Posted on 01/13/2017 12:34:40 AM PST by detective
Understood and agreed.
FReeRegards sir,
FMOKM
I hope you are wrong. We only have a few days to find out.
It’s a lose/lose for Obama. If he doesn’t pardon Hillary, I can see her actions and connections to Obama and Democrats as SOS and her foundation as implication criminality with all o them.
Yet, when he pardons Hillary, He acknowledges her criminality and incompetency under the Obama watch. This implicates Obama as well.
Lose-Lose for Obama IMO.
The best ending for Obama would be to not pardon and then have investigations into Hillary going away without conclusions which may not happen.
I thought that was only pertaining to war times and the end of war.
“In that case, a former Confederate senator successfully petitioned the court to uphold a pardon that prevented him from being disbarred.”
Where has she petitioned to be pardoned? Why would he if she hasn’t? She said she didn’t do anything wrong so I don’t see her asking for a pardon.
If she receives a pardon she will NEVER be able to gain the voter confidence needed to return to ANY elective office.
"His celebrity was transformed into international notoriety in January 1990, when he was videotaped smoking crack cocaine and was arrested by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials on drug charges. The arrest and subsequent trial precluded Barry seeking re-election, and he served six months in a federal prison. After his release, he was elected to the Council of the District of Columbia in 1992. He was elected again as mayor in 1994, serving from 1995 to 1999."Marion Barry
I'm sorry, but your both of your premises are incorrect and easily disproved.
(1) Regarding Nixon, Gerald Ford had been in office for a month, and the basis for charges leading to prosecution were before Ford. He had only two alternatives from which to choose: (a) lay the charges; or (b) pardon Nixon as co-conspirator. The other members of the conspiracy were not pardoned, nor did Nixon while President pardon them.
A month after taking office, President Gerald Ford addressed the nation on television to announce that he had decided to pardon Richard Nixon. You need to read Ford's text of the pardon (click here). Here is an excerpt from the article:
"Now, therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from July (January) 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974."
Note that the pardon only extends to acts performed against the United States, and included the period only of his holding the Office of the President; not, say, his dry cleaner's bill or foreclosure on his mortgaged property, or of offenses committed before or after his Presidency.
(2) On the second point in which you erred, Jimmy Carter's pardon of certain (not all) draft evaders was extended only to those who were: (a) citizens not already sworn in; (b)standing convicted of non-compliance to the Military Service Selective Act; (c) the act of evasion did not involve force or violence on the part of the perpetrator; and (d) the pardon was by application and approval for it, not a general one not requiring an actual individual remission.
Please read the instructions for applying for the pardon (click here).
The pardon was already formulated and ready for signing, but only on the day after Carter stepped into the office of Chef Magistrate.
Clearly, from the Nixon-Watergate example, Obama can not make a pardon stick for when he was complicit for Clinton's misuse of the Cabinet position.
Let me add that I really hate it when I have to take the time and effort to do your research work for you.
Clearly you don’t have enough to do then. I suggest a hobby.
Suggest you take up the hobby of validating your claims, eh?
In this case it’s answer your incorrect ones against mine, or let them stand unchallenged, thus quasifying them. Clearly, you don’t have enough to do than to quash truth with falsehood, then heap scorn on one who challenges your premises.
I suggest woodworking.
I’ve heard Arkansas is interested.
Offering your head?
Some irrefutable FACTS: 1: The 'impeachment,' of a President of the United States, is a political process, not criminal.
I. Impeachment
..............A. Being formally accused of unlawful activity, committing a crime
..............B. Not necessarily being kicked out of office
II. Who can be Impeached? Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution
..............A. “President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States”
..............B. Civil Officers include people appointed by the President (cabinet members and judges)
C. Members of Congress are NOT civil officers
..............1. Justice Department or an independent council investigates charges & presents them to the House Judiciary Committee
..............2. House Judiciary Committee (HJC) reviews evidence
..............3. HJC drafts Articles of Impeachment
..............4. HJC debates Articles of Impeachment (Nixon)
I would would argue that no specific charges were brought against Nixon, but they were in fact debating / deliberating just what to charge(s) {a.k.a. High Crimes & Misdemeanors } him {Nixon} with. Gerald Ford told Nixon, he didn't have the votes necessary to avoid an Impeachment. Hence Nixon resigned. {Democrats chance to avenge Alger Hiss} A young congressman from California named Richard M. Nixon was determined to expose Alger Hiss, a State Department official, as a communist.
..............5. Entire House of Representatives debates Articles of Impeachment & votes on them (Simple Majority)
..............a. If this happens, President is considered Impeached
..............6. Senate holds the Trial "Will the official be kicked out of office"
..............a. House Judiciary Committee acts as the prosecution-- presents evidence against the accused
..............b. Accused chooses own lawyers to present defense
..............c. Chief Justice of Supreme Court acts as Judge and rules on admissibility of evidence
..............d. Senate acts as the Jury
7. A 2/3 majority of the Senate must vote against accused to remove the person from office (Andrew Johnson, Clinton)
She can then be compelled to testify against her subordinates.
"You are missing the point. Charges were made, ..."
Charges were made. Nixon was impeached. The purpose of the impeachment trial is to verify that the charges made were a true bill. The process was not carried to the end because Nixon essentially admitted his involvement by resigning rather than allowing the trial to complete. It took two years from the time of the Watergate discovery of operators loosed by Nixon's advisors (June 1972) until July 27, 1974 when the charges were laid (click here to read the entire article).
Excerpts:
July 27, 1974:
On this day in 1974, the House of Representatives charges President Richard M. Nixon with the first of three articles of impeachment for obstruction of justice after he refused to release White House tape recordings that contained crucial information regarding the Watergate scandal.
. . . .
Nixon vigorously denied involvement in the burglary cover-up, most famously in November 1973 when he declared, “I am not a crook.”
* * * * * *
You have laid out what looks to be what caused Nixon to resign. Good job, I think. But what I said to you was correct, wasn't it?
That was more than half a life ago for me, the year I turned 38, one which for many reasons was quite memorable. Were you in the audience?
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.