Posted on 10/23/2016 4:48:34 AM PDT by Jess Kitting
Summary:
Chief Justice John Roberts was threatened by Obama to change his vote on Obamacare according to new details in John Podesta's wikileaks emails. Also, Podesta wished a white guy named Chris Hayes was the shooter in San Bernardino instead of the Muslim Sayeed Farouk. 3 days before Antonin Scalia's death Podesta talked about "wet works" which is a KGB term for assassination. Obama was in on the emails and knew about it which is why he insulated himself from prosecution by appointing Loretta Lynch and keeping James Comey as FBI Director. All groping stories have been proven false through wikileaks.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Ford’s pardon of Nixon was highly unusual in that no conviction for a crime had been delivered and no formal charges had been levied.
The Constitution allows a President to grant “Reprieves or Pardons for Offences against the United States” except in cases of Impeachment. Both require a conviction, in my reading of the definitions for both. Pardon for a penalty imposed and Reprieve for a penalty about to be imposed.
I believe Nixon’s “pardon” would not have withstood a legal challenge, since no crime had been charged nor conviction reached. But the country was tired of the whole Nixon affair and wanted it all put behind us,
I don’t think Obummer is able to pardon Hillary (or Lynch or Comey or Eric Holder, et al) because none have been charged with anything. It may take some (sorely lacking) Congressional spine to reject such a pardon but I think it could be done. And I don’t think the Supreme Court would dare try their “we are the final arbiters of the Constitution” crap if Congress took the ball first and ran with it.
I’m no lawyer but I believe President Trump could sweep aside any “pardon from suspicion” and proceed with prosecutions that are so richly deserved.
Obama couldn’t pardon Clinton because the language of the pardon would have to be so broad as to be ridiculous.
Washngton DC... where 'elites' are common thugs...
Do you mean “prosecuted” or persecuted?
Both. If Trump says he will pardon Hillary for her “many crimes” he will look like much the bigger person, a man who loves his country and wants healing, and will look better with women. He will also cement those crimes in the subconscious of the electorate as real.
And then Trump should pull the pardon like Lucy with the football. :)
It's a little late for that.
Justice Robert’s adopted kids are pretty grown now so he would not lose his kids at this point, but the way he adopted them was done in an illegal way. At the time of their adoption you could not adopt Irish kids unless you were Irish, which could be why the children were adopted from South America. My theory is an Irishman adopted them first, took them to S.A. where adoption laws were more lax, and they were re-adopted by the Roberts??? I’m sure those two children benefitted greatly by their upbringing by the Roberts, but at worst, possibly Justice Roberts could still be prosecuted for adopting them illegally. and this then leaves him open to coercion in his rulings by blackmail.
Is it inferred or implied? Who "inferred" it?
Their inference
Inference or implication? Who's "inference" and why should you believe them?
Yeah Ska-rew that.
Lock her up!
Lock her up!
Lock her up!
Lock her up!
Bookmark
Like Zimbabwe.
Ping for later reading
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.