Remember in 2016 when the Hillary Clinton email investigation got reopened due to new classified emails being found on pervy Anthony Weiner's computer? At that time, just shortly before the 2016 election, there was discussion in the mainstream media about whether or not Hillary could pardon herself once elected to end any investigations into this mess. Here's an example from a site run by Dan Abrams, a well known media leftist. The story was then sent out on Twitter by Mediaite.
When the Hillary story appeared, no one said much of anything about it. Today is certainly different. An ABC reporter with strong ties to the Democrats and the Clintons asks Rudy Giuliani if Trump has the power to pardon himself and he ultimately says that yes the President has that power but would never do it. Next comes the feeding frenzy that the White House is considering a pardon for the President. It's BS, I know. Nevertheless, we get a non-stop avalanche of coverage anyway.
Why is it different when the issue is whether or not Trump could pardon himself when there's no proof he did anything wrong versus Hillary (were she president) pardoning herself for what was obviously criminal conduct?
When the Hillary story appeared, no one said much of anything about it. Today is certainly different. An ABC reporter with strong ties to the Democrats and the Clintons asks Rudy Giuliani if Trump has the power to pardon himself and he ultimately says that yes the President has that power but would never do it. Next comes the feeding frenzy that the White House is considering a pardon for the President. It's BS, I know. Nevertheless, we get a non-stop avalanche of coverage anyway.
Why is it different when the issue is whether or not Trump could pardon himself when there's no proof he did anything wrong versus Hillary (were she president) pardoning herself for what was obviously criminal conduct?
No comments:
Post a Comment