"You'll be in jail..." Strategerizing...

We all remember the repartee from the debates, where President-elect Trump threatened to put Hillary Clinton in jail for her multiple felonies. So how likely is it to happen? I don't know, obviously, but I have a few thoughts.

A couple things could happen: Obama could proactively pardon her, Trump be magnanimous and decline to prosecute as a way of "mending fences", she could got to trial and be acquitted, or she could go to jail.

I doubt Obama will pardon her. While he seems to have mellowed a bit in his second term, Obama has a nasty tendency to throw people under the bus when they make him look bad. And Hillary Clinton has made Obama look bad. Her bungling of the Middle East in general and Libya in particular nearly cost him the 2012 election. If the media hadn't been in the bag for him and Romney hadn't been so woefully inept, he would have lost in 2012. And the Benghazi debacle--and subsequent cover-up would have been a big part of that.

Then you get this whole private e-mail server scandal. It was a needless self-inflicted wound. And forget getting people killed and compromising classified information, it made Obama look bad. It showed him as lying about his awareness of the situation. Obama doesn't like to be caught looking bad.

Finally, Obama went to bat for her in a big way. He flew around in Air Force One, stumping for Hillary. And she lost in spite of his best efforts. So I'd say unless Hillary has some serious dirt on Obama that hasn't already been exposed by WikiLeaks, she shouldn't count on a pardon from her.

As for Trump...

While Trump talked tough and doesn't tend to show a lot of mercy to his adversaries, he's got to try to win over the Hillaretards to keep them from burning down their own houses. So on one hand, there is a case for bygones. But on the other hand, faith in the US legal system is in tatters after 8 years of Obama using it as his secret police to persecute enemies and engage in vendettas. Prosecuting Hillary would go a long way towards showing Trump is serious on reform. So it comes down to whether or not Trump can mend fences and bring Hope and Change by declining to go after Hillary.

Here's the thing: Liberals don't look at compassion as strength. They see it as weakness. If Trump doesn't prosecute Clinton, they'll see him as weak--and they'll rationalize that he didn't prosecute because Hillary was really an innocent victim all along. So I think Trump NEEDS to go after Hillary on all charges and try to bury her to send a message that America is a nation of law.

As to a trial...

About half the nation turned a blind eye to Hillary's faults--and actually claimed she was somehow qualified to run the country--so I guess you can't rule out an acquittal (or jury nullification)--but the scope and range of Clinton's crimes is so broad and deep that an acquittal defies rational thought. Shoot, you don't even need a prosecutor or any new casework. Just run all but the last 2 minutes of Comey's report on the FBI investigation and you've got a pretty air tight case to put away Hillary Clinton for a very long time. Then add in the new details that have since surfaced, and I suspect Hillary will have something to talk about with Martha Stewart the next time they get together.

Tried and sentenced to die.

Execution: gang rape by Syrian refugees until dead.

The problem with this fantasy yarn is that she would need to have actually broken the law. Anyway, I had a great run this morning. Eight miles, haven't run that kind of distance in probably at least a year.

I don't think Obama should pardon her. Isn't that like a tacit admission that she is in fact a criminal and that two months earlier Obama tried to help her be president? Why make that admission? If she goes down another way so be it. But let's not make the party look even worse by having its leader admit that they did agree she's a crook yet tried to get her into the White House.

This just in: She broke just about every law on handling classified materials that there is. She probably even broke laws that we don't know about because they're classified. She also engaged in fraud, tax evasion, bribery, and public corruption.

You've confused your pronouns.

It was beautiful here in NY too. Took the dog out for a walk, got some coffee, then took my new bicycle out for a ride.

I grabbed some random woman's pussy and then stomped a Muslim to death. America!

I agree with @Faceman, Obama would look like any idiot if he did it.

Trump has already said he has better things to do, and why would he prosecute an old buddy?

+100 extra points if it was the same person.

But Trump isn't the person who would be prosecuting. The FBI and DoJ would. All Trump will be doing is the normal transition, replacing corrupt Democrat hacks with normal prosecutors who prosecute serious crimes like mishandling classified information, public corruption, fraud, and tax evasion.

Do you think Obama was personally directing every FBI prosecution for the past eight years? No. Quite a lot of them just fell into the FBI's lap, such as General Petraeus.

Some of these mid-Fall days can just be spectacular. I'm looking forward to a beer on my deck this afternoon.

Why would you wish something so horrible on someone? Syrian or not, they are people, too.

San Diego always has nice weather, so yay me

Oh San Diego is lovely! But even as a New Yorker the rents there make me lightheaded.

This is probably the best argument for him not doing it.

Everyone on the left claims she broke no laws. Well why need a pardon then? If she broke no law there is no way a Trump DOJ could ever indict her and survive in court. In fact it would be a huge disaster for a Trump administration if she was charged and the evidence wasn't strong enough to convict.

I still think he may pardon her. Not because he doesn't want her to go to jail. I don't think he actually cares about that. I think he pardons her because we now know he was emailing her at her private server and he was using a secret email account as well.

"Once informed that the sender's name is believed to be a pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed: 'How is this not classified?'" the report says. "Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president's use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email.

The State Department has refused to make public that and other emails Clinton exchanged with Obama. Lawyers have cited the "presidential communications privilege," a variation of executive privilege, in order to withhold the messages under the Freedom of Information Act." http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-228607

You keep pulling on enough weeds and they may expose him if he's done anything. Even if he were to never be charged it would make it beyond reasonable doubt that he lied that he didn't know about her email thing until the news reported it and it would potentially expose him to more damning revelations depending on what they were emailing to each other. His place in the history books would take a severe beating.

So I think he pardons her in an attempt to CYA himself.

Now that I think about it I never ran eight miles at a time even when I was in the military. I humped a ruck, but never "ran" that far. I think the furthest I ever ran was a 10K (on the weekend for fun) in 1993. I just don't like distance running.

Possible scenario: Trump pardons Hillary.

That will be the most likely scenario. Trump will be in charge before any legal charges get rolling. But I think everyone should forget all about charging her - they have a country to run, a lot of work to be done. Hillary is small potatoes now. Trump should distance himself from the whole affair IMO.

Well, that was my point. Except for Nixon and Obama, Presidents don't get involved in FBI prosecutions.

The FBI is going to do what the FBI is going to do. It was never supposed to be a political question, and whether a person is running for office should have absolutely no bearing on the wheels of justice. You and I have exactly the same rights to a lawful investigation and a fair and impartial trial as Hillary does, but conversely she has no more right to avoid those, when the evidence requires it, than we do.

Equality before the law is a fundamental principle. We can't have one set of rules and procedures for ordinary citizens and another set for power-mad corrupt politicians or it will undermine trust in the entire system.

If he comes in and one of his first acts is to pardon Hillary it will close off the issue and give him another personal victory.

A trial could well find her not guilty, however if he pardons her, that's how the issue will be remembered by history. Decades from now high school students learning history will no nothing of Hillary apart from her being Trumps opponent who he graciously pardoned when he took office.

We don't have shit on San Francisco, where they can get away with renting by the bunk bed

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nk-bed-rooms-groups-six-people-550-month.html

At least here, it's still possible to find a $500 /more studio....even if it's in the East Village with the drug users and tent cities.

Trump: I could shoot someone in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue and my supporters would remain.
Clinton: The body count is above 65 but my supporters are unaware and compliant.

Ramen's creepy-as-fuck masturbatory fantasies aside, Trump knows -- or if he doesn't know, one of the grownups in his circle will tell him -- that getting elected and then throwing your opponent in jail is banana republic stuff and can only hurt him.

Only the stupidest of his supporters (read: the Pepe the Frog brigade) will want him to force the issue.

People are really blowing that line out of proportion.

It was said in response to a Hillary jab of "Its a good thing that a man with the temperment of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in this country." It was funny, but in no way anything to take seriously.

Yes that's good point. If the FBI is initiating the investigating and pushing for a grand jury officially charging her with a crime that's their project. Trump wouldn't be involved anyway -once the trial is over (could take a long, long
time!) and if she is found guilty then Trump could say "Hillary who? Oh her! I forgot all about that" and graciously pardon her. Everybody wins except the taxpayers footing the bill for a long, expensive trial/legal proceedings.

A buddy of mine just moved into a studio in the east village because he is going to law school. It is $1900 a month for a tiny place and parking costs extra with bums all around and he thinks he got a good deal. At least it is a new high rise (well, midrise at least as it has 42 stories) .

My buddy's place is in the east village (to be near the law school he is going to) and it is $1900 a month. The only affordable places there are either ancient (and they are getting torn down because the city wants to end urbam blight in the area) or they are reserved for housing the homeless via housing vouchers.

No one else wants them as most of them still have severe problems and are a headache for landlords. No one but city owned buildings are willing to take methheads, the raving mentally ill, or drunks who routinely fall down stairwells and then piss and shit on themselves in a blacked out state.

The east village is best avoided as that is where the city concentrates all the problem cases.