If Hillary Clinton thought losing the presidency was a nightmare, it is nothing compared to what she could now face: a legal inferno that may be hard to extinguish. Instead of living comfortably in the White House, Clinton must now confront the real and serious threat of living in smaller confines. And I don’t mean Chappaqua. Once in office, President Donald Trump may feel compelled to fulfill his campaign promise to voters that his administration will pursue what he described as Clinton’s criminality. He repeatedly vowed to prosecute Clinton and, if elected, to put her behind bars. He said it to her face in the second debate, to which she responded, “It’s a good thing somebody like Trump is not in charge.” Soon, he will be in charge. And Clinton may find herself in jeopardy, staring in the mirror wondering what went wrong and whom to blame. In front of a television audience of 66 million Americans, Trump promised this: “I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, because there has never been so many lies, so much deception. People have been, their lives have been destroyed for doing one-fifth of what you’ve done, and it’s a disgrace, and honestly, you ought to be ashamed.” Shame is the least of Clinton’s worries right now. Indictment, conviction and incarceration seem more pressing. Will Trump make good on his pledge? How could he not? The debate aside, Trump made the term “crooked Hillary” a staple of his campaign rhetoric. Amid raucous chants of “lock her up”, he assured his supporters that a special prosecutor would be appointed in a Trump administration. That’s the trouble with campaign promises. They’re like taxes, you’re stuck with them. If you break your promise and reverse course, you’re accused of insincerity at best, lying at worst. Ask Bush 41 about his infamous pledge, “read my lips: no new taxes”. His subsequent flip-flop so angered his supporters that he lost re-election to a guy from Arkansas named Bill Clinton. Can Trump instruct his attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor? No. Under the law, a president is not empowered to do so. He does not have the legal authority to direct an Attorney General to do anything other than pass the chips and guacamole. Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School dove off the deep end when he described Trump’s promise to have the Democratic nominee investigated criminally as “an impeachable offense”. In an email to Fortune, Tribe claimed that “vows to use a nation’s criminal justice system against one’s vanquished political opponent… is incompatible with the survival of a stable constitutional republic”. Say what? By Tribe’s reasoning, any suspected criminal could run for president and then get a free pass. Since when does running for office absolve you of criminal consequences? If someone has committed serious crimes that compromise national security, that person is not entitled to the equivalent of immunity simply because he or she is a candidate for high office. The threat to the constitution reposes in a justice system that refuses to pursue politicians who break the law because some scholarly elites might regard it as “bad form”. Trump may be guilty of politicizing a criminal investigation of Clinton, but that does not render a potential prosecution any less legitimate or sound in a court of law.
Exactly!! That outstanding legal piece was put together by former defense attorney Gregg Jarrett who is now a Fox News anchor. To read the rest, click on the text above. Excellent! 🙂