I think it is, but remember a similar long winded debate and do not want to go there.

I start from a pro choice perspective but see issues in that and do not know where my line is. Just that it is not black and white.

Word.

The main difference is that they know they aren't going to actually achieve anything, they won't overturn the election results or anything, they are just exercising their First Amendment rights to free assembly.

It's not the same as someone saying "I believe in a character someone made up 2,000 years ago, so you can't marry the person you love because he told me so".

It isn't really that complicated. If someone wants to have an abortion they should be allowed to. An embryo doesn't have rights, but the woman who is carrying it does, and they should be paramount.

Abortions for some, no abortions for others, miniature American flags for all.

Not in this election. I think Clinton genuinely believes in a woman's right to choose. And she certainly hasn't changed her views on that to suit the political winds. I think her comments in the last debate on abortion were pretty heartfelt with regards to the tragic decisions women sometimes have to make.

One of the challenges of a Trump administration is that the way his hand is forced to continue driving the same rhetoric that he did on the campaign trail, with a greater uncertainty of the outcome.

One of the key aspects of his campaign was that Clinton was crooked and she should be locked up. He had mentioned in one of the debates that he was going to appoint a special prosecutor to look into her situation. Ignoring whether the President appointing an investigator to look into his former opponent's situation, he essentially has two choices.

1. Try to appear to be conciliatory and decline to further pursue Clinton on her alleged email or pay-to-play issues. This wouldn't be consistent with the temperament that Trump has shown, and it also is an about-face on one of his key messages - which would not go over well with his supporters.

2. Investigate Clinton. Again, could go one of two ways

a) She's found guilty of deleting emails that were under subpoena, or that her foundation engaged in 'pay-to-play' activity. Just as Trump has alleged all along. Problem: Trump has deleted emails in the past as part of court investigations, and his Foundation also has significant issues with perceived illegal activity. If she's convicted, he might very well be convicted too using the same precedent. Lock them both up!

b) She's found not guilty. This would be a repudiation of everything that Trump has said on the campaign trail. Since it's Trump's prosecutor, he can't really complain about a biased investigation etc. If Clinton was inclined, this finding would be a basis for a defamation lawsuit that should be rather winnable. As a candidate for President of the United States, and (assuming she goes back to working for the Clinton Foundation) a prominent member of a highly-visible charitable organization, the damages would be on an astronomical scale. Would likely mean the dismantling/bankruptcy of the Trump organization

So it's quite conceivable that this single issue could lead to Trump suffering reprisals (at least) from his base, jail time, or the dismantling of his business 'empire'

There seem to be some rumours going round that Obama is planning to pardon Hillary just before Loretta Lynch is replaced as AG along the lines of Ford protecting Tricky Dickie post Watergate... Thereby spiking Trump's special prosecution.

Pardon her for what? Seeing as she has never even been prosecuted?

A pardon is a government decision to allow a person who has been convicted of a crime, to be free and absolved of that conviction, as if never convicted.

How can she be pardoned when she has not (yet) been convicted of anything?

Remember the FBI is still investigating the Clinton Foundation which could lead to something Trump and his AG could use.

Read your history folks - Nixon and Ford pardon or try today's Washington Post

pre-emptive pardon before leaving office against crimes she may have committed

Better to read the Constitution where the legal power resides.

Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites, and amnesties.

That would be a huge mistake imo. Better to let the witchhunt continue and fall on its own petard.

Unfortunately, if Obama pardons Clinton, it will simply allow Trump to continue to claim that the political elite run a rigged system, and that's ever the more reason for him to be in office. It may also hinder any future endeavours that Obama tries to pursue, as a percentage of people may feel that he was impeding 'justice'.

Ford gave Nixon a full pardon for "any crime he may have committed" while President. It passed Constitutional muster. It was a very unpopular move...but legal.