I don’t know the answer to this question, maybe someone here can answer it.
If someone is pardoned, does that mean that they can still be tried and convicted, but that they just don’t go to jail? Or If someone is pardoned, they can’t even be tried?
The reason I ask, is that if Hillary is pardoned, I still want to see her tried and convicted. Even if she doesn’t go to jail, I want to see that tag wrapped around the Clintons and all those associated with her.
On top of that, if she is pardoned but can still be tried and convicted, but no jail; then I would make an argument to try her and convict her, tell people that it is ok to find her guilty because she will be getting off anyway. So make it easy on people to say guilty knowing that she wont be going to jail. Again, I want to see her tried and convicted; I want that tag wrapped around the Clintons and all those associated with her.
Seems to me if she is pardoned it would make no sense to try to have a trial. A pardon already implies she is guilty of something she might be convicted on. The only good the trial would do is perhaps find out what she is guilty of in more detail. But in either case the fact that she is a crook is well known to those who want to know, and will be denied by those who want to deny it, and will be ignored by those who want to ignore such things. In arguments with those who wish to deny or in persuasion of those disengaged, conveying details of what is known and how it is known is a fruitless exercise. Just pointing out she is crooked and needed a pardon may seem overly simplistic, but it is the best way to present the facts to people that want to keep it simple.