a third term of his presidency. Plainly, this is her effort to glue the "Obama Coalition" behind her nomination efforts. While certainly this is not a foolish notion in abstract terms (since Obama won two elections with this coalition), nevertheless she has already lost one of the most important segments of that coalition--the millennial vote. For months, every poll (as well as the two states to hold primaries thus far) has demonstrated that under-30 voters are flocking in droves to Sanders. Importantly, polling consistently shows that this age demographic preference spreads across racial demographics--white, black and Hispanic. In other words, younger black and Hispanic potential voters are not nearly as likely to turn out to vote for Hillary today as they did for Obama, or her husband two decades ago.
Third, as a corollary to the immediately preceding observation, I would suggest that we all watch closely NOT whether Hillary wins the South Carolina primary (she probably will), but instead (a) the turnout of black Democratic primary voters, and (b) what percentage of those voters actually vote for her. I am fairly confident that (a) the black Democratic voter turnout in South Carolina's primary will not even begin to approach the turnout in 2008 (when Obama faced off against Hillary), and (b) Hillary will not win nearly the percentage of black voters in the primary that Obama did in 2008, or even Kerry in 2004. Hence, I do not think Hillary's touted minority voter firewall in southern states will come to pass.
Finally, let's consider the drip, drip, drip of the private email problem that Hillary has. Let's assume (along with more than a few political and legal pundits) that the rather famously independent Director Comey of the FBI formally recommends empanelling a grand jury to consider charges of violating federal secrecy laws arising from passing classified material through her private server, not to mention political corruption arising from, well let's just say "questionable" donations to the Clinton Foundation by persons and entities with pending business before the State Department during her tenure as Secretary of State. Such a recommendation would put not only Hillary, but Obama as well, in a rather nasty box.
If Obama intercedes with his Department of Justice and instructs them not to accept the FBI director's request, then undoubtedly shouts of "cover-up" will follow, and Obama will be compared over and again to Nixon, thus staining whatever legacy he might have. Moreover, as the central figure in the "cover-up," such an intercession will necessarily hurt, rather than help, Hillary's chances of ever winning the Democratic nomination (much less the general election).
Or Obama could issue a pardon to Hillary for whatever crimes the FBI might conclude she may have committed, thus obviating any further investigation or legal proceedings. But in my view, a pardon would be even more harmful to Hillary's chances of nomination/election because in my experience it has been the general view among folks that someone cannot and should not be pardoned for crimes he/she did not commit. Hence, a presidential pardon would likely be viewed among the general electorate as essentially an admission that Hillary committed one or more crimes.
So, were I a trusted adviser to Obama (which of course I am not), I would strongly advise him to eschew either course of action and simply let the chips fall where they may. Either intercession with the DoJ to stop a grand jury investigation or a presidential pardon will not in the least help either Obama or Hillary.
Now a couple of interesting--to me at least--legal/constitutional observations. I have reviewed the Democratic National Committee rules respecting nomination of the party's candidate for president. There is NOTHING in those rules which authorizes the Committee to require a candidate to drop out of the race for the nomination, or even the general election for the designated nominee except for the death of the nominee. So, if Hillary is indicted before or after the Democratic convention, there is nothing the DNC can legally do to force her to forego her candidacy. (Of course the DNC could ask her to forfeit her nomination, but I rather suspect I know what her answer would be . . . .)
Along the same lines, the Supreme Court long ago established that (a) a sitting president cannot be criminally prosecuted unless and until he/she has been impeached and removed from office, and (b) a president (and any other federal officer subject to impeachment under the Constitution) may only be impeached for "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors" committed while the president was in office. Here, the alleged crimes committed by Hillary occurred while she was Secretary of State, not while she occupied the office of the presidency. So, if (a) Hillary is indicted before the general election, but (b) wins the presidency anyway, then she can neither be prosecuted for those crimes nor impeached. In effect, she would have immunity from prosecution for 4 to 8 years.
The Chinese have an age-old curse: "May you live in interesting times." Methinks this year, at least, we are so cursed.
First, as I have opined previously on this forum, Hillary substantially lacks both the political skills and charisma of her husband. Bill could go into a room with four folks and walk out with five shirts. Hillary would be lucky if she kept her own blouse. The fact that she barely squeaked out a tiny, tiny popular caucus vote victory in Iowa, and decisively lost the popular vote in the New Hampshire primary, to an avowed socialist pretty much confirms my view.
Second, Hillary has recently decided to wholly embrace Obama's policy and has repeatedly stated, directly and indirectly, that she is essentially running for a third term of his presidency. Plainly, this is her effort to glue the "Obama Coalition" behind her nomination efforts. While certainly this is not a foolish notion in abstract terms (since Obama won two elections with this coalition), nevertheless she has already lost one of the most important segments of that coalition--the millennial vote. For months, every poll (as well as the two states to hold primaries thus far) has demonstrated that under-30 voters are flocking in droves to Sanders. Importantly, polling consistently shows that this age demographic preference spreads across racial demographics--white, black and Hispanic. In other words, younger black and Hispanic potential voters are not nearly as likely to turn out to vote for Hillary today as they did for Obama, or her husband two decades ago.
Third, as a corollary to the immediately preceding observation, I would suggest that we all watch closely NOT whether Hillary wins the South Carolina primary (she probably will), but instead (a) the turnout of black Democratic primary voters, and (b) what percentage of those voters actually vote for her. I am fairly confident that (a) the black Democratic voter turnout in South Carolina's primary will not even begin to approach the turnout in 2008 (when Obama faced off against Hillary), and (b) Hillary will not win nearly the percentage of black voters in the primary that Obama did in 2008, or even Kerry in 2004. Hence, I do not think Hillary's touted minority voter firewall in southern states will come to pass.
Finally, let's consider the drip, drip, drip of the private email problem that Hillary has. Let's assume (along with more than a few political and legal pundits) that the rather famously independent Director Comey of the FBI formally recommends empanelling a grand jury to consider charges of violating federal secrecy laws arising from passing classified material through her private server, not to mention political corruption arising from, well let's just say "questionable" donations to the Clinton Foundation by persons and entities with pending business before the State Department during her tenure as Secretary of State. Such a recommendation would put not only Hillary, but Obama as well, in a rather nasty box.
If Obama intercedes with his Department of Justice and instructs them not to accept the FBI director's request, then undoubtedly shouts of "cover-up" will follow, and Obama will be compared over and again to Nixon, thus staining whatever legacy he might have. Moreover, as the central figure in the "cover-up," such an intercession will necessarily hurt, rather than help, Hillary's chances of ever winning the Democratic nomination (much less the general election).
Or Obama could issue a pardon to Hillary for whatever crimes the FBI might conclude she may have committed, thus obviating any further investigation or legal proceedings. But in my view, a pardon would be even more harmful to Hillary's chances of nomination/election because in my experience it has been the general view among folks that someone cannot and should not be pardoned for crimes he/she did not commit. Hence, a presidential pardon would likely be viewed among the general electorate as essentially an admission that Hillary committed one or more crimes.
So, were I a trusted adviser to Obama (which of course I am not), I would strongly advise him to eschew either course of action and simply let the chips fall where they may. Either intercession with the DoJ to stop a grand jury investigation or a presidential pardon will not in the least help either Obama or Hillary.
Now a couple of interesting--to me at least--legal/constitutional observations. I have reviewed the Democratic National Committee rules respecting nomination of the party's candidate for president. There is NOTHING in those rules which authorizes the Committee to require a candidate to drop out of the race for the nomination, or even the general election for the designated nominee except for the death of the nominee. So, if Hillary is indicted before or after the Democratic convention, there is nothing the DNC can legally do to force her to forego her candidacy. (Of course the DNC could ask her to forfeit her nomination, but I rather suspect I know what her answer would be . . . .)
Along the same lines, the Supreme Court long ago established that (a) a sitting president cannot be criminally prosecuted unless and until he/she has been impeached and removed from office, and (b) a president (and any other federal officer subject to impeachment under the Constitution) may only be impeached for "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors" committed while the president was in office. Here, the alleged crimes committed by Hillary occurred while she was Secretary of State, not while she occupied the office of the presidency. So, if (a) Hillary is indicted before the general election, but (b) wins the presidency anyway, then she can neither be prosecuted for those crimes nor impeached. In effect, she would have immunity from prosecution for 4 to 8 years.
The Chinese have an age-old curse: "May you live in interesting times." Methinks this year, at least, we are so cursed.