“Here’s What Could Happen … ” Dan Abrams


"3. If Clinton wins the election and is indicted before the inauguration

Here’s where it starts getting tricky.

As mentioned earlier, an indictment is far different from a conviction. An indictment does not disqualify a person from being eligible for the presidency (neither does a conviction, technically, but being in jail would probably get in the way). Should Clinton be indicted after winning the election but before officially taking office, she could try to play beat-the-clock and hope to take office before her case concludes. Once a person is in office as President, it gets even more complicated, as we’ll see later. Should Clinton be indicted and convicted prior to her inauguration, and end up in jail, she may be deemed incapacitated, in which case Section 3 of the 20th Amendment kicks in and the Vice President-Elect, in this case Tim Kaine, would become President. (though that seems unlikely as the wheels of justice do not turn that fast)"  Dan Abrams


We might as well think about it.  pl  


This entry was posted in Justice, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to “Here’s What Could Happen … ” Dan Abrams

  1. kooshy says:

    Colonel, a commentator on MSNBC was saying she can pardon herself once she is in office. We know she has no shame.

  2. DC says:

    In addition – and apologies if I am not the only one posting this — Andrew McCarthy (National Review) recently argued that Clinton could be impeached by Congress before she resumes public office; being politically indicted and convicted as unfit to serve:
    We should give it a try, imo.

  3. shaun says:

    “That would be something.”

  4. Fred says:

    Well in that line of thinking that she is above the law she can pruge the FBI of the disloyal and then round up the legislators in opposition. Erdogan shows us the way:

  5. robt willmann says:

    I have heard the same from mass media, but I have not tried to research it through. It seems odd that a president might be able to pardon himself/herself, but the language in Article 2, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution is broad: “… and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” Richard Nixon did not try to pardon himself.
    The governors of the states (probably) all have the power to grant pardons. Can a governor, checking to make sure that he does not also violate a federal crime, murder two people and then pardon himself, if the governor’s pardon power is not conditioned on a recommendation of a parole board or limited by the state legislature?

  6. Balint Somkuti, Phd says:

    The Borg turning against its Queen?

  7. Lars says:

    I expect that the only one in legal trouble after the election will be Donald Trump, who is already facing about 75 legal actions against him. A number that could grow as others start to pile on.
    Most of the charges against Hillary Clinton are mere fantasies that will not materialize. She is probably the most investigated person in US history and she has never been convicted of anything. She has not even been charged, to her detractors considerable dismay.
    The only thing unknown at this point is what the political extremists who have flocked to Donald Trump are going to do after he has lost the election.

  8. turcopolier says:

    Can you do an indictment in a case like this if you are the US Attorney and without the action of the US AG? pl

  9. turcopolier says:

    The actions against Trump are civil actions. These are a normal part of doing business. HC is very good at “gaming” the legal system and May well succeed again in doing that. The “political extremists” in Trump’s camp include a great many ordinary country people. pl

  10. ISL says:

    that is just plain silly. In that case she could break the constitution – say launch a nuclear strike on Utah because it has too many republicans, and then pardon herself. That would of course make her emperor. – i.e., think of emperor Nero. Neither MSNBC or any other media outlet is under any legal commitment to tell the truth.

  11. rakesh wahi says:

    keep hoping , reality check these are emails that her legal team, not her , had already gone through,

  12. rjj says:

    would also assume some of these “political extremists” are DNC’s Karl Rove wannabe dirty trick artists.

  13. Lars says:

    I was not referring to “ordinary” people. There are quite many who are “extra ordinary” and many of them have made some alarming statements regarding Donald Trump impending loss.

  14. Fred says:

    I don’t see why not. They are delegated the authority to issue indictments. Would AG Lynch rescind the indictment once it became public?

  15. Fred says:

    “the political extremists” Which Americans are those, the entire group that supports his election or just the FBI agents investigating Hilary and company?

  16. Jack says:

    She is the Borg Queen. And it is the Borg that has to indict her. No matter the evidence if she wins next Tuesday we can be certain that the DOJ will not indict. But…the FBI agents who have the evidence may leak to enable the public to see how the rule of law doesn’t apply to the Borg Queen. However, if she’s indicted there is a high probability IMO that she’ll be convicted by a jury of her peers. IMO, if she wins we’ll see a civil war in the GOP, with half the caucus demanding congressional investigations and a distinct possibility of impeachment. But, there’s zero probability that she’ll be convicted by the Senate. Then, we’ll go full circle and return to the Slick Willie era of political combat between the Borg and the political forces that take on the mantle of Les Deplorables.

  17. Kooshy says:

    Some analysts in Iran believe, for this exact reason among others, he encouraged the coup, and leaked it to Iran and Russians to tip him off. They claim as the result, he was able to round up all his opponents, change his failed strategy in foreign affairs, put US at a disadvantage blaming them for the coup, shout up and scare the Europeans on constantly nagging on human rights.
    I have no idea if this conspiracy is correct or not, but for fact he now has the upper hand on all those listed. If true that was a brilliant strategy.
    Babak, if true, after all, he is not all that much Turk

  18. Valissa says:

    Nay, not a cudgel… more of a tut-tut-tutting…
    Yes, it is delightful to observe the whimpering and gentle castigating of one faction of the so-called elite Republican political class 😉 These are the very same folks that Pat Buchanan riles against in his columns. Buchanan views Trump as a symbol of breaking the neocon hold on the Republican party and a collective “good.” The Republican party is, like the Democrats, a coalition comprised of sub-factions. I have observed numerous political columns in regional and local news which indicate that many Republicans are not happy with the current neocon/statist dominance within the Republican party.
    For those who seek a different sort of Republican party, the many “august personages” mentioned in that WP article symbolize the current Republican establishment… the very folks that the “little people” of the party – the Trump supporters – are rebelling against. I think the title of the article would have an exact opposite interpretation by that faction.
    It appears that the Republican elite which inhabits Versailles on the Potomac are blind to the collective middle finger being waved in their direction as symbolized by the popularity of Donald Trump. Instead they continue to tut-tut to the little people. Clueless.

  19. Cee says:

    I used to believe that the allegations against the Clinton’s were nonsense. No longer. She’s criminal. The question I have is, was she always this way or became this way since Bill.

  20. Tyler says:

    I can hear you huffing into your paper bag from here.

  21. Kooshy says:

    I think Clinton’ supporters (Borgistas) nervousness is getting reflected on the markets, do they something we don’t know?

  22. johnf says:

    I am posting this bad news on both this and the current Syria thread as it is relevant to both. It seems to have been a mistake – at any rate that’s the official line – but it could impact the Election:
    “Three members of US military killed in Jordan army base shooting”

  23. William says:

    Technically yes, a U.S. Attorney from a specific District could obtain an indictment, assuming there is jurisdiction (some legal connection to the District). Indictments are issued via the Grand Jury process and can be obtained relatively easily by a competent U.S. Attorney.
    I think the chances of a USAO acting rogue without the approval of Main Justice are low, but also not impossible given the reported near mutiny by the FBI New York office. It probably really depends what has been found on the laptop. My guess is that it would have to be pretty significant for the FBI Director to send the letter to Congress in the first place. I doubt the letter would have been sent without some good intel on what existed on it.

  24. Tyler says:

    This level of near fainting is hilarious considering how many baseless claims about Trump the media ran with.
    Argue you all you want to, but something is indeed brewing, my friend.

  25. Stephanie says:

    I would say even more disturbing at present is the establishment GOP’s reaction to the imminent prospect of four more years of a Democrat in the White House. There is madness in the air.

  26. GulfCoastPirate says:

    ‘Fainting’? They flat out lied like some of us said. At least as an honorable man you could acknowledge that. Assuming you are honorable.
    As for what is brewing we’ll see Tuesday.

  27. Tyler says:

    Tell me more about how the media didn’t run with unverifiable claims that Trump sexually assaulted a bunch of women. Go on. All ears.

Comments are closed.