Hillary Negotiating Secret Pardon With Obama’s White House Counsel

[timosman]

http://truepundit.com/hillary-negotiating-secret-pardon-with-obamas-white-house-counsel-who-previously-worked-for-clinton-family-white-house/


December 27, 2016

http://i0.wp.com/truepundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/laughingstock-12.jpg

Hillary and President Bill Clinton are secretly negotiating framework for a potential pardon from President Barack Obama that would spare Hillary from looming criminal indictments, according to Justice Department sources.

But there’s a catch, as there often is when it comes to legal proceedings and the Clinton family. Neil Eggleston, White House Counsel to the President who oversees and approves all presidential pardons and commutations, was previously employed by President Bill Clinton’s White House as a key lawyer to the former president and Hillary Clinton. Also, Eggleston has previously represented Cheryl Mills, a key Hillary attorney believed to be involved in Clinton’s clemency negotiations.

Even though she has not been charged yet with any crimes, the Obama pardon would shield Hillary from any criminal charges she could face under a Donald Trump administration and a Sen. Jeff Sessions-led Justice Department.

Sources said Obama green-lighted the Clinton talks with Eggleston prior to departing for his last presidential vacation in Hawaii. However, allowing the Clintons and their attorneys to negotiate directly with Eggleston smacks of a serious conflict of interest, whether or not the sides agree on acceptable clemency terms for the former secretary of state. In an corruption-free administration, Eggleston would step aside and recuse himself from such negotiations having served as a Clinton family lawyer during the most tumultuous period of Bill’s Clinton’s presidency, including his impeachment.

But the Obama administration is anything but corruption free.

Hillary Clinton is the target of at least one criminal FBI probe for mishandling classified and top secret emails and government secrets and possibly other criminal charges as the FBI is likewise investigating the Clinton Foundation for money laundering and pay-to-play involved crimes.

Clinton family legal consigliere David Kendall, who co-defended President Clinton with Eggleston during Whitewater and the Lewinsky affair, did not return requests for comment. According to sources, Kendall along with fellow Williams & Connolly attorneys Katherine Turner and Amy Saharia are involved in the current Hillary talks with the White House.

Eggleston did not return calls left at his White House office. If fact, his underlings in the White House Counsel office said he is no longer taking phone calls.

Hired for his expertise in criminal defense, Eggleston served in the White House as associate counsel to President Clinton from 1993 through 1994. Since then, Eggleston had become one of the most powerful defense attorneys in the Beltway prior to 2014 when he signed on to work as Obama’s counsel. Eggleston represented President Clinton during the Whitewater real estate corruption probes and his tangled affair with Monica Lewinsky. Hillary Clinton was previously a target of the Whitewater investigation as well and certainly benefited from Eggleston’s defense of her husband and co-target for illicit real estate deals in Arkansas.

In 2009 Eggleston also served as attorney for then-Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel during the pay-for-play scandal of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich involving the alleged sale of Obama’s U.S. Senate seat. After leaving the Clinton White House, Eggleston also represented members of Clinton’s administration who were accused of criminal wrongdoing but never formally charged, including transportation secretary, Federico Peña and his labor secretary, Alexis Herman.

In 2001, Eggleston represented Mills, who was a board member of the William J. Clinton Presidential Library foundation. Ironically, Eggleston served as Mills’ lawyer during a congressional investigation into Eric Holder and President Clinton’s eleventh-hour controversial pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich. Mills, a controversial figure herself since that investigation, was Hillary’s chief counsel during her secretary of state tenure. Mills has also represented her former State Department boss during the FBI’s investigation and interrogation of Hillary Clinton in 2016. Mills at the time was also a witness and possible suspect in the case.

Last week Obama granted clemency to 231 individuals, including numerous convicted drug dealers in what Eggleston trumpeted as “the most individual acts of clemency granted in a single day by any president in this nation’s history.” That sweeping move brought the shocking total of Obama’s commuted sentences to 1,176 individuals, including 395 life sentences. So far, Obama has also pardoned 148 people.

Last week Eggleston said his boss was not finished granting pardons before his last day in office Jan. 20th.

http://i2.wp.com/truepundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/chart_121916_commutations.jpg

[timosman]

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/311883-pardon-the-interruption-clinton-allegation-may-force


BY DAVID WEISBERG - 12/27/16

Executive orders barring offshore drilling in most U.S. Arctic waters; an abstention at the U.N. permitting the Security Council to declare all Israeli settlement activity to be illegal and an obstacle to peace; the possibility of further action at the U.N. to formalize the administration's comprehensive vision of a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict — President Obama is sprinting, not jogging, to the finish line.

In dashing through his last few weeks in office, will one of Obama's final acts be to pardon Hillary Clinton for any violations of federal law she might have committed while she was secretary of State?

It's an interesting and complex question.

We should first note that the Obama administration's decision not to prosecute Clinton would not bind the Trump administration. Until relevant statutes of limitations have expired, she could still be prosecuted by the new administration. It is possible, in my opinion, for Clinton to be prosecuted for either her improper handling of classified information on her "home brew" email server or allegations of "pay to play" arrangements between the secretary of State and donors to the Clinton Foundation, which could constitute bribery.
The statute of limitations for most federal crimes is five years from the commission of the offense; that would apply to the two categories relevant to Clinton. Her tenure as secretary of State ended Feb. 1, 2013, so it is possible that the statute of limitations will not run until Feb. 1, 2018, more than a year after Donald Trump takes office.

What looks like one question — will the president pardon Clinton? — turns out, on analysis, to be two. The first question is: Would Clinton wish to receive a pardon?

That question seems to be a proverbial no-brainer. Surely, any person who had been in federal government would be eager to receive a presidential pardon, because it eliminates even the possibility of federal prosecution. That looks like all upside and no downside.

But there is a downside, and it isn't trivial. A pardon must be accepted by the person who is pardoned if it is to effectively stymie any prosecution.

Furthermore, there is solid legal precedent that acceptance of a pardon is equivalent to confession of guilt. A U.S. Supreme Court case from 1915 called Burdick v. U.S. establishes that principle; it has never been overturned.

If acceptance of a pardon by Clinton would amount to confession of guilt, would she nevertheless accept it? A multitude of factors would go into her decision.

She, together with her attorneys, would have to decide how likely it is that the Trump administration would prosecute her, and, if it did decide to prosecute, how likely the administration would be able to prove she had committed crimes.

Since being elected, Trump has been remarkably warm towards the person he used to call "Crooked Hillary." But how confident could Clinton be that the Justice Department, under a Trump administration, would not prosecute?

Prosecutorial decisions are supposed to be independent of political considerations, so Trump's recent friendliness should not be controlling once the new attorney general is in office.

If Clinton believes prosecutors might be able to make a strong case against her, the value to her of a pardon increases. If she is confident that any case against her would be weak or even futile, the pardon has less value.

If Clinton decides that, everything considered, she would prefer to receive a pardon, she would no doubt be able to convey that message to Obama, and then the ball would be in his court. Thus, the second question is: Would Obama grant Clinton's request for a pardon?

From Obama's perspective, the decision to grant or withhold a pardon is a political and a personal one. Legal considerations do not directly arise.

Like all presidents at the end of their terms, he is concerned about the legacy he leaves for history. Does he want his legacy to include a pardon of the secretary of State who served under him during the entirety of his first term in office?

Because acceptance of a pardon amounts to a confession of guilt, the acceptance by Clinton would, to a degree, besmirch both Clinton and also Obama. After all, Clinton was Obama's secretary of State. If she was committing illegal acts as secretary, it happened literally on his watch.

On the other hand, if the new administration were to prosecute and convict Clinton of crimes committed while she was secretary, that might be an even greater embarrassment for Obama post-presidency.

In addition to calculations regarding his legacy, Obama and Clinton surely have developed over many years, both as opponents and as teammates, a personal relationship. If Clinton were to ask Obama for a pardon, how would that personal relationship play into his response? I cannot say.

Days after Trump won the election, the White House press secretary was asked by Jordan Fabian of The Hill whether Obama would consider pardoning Clinton. He carefully avoided a direct answer.

Instead, the press secretary said that, in cases where Obama had granted pardons, "[w]e didn’t talk in advance about those decisions." He also expressed hope that the new administration would follow "a long tradition in this country of people in power not using the criminal justice system to exact political revenge."

Of course, there is also a long tradition in this country that no one is above the law, no matter how high a position in government he or she might have formerly occupied.

So, those are the main considerations that would go into deciding a very complex question. It's time for all of us to show our hands.

I'm saying yes, he will pardon her. Can you beat that?