Posted on 10/26/2016 7:36:26 PM PDT by gitmo
Question: Can the President pardon someone for a crime they have not been arrested for?
Can the President pardon someone for a crime they have not been convicted for?
Should I have ended these sentences with prepositions?
If someone claimed they could not be tried for a crime because they had been pardoned by the President I would argue that a judge would have the power to put that pardon aside if it could be proven that it was issued for illegitimate reasons such as bribery.
But investigators can still investigate all people and all matters involved.
They may not be able to prosecute her, but they can still do everything else, including going after others involved.
It would come down to the Dems stonewalling any investigation, JUST because Hillary herself is immune.
Yes, yes, and in writing those questions, what is anyone objecting to?
:)
I’m sure that they did; just NOT anything like the Clintons and Obama. And how could they? Even Arron Burr and Benedict Arnold weren’t this horrible!
If ONLY we didn't now have a completely CORRUPT FBI, this would have been taken care of long ago.
Absolutely NOTHING is going to happen until Trump is president. Should he lose ( GOD forbid! ), then NOTHING at all will happen. :-(
With the addition that he can only issue pardons for Federal Crimes. He has no power over state crimes.
And Obama HAS TO pardon her, in order to try to protect his own backside.
Say Clinton wins and Obama pardons her. Couldn’t congress then impeach her?
Article II section 2 of the constitution. No the courts can’t overturn them (or shouldn’t if we live in a constitutional republic).
Wasn’t Ford’s pardon of Nixon the only case where a pardon was issued where there was no conviction? No conviction = no crime. So how could he pardon him? That might have been one of those deals where wise to do evil people foresaw the benefit of that in the future and let it slide on by. Welcome to the future!
No, this was NOT some kind of set up for the future! And Nixon did not even do 1/1,000th of what the Clintons and Obama have done.
In Monopoly, it is called a GET OUT OF JAIL FREE card.
Just to be clear, pardons have no influence on impeachment and removal. In the case of someone out of office, impeachment and removal removes immunity, benefits, and eligibility for future office.
Impeachment and removal is what the Founders intended for corruption in the other branches.
And the Founders did admit the possibility of the corruption of all the branches, and they had no ready solution for it because, “First, if the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves.” (Debate in North Carolina Ratifying Convention, 30 July 1788).
We’re on our own.
Ending a sentence with a preposition is a practice up with we should not put!
Where does it say that?
If the Founders had wanted pardons to be subject to review, they'd have spelled it out. But they didn't.
It is very Progressive to argue otherwise.
But they never dreamed that the US people would elect an entire crooked government.
The President “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 1)
Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon was never challenged. Nixon was never impeached nor convicted of any crime so it remains unknown whether or not a challenge would have been upheld.
The definitions of “reprieve” and “pardon” would need to be adjudicated but I believe a conviction is a pre-condition to either one. Issuing a pardon to absolve someone of suspicion, without a crime being charged, just seems improper, IMHO. I suspect we will learn more after the next round of pardons.
Can the President pardon someone for a crime for which they had not been arrested?
Can the President pardon someone for a crime for which they were not convicted?
The answer is yes.
Even though the preposition thing is incorrect, it sounds more colloquial.
To summarize, the President can issue a Pardon for anything but a future crime, since that would be nullifying a Federal law, something the President [supposedly] cannot do. Pardons can be issued for past and current crimes, whether or not there is an indictment, a trial, and even after the sentence is completed (expunging the record).
As others have pointed out, it only applies to Federal law but since the Clinton Crime Family operates in multiple states, undoubtedly they would file a motion to move any charge to Federal court. New York would be state most likely to be the source of any indictment and I would think a snowball has a better chance of surviving Hades than that event happening.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.