In the wake of the Comey firing, which dredged up memories of the absurd non-indictment indictment from almost a year ago, and today’s revelation that gunned-down not-robbed obviously-murdered-for-snitching DNC staffer Seth Rich was in fact funneling DNC emails to WikiLeaks, together with Dr. Pantsuit firing up a new political racket about how fascism is still great and we should resist people who want to uphold the Constitution and preserve free speech and enforce the law, I think that now’s the time to put out an idea that I had way back before the inauguration of God-Emperor Trump (but after the election). I definitely want to get this down and published before something occurs to make it look like I’m just blindingly rationalizing the President’s actions like some slobbering minion (but since I’m not a Democrat that doesn’t happen). So here I am, May 16, 2017, going on the record:
I think President Trump ought to officially pardon Hillary Clinton, once and for all.
Yeah, you read that right. Stick with me while I explain why.
It should be beyond obvious to anyone who has read either my comments on Twitchy or any of my posts here about the evil Dr. Pantsuit that I hold the Clintons (all of them) in utter contempt. I’m not a hateful person but if I hate anyone it would be them, because I do believe they are truly evil to the core. Billy Jeff is a scumbag but he’s actually the least vile of the three in my estimation. Chelsea is a clueless, talentless, unlikeable, overprivileged loudmouth but so far she’s been at arm’s length from some of the worst of the Clinton crime syndicate, including the mile-long trail of bodies following the Clintons from Arkansas all the way up to Seth Rich. Dr. Pantsuit is by far the worst of the three. I have no doubt she has been the brains of the operation from the beginning and she has amassed a core of loyalists for whom no amount of embarrassment or level of depravity is too great, and it is only her immense innate repulsiveness on the level of a Disney villain without the endearing musical numbers that keeps her cult of personality in check. Even with that caveat, she has until very recently proven to be politically indestructible, only losing out to Whatshisname after a long and bitter primary battle in 2008 before suffering what ought to be her final defeat last November. And although her drones and sycophantic admirers still think she can possibly press on and revivify her mojo for a rematch with President Trump in 2020, we all know she barely survived this campaign by taking weeks off appearances at a stretch. Of course, maybe these hikes in the woods are her endurance training and she’s wired up with the same immortality juice that keeps George Soros alive, we don’t know at this juncture. But my point is that my suggestion is not made out of some care or even respect for the evil Dr. Pantsuit. I personally would like to see her in a court of law to be tried, convicted, and sentenced for her numerous crimes, and forever barred from holding public office once and for all. I’d like this not just because she is a reprehensible piece of rotting filth who got people killed to cover up her avarice and illegal fundraising, not merely because she’s a globalist tyrant in waiting who sees your children as the property of the state unless their mother makes a unilateral decision to butcher them in the womb, not simply because she richly deserves it and her weeping followers richly deserve to see their idol go down in flames, but my primary concern is that justice be done and that we as a nation declare unequivocally that no one, no matter how wealthy or influential or female they might be, no one is above the law.
And right now, and for the foreseeable future, a pardon is the only way that could possibly be accomplished.
You see, when James Comey said that no reasonable prosecutor would ever bring charges against Dr. Pantsuit, he was at least partly right, but not for the reasons he laid out. Comey went on a long diatribe about “intent” when the statute Dr. Pantsuit would have been charged under had no such requirement–most crimes require an intent to determine either whether the act was criminal at all, or the level of severity of the offense. This is why it’s a defense to a speeding ticket to show that your speedometer was improperly calibrated and why involuntary manslaughter is not as serious as murder. The statute Dr. Pantsuit violated regarding mishandling or theft of classified documents has no such requirement because the information you are handling is of such a sensitive nature that you must exercise extreme care if you are entrusted with them. You know about this requirement going into the job and you’re well aware that you’re responsible if you screw up. A good analogy would be if you work for the CDC and are given a vial of anthrax or some other deadly virus to transport, you are responsible for ensuring that you take care of that item and take the appropriate precautionary steps to prevent it from either falling into the wrong hands or accidentally being released. If you slide the thing in your shirt pocket and it falls out while you’re stopped for a burger at McDonald’s then it doesn’t matter if you didn’t mean to cause a major outbreak, you should have known better and you knew that going in. You’re not uneducated, you’re not just some fool off the side of the road (presumably at least–there are many fools on the side of the road who would have been far better at being Secretary of State than Dr. Pantsuit was), you understand the stakes and you’re given the tools to make sure you can do the job safely. So this “intent” nonsense has nothing whatsoever to do with whether this was a charge that a reasonable prosecutor would bring.
What does have everything to do with that is that the defendant’s name would be Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not only would she have a team of the best lawyers in the country to make a spectacle of the trial, not only would any prosecutor who signed on to take her down be dragged through the mud and smeared with the foulest slander since Ken Starr, but good damned luck finding a jury who could be anything close to impartial. Oh sure, the people who ended up getting picked would swear up and down that they’d listen to the evidence and make their decisions based solely on what was presented in court, they’d literally swear to make their verdict not subject to fear or favor, but don’t delude yourself, everyone on that jury would have their verdict in mind long before they were even empaneled–and it only takes a single holdout to make a hung jury. Which after a trial that would most certainly take months would be the functional equivalent of an acquittal–and that’s how the dinosaur media and millions of Pantsuit drones would spin it. President Trump said he could shoot someone in the middle of New York City and it wouldn’t cost him any supporters. Dr. Pantsuit could do the same and she would never be convicted. Oh sure, there’s a one-in-a-million chance you could wind up with a jury that was actually principled and impartial people (in which I am including people who go into the trial already knowing Dr. Pantsuit is guilty), but those aren’t odds I’d take, not when the price of losing is the left suddenly getting “Hillary’s totally innocent!!!1!” as a talking point. So, the reason no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case is because he’d be signing up to torpedo his own career, spend at least six months putting on a case that he knows is almost guaranteed to end in a hung jury, and basically ruin his life to accomplish the exact opposite of what he would be trying to do. Even the most devoted conservative prosecutors out there wouldn’t bring this case because the end result would be seen and spun as a total exoneration of Dr. Pantsuit.
And then there’s a pardon. For a time we were all worried that Whatshisname would pardon pretty much everybody in his administration from Uncle Joe on down on January 19th and might pre-empt any attempts to “lock her up,” but the reason this did not happen (or at least a strongly likely possibility) is that you do not pardon someone who has done no wrong. Let me say that again: a pardon would have been a tacit admission that the person being pardoned had in fact done something to be pardoned for. Of course Whatshisname isn’t going to do that unless he absolutely has to. This is exactly why President Trump ought to pardon Hillary Clinton. On the one hand, he’d score political points for being “reasonable” and “putting politics aside” as low-info types who don’t get it think he’s showing great magnanimity in burying the hatchet from the last election (and let’s see Stephen Colbert explain to his audience why no, they shouldn’t be applauding this one either). But on the other, he’ll be affixing that black Nixonian mark to Dr. Pantsuit for all time to come–and there’s nothing she can do about it. What’s she going to do, complain about not being prosecuted? You can’t appeal a pardon. A pardon does not go to a jury. A pardon says in subtle but nonetheless clear terms that “you’re guilty, and I’m letting you off.” When it comes right down to it, even if you could get a conviction, it would not result in jail time and there’s no amount of money that the Clintons would even blink at in terms of a fine. What we really want, and what the Clintons are desperate to avoid, is to declare her guilty (because it’s already been proven). A pardon does that, unilaterally and unequivocally. It skips the trial, skips the circus, gets straight to the verdict and just leaves out the sentence that we know won’t even be a slap on the wrist anyway.
I want her locked up. Believe me, there are few things I would like more. But I work in the system, and I know it’s not going to happen, and I know that even trying will only backfire on us horrifically. A pardon is the closest thing to justice we’re ever going to see in this case. I’ll take it.