Posted on 01/13/2017 12:34:40 AM PST by detective
Will President Obama pardon Hillary Clinton before he leaves office? A question curiously non-discussed in the media.
However, when you accept that CNN’s broadcasted narratives, ie. the preferred positions of the U.S. Department of State, are generally good predictors of the political forecast, all signs point to yes.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
Those people had been charged with a crime. I want to see the exact law where a POTUS can pardon someone that hasn’t been charged with anything.
Oh please. You can use Google as well. The exact language in the Constitution, as well as loads of settled case law, are on the net.
That should really help Hillary’s run in 2020...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3509033/posts
“Hillary and Bill Clinton are secretly negotiating framework for a potential pardon from President Barack Obama that would spare Hillary from looming criminal indictments, according to Justice Department sources.”
It was challenged. Murphy v. Ford
This case, which was dismissed by the District Court, cites as precedent Ex parte Garland 71 U.S. 333. Mr. Garland received from President Grant “a FULL PARDON AND AMNESTY for all offences by him committed, arising from participation, direct or implied, in the said Rebellion, conditioned as follows…” Mr. Garland’s pardon came in the aftermath of the War Between The States. Such conditions certainly were not the case in 1974 when Ford pardoned Nixon nor do those conditions exist now.
The salient difference is crimes committed during war time versus crimes committed during peace time. During war there is a break down of civil authority and general chaos. During the chaos crimes will be committed due to circumstance. During peace there is civil authority and general order. The extraordinary circumstance of war is absent, it is not a mitigating factor which warrants a blanket pardon.
Mr. Garland was a member of “the Congress of the so-called Confederate States from May, 1861, until the final surrender of the forces of such Confederate States — first in the lower house and afterwards in the Senate of that body as the representative of the State of Arkansas, of which he was a citizen”
I have. The only think I have seen anyone refer to is Ford’s pardon of Nixon. In Ford’s speech he said....
“There are no historic or legal precedents to which I can turn in this matter, none that precisely fit the circumstances of a private citizen who has resigned the Presidency of the United States. But it is common knowledge that serious allegations and accusations hang like a sword over our former President’s head, threatening his health as he tries to reshape his life, a great part of which was spent in the service of this country and by the mandate of its people.”
http://watergate.info/1974/09/08/ford-pardons-nixon.html
Notice he said “There are no historic or legal precedents to which I can turn in this matter”. He only referenced Article II, Section 2 of the constitution....
“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”.
“Constitution, Article II, Section 2
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.”
Doesn’t say anything about pardoning someone for things they haven’t been charged with. What Ford did was use a pretty broad brush and it was not challenged by law.
Please refer me to any other cases besides this one where a president pardoned someone when they haven’t been charged because my google is not bringing anything up.
I can’t see her wanting a pardon because the narrative for the future is that this election was stolen from the Smartest Woman in the World; if she is just Nixon in a pantsuit then it won’t fly.
Read the Heritage Foundation discussion of that clause. An indictment is not necessary. Only future crimes cannot be pardoned. Otherwise, it is pretty much unlimited.
He HAS to pardon her.
Because a thorough investigation of her crimes will inevitably lead to him.
If she is pardoned here does that mean she can’t be charged by other nations for crimes committed against them?
And can Obama pardon himself?
It would make a nice counter argument to the idiots who say “But she won the popular election!” Yes, but she would have been impeached. President 0bama just said so by giving her a pardon.
Read somewhere that the Obama’s are leaving the WH with a net worth of a BILLION dollars. If it’s going to take a bribe to get this done, then I suggest the starting figure is probably $100 million. It has to be enough to worth the risk for Obama and it has to be enough to inflict some pain on the Clintons.
As Alexander Hamilton argued in The Federalist No. 74, "in seasons of insurrection or rebellion there are often critical moments when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the commonwealthThis is also cited in Murphy v. Ford, followed by:
Few would today deny that the period from the break-in at the Watergate in June 1972, until the resignation of President Nixon in August 1974, was a "season of insurrection or rebellion" by many actually in the Government. Since the end of 1970, various top officials of the Nixon Administration at times during this period deliberately and flagrantly violated the civil liberties of individual citizens and engaged in criminal violations of the campaign laws in order to preserve and expand their own and Nixon's personal power beyond constitutional limitations. When many illegal activities were threatened with exposure, some Nixon Administration officials formed and executed a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice. Evidence now available suggests a strong probability that the Nixon Administration was conducting a covert assault on American liberty and an insurrection and rebellion against constitutional government itself, an insurrection and rebellion which might have succeeded but for timely intervention by a courageous free press, an enlightened Congress, and a diligent Judiciary dedicated to preserving the rule of law.Are we now in a "season of insurrection or rebellion"? Is Obama a part of that "season of insurrection or rebellion"?
So do I
And everybody body around her, including Obama. Trump could make a case that Obama knew all along she was guilty, yet still campaigned for her to be President, and his AG and FBI director failed to prosecute.
Can a pardon be granted by Obama if he is complicit in the crime? Can a pardon be granted to a co-conspirator?
I’m not going to provide a link. Ford really did pardon Nixon. I’m astounded you would ask for a link as this should be elementary school level U.S. History.
I didn’t think Ford was correct by the way, I think it cost him the election in 1976.
Thanks for that. I don’t remember hearing anything about a challenge to Ford’s pardon of Nixon but then everyone was SICK AND TIRED OF THE WHOLE DAMN AFFAIR back then and I don’t know what coverage that got on the news. Plus there was no internet. I still hold to the fact that Nixon had been accused of a crime and Hillary hasn’t so there is nothing to pardon her for.
“Under the Constitution, the president may pardon only persons convicted or accused of federal crimes and offenses prosecuted by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States in the D.C.”
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/fl/Presidential-Pardons-Legal-Guidelines.htm
Where has she been formally accused?
Remember this?
Kerry - Pardoned by Carter in 1977? - Research
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1207871/posts
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.