Posted on 11/09/2016 8:59:36 AM PST by tekrat
Reporters are stupid and dangerous.
Something needs to be done about them.”””
I often think about how this current crop of ‘reporters’ would have behaved during World War II——COULD they have kept their mouths shut about our plans to defeat Germany & Japan?
They all seem to live in the moment & only when the spotlight is on them is life worth living for them.
What a bunch of selfish losers.
“It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that Hillary is planning a rematch in 2020.”
The witch is too old for that. She may be room temperature by then.
Maybe Qatar.
They might insist that Hillary must wear the burkah. And I wouldn’t blame them!
The people who assisted the Obamas and Clintons need a come to Jesus moment. I hope Trump does as you are suggesting, and either he, or his representative, lays down the law so that there won’t be any more “misunderstandings.” Also, since there have already been leaks about past back door communications he needs to let them know that any attempt to circumvent official channels again will lead to prosecution and imprisonment.
The only thing stopping her is her health. We will see how bad it is. Hillary is obsessed with the Presidency. I wouldn't underestimate her when it comes to "fulfilling her destiny."
Gads you’re right... she’s done it all... years and years of crime, scamming, treason whatever... I mean what kind of person gives her maid classified information because she’s too busy to make her own copies? The pay-to-play stuff wasn’t even subtle... I spoke to quickly...
That pardon was hard on the country... but dragging Nixon through the courts probably would have been worse. The pain the Clintons cause the country seems endless.
"That depends on what the investigator suggest what laws have been broken. We are still a nation of laws, right?
"President Elect Trump may also consider prosecuting certain slanderous media members. The President Elect will assess policies once he moves into the Oval Office. NEXT DOPEY QUESTION?"
President Gerald Ford, who assumed office on the heels of President Richard M. Nixon’s resignation, pardoned his predecessor for his involvement in the Watergate scandal. Congress had accused Nixon of obstruction of justice during the investigation of the Watergate scandal, which began in 1972.
Hilary Clinton has not been accused by congress of anything admissible. There, at this time, is no evidence as Comey declared the emails cleared by intent.
In May 2016, the State Department’s Office of the Inspector General released an 83-page report about the State Department’s email practices, including Clinton’s. On July 5, 2016, Comey announced that the FBI’s investigation had concluded that Clinton was “extremely careless” in handling her email system but recommended that no charges be filed against her. On July 6, 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced that no charges would be filed. On July 7, the State Department reopened its probe into the email controversy. On October 28, 2016, Comey notified Congress that the FBI has started looking into newly discovered emails that may be pertinent to the case. Law enforcement officials stated the emails were found on a laptop belonging to Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s husband, Anthony Weiner, during an investigation of his sexting scandals). On November 6, Comey notified Congress that the FBI had not changed its conclusion reached in July, regarding Clinton’s emails.
We all know it was a cover up for her. But she has been exonerated across the board by the FBI and the Obama justice department won’t push the issue. Therefore, there isn’t grounds to pardon. And if nothing happens until Trump is in, his justice department can reopen the case with other players in place. Then she may need a pardon.
red
With Nixon, it was one incident with a coverup. It would’ve been messy, but do-able.
With Hillary (and family), there are maybe 25 different and separate infractions — that we know of — with each one having tentacles spreading almost endlessly and probably intermingling with others.
How would an AG be able to sort through all the crimes, categorize them, analyze them, prepare cases for all of them, etc.? It’s monumental. Better that it be done with Clinton outside of the White House than if she were in the Oval Office.
Makes no difference. The president can still issue a pardon for any crimes which might have been committed during a specific time period.
Note: The time period might be limited to her time as a federal official, as Nixon's was.
Under certain situations, yes. But the display put forth was about Nixon. He was accused of something and admitted to it. There has been no accusation or admittance of a crime. So, she did nothing illegal that needs pardon.
Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution:
Command of military; Opinions of cabinet secretaries; Pardons:
The President, furthermore, may grant pardon or reprieves, except in cases of impeachment. Originally, as ruled by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wilson (1833), the pardon could be rejected by the convict. In Biddle v. Perovich 274 U.S. 480 (1927), the Supreme Court reversed the doctrine, ruling that “[a] pardon in our days is not a private act of grace from an individual happening to possess power. It is a part of the Constitutional scheme. When granted it is the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by inflicting less than what the judgment fixed.”
Fact is that the pardon is the least-fettered presidential power. The president can pardon anyone for any offense against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. But, no judgement, no admittance to it, no accusation, no crime. There is nothing there to pardon. She will have to admit to crimes that are there to get a pardon such as intentional OPSEC and COMSEC violations, and instructing subordinates how to bypass classified information transfer using patch and paste which borders on the line of espionage and treason. But these crimes do not exist and have not been accused. And the president cannot make up crimes to pardon people for, so they can’t be caught. also borders on the line of being an accessory After the fact defined as: Someone who assists another 1) who has committed a felony, 2) after the person has committed the felony, 3) with knowledge that the person committed the felony, and 4) with the intent to help the person avoid arrest or punishment. An accessory after the fact may be held liable for, inter alia, obstruction of justice.
And he no longer has presidential privilege as he will be out of office.
red
Still makes no difference:
1. No charges had actually been filed against Nixon when he received a pardon. The Judiciary Committee of the House had prepared a charge of Obstruction of Justice, but it had not been approved by the House. Technically, there were no formal charges against Nixon when he received his pardon.
2. The President's pardon power is "unlimited". But, of course, it only applies to federal crimes. Obama can't shield her from a state's charges.
But the president cannot make up charges or even accusations to pardon someone for. There is nothing to pardon as she claims she didn’t do anything wrong, the FBI has found nothing, and the justice department is not filing or furthering the investigation as of November 6.
Gerald Ford chose to pardon his predecessor, Richard Nixon, rather than allow Congress to pursue legal action against the former president the day after Nixon resigned. Congress had accused Nixon of obstruction of justice during the investigation of the Watergate scandal, which began in 1972. So an actual crime had been identified and accused of Nixon for preparation of legal action. It is at that point, the pardon was issued.
But if Obama pardons her for this, it is saying that she is a liar, has obstructed justice, and borders on espionage and treason. She will never admit that if for just some further problems she has with the Clinton Foundation possibilities. That would be a civil law suicide. And you are absolutely right, the states can get her also.
red
Once he resigned, no charges were pending against Nixon. At that point, Congress no longer had any authority to pursue charges -- as he was now immune from impeachment.
And the President doesn't have to "make up" charges in order to issue a pardon. As Ford's action demonstrated, the President's pardoning power extends to crimes which "might have been committed".
We can drop this i you wish. It's obvious neither of us is going to convince the other.
Fine, done. We do disagree. But that’s what make our stance as conservative so great. The ability to disagree without hatred or a need for reprisal like the libs. Conservatives have opponents, liberals have enemies. Thank you for conversing with me my friend.
red
Looking forward to our next tilt. We probably agree on the big stuff, though...
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.