Home
On, according to GOP lawmakers.

See:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ard-post-election-gop-lawmakers-say.html

But .... if she (they) get pardoned by Obongo we can more or less forget about the probes.
No one has explained to me how someone can be pardoned...who has not been indited or convicted of a crime.

Maybe you can?
Because Pres Ford did it and nobody questioned it. That set a precedent that's never been tested in court. If someone had contested it and it went to court, a judge might have made an entirely different ruling.
Precedent.

Ford did it for Nixon and got away with it.

Ed
Nixon was pardoned, yet never convicted.
The House had started the impeachment process. Which in my mind is an indictment. This is different than a probe...yes...no?


On this day in 1974, the House Judiciary Committee recommends that America’s 37th president, Richard M. Nixon, be impeached and removed from office. The impeachment proceedings resulted from a series of political scandals involving the Nixon administration that came to be collectively known as Watergate.

The Watergate scandal first came to light following a break-in on June 17, 1972, at the Democratic Party’s national headquarters in the Watergate apartment-hotel complex in Washington, D.C. A group of men linked to the White House were later arrested and charged with the crime. Nixon denied any involvement with the break-in, but several of his staff members were eventually implicated in an illegal cover-up and forced to resign. Subsequent government investigations revealed “dirty tricks” political campaigning by the Committee to Re-Elect the President, along with a White House “enemies list.” In July 1973, one of Nixon’s former staff members revealed the existence of secretly taped conversations between the president and his aides. Nixon initially refused to release the tapes, on grounds of executive privilege and national security, but a judge later ordered the president to turn them over. The White House provided some but not all of the tapes, including one from which a portion of the conversation appeared to have been erased.

In May 1974, the House Judiciary Committee began formal impeachment hearings against Nixon. On July 27 of that year, the first article of impeachment against the president was passed. Two more articles, for abuse of power and contempt of Congress, wereapproved on July 29 and 30.On August 5,Nixon complied witha U.S. Supreme Court ruling requiring thathe provide transcripts of the missing tapes, and the new evidence clearly implicated him in a cover up of the Watergate break-in. On August 8, Nixon announced his resignation, becoming the first president in U.S. history to voluntarily leave office. After departing the White House on August 9,Nixon was succeeded by Vice President Gerald Ford, who, in a controversial move, pardoned Nixon on September 8, 1974, making it impossible for the former president to be prosecuted for any crimes he might have committed while in office. Only two other presidents in U.S. history have been impeached: Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998.
Originally Posted by GeorgiaBoy
The House had started the impeachment process. Which in my mind is an indictment. This is different than a probe...yes...no? ...


Articles of Impeachment and a Criminal Indictment may sound the same: Basically you are being charged with doing something bad or engaging in misconduct. However, they are fundamentally different. The Articles of Impeachment are essentially the "charges" and when they are issued the person against whom they are issued is technically "impeached." (Think Slick Willie.) However, a trial then occurs in the Senate and if the "impeached" person is then convicted, he loses his office. (Again ... think Slick Willie ... he was impeached but not convicted.) It is a "political punishment" ... the impeached person doesn't get fined, or go to jail, or become a "convicted criminal." If a Criminal Indictment is issued, it normally comes from a Grand Jury, and it becomes the charging document for a criminal trial in Federal Court. A conviction could lead to fines, jail, loss of rights, etc. So, one is legislative/political ... one is judicial. One leads to the possible loss of office ... the other could lead to jail, etc.

As to a Congressional probe .... it is just a political fact finding exercise. Depending upon who / what is being investigated, what is found, the outcome could lead to impeachment proceedings, grand jury proceedings, or absolutely nothing at all.
Quote
impeachment proceedings, grand jury proceedings, or absolutely nothing at all


Surely, with this much smoke over her tenure as Sec of State and Clinton Foundation pay to play, a republican congress should have no trouble finding enough for a grand jury.
Zero has got to nip this in the bud, cause he will be implicated as well.
I'd be pleasantly surprised if she's indicted. I fantasize about seeing her in an orange suit complete with handcuffs and leg restraints.
But it ain't gonna happen.
7mm
Umm...there is no Constitutional requirement for anything in regards to pardons. No indictment, no conviction, nothing. Nothing saying he can't grant a pardon for any and all crimes which may have been committed.

"he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
The Obama Administration is hoping that the Repubs will play nice and sweep this all under the rug.

Pardons imply guilt, even if there were none. They don't want to have to accept that kind of responsibility for their criminal actions.

Those criminal actions extend all the way to Obama, Hillary, and on down from there at many levels.

They need to foment people, keep everything off kilter, and get past the Trump inauguration. Then they will try to play the underdog card and hope for the sympathy of the American people to discourage lawmakers from pursuing investigations.

Mark my word--after the Inauguration, ALL of the Democrat talk will immediately swing to discussions of the "economy" and "helping the average American citizen." They need the smokescreen.
Originally Posted by ftbt
On, according to GOP lawmakers.

See:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ard-post-election-gop-lawmakers-say.html

But .... if she (they) get pardoned by Obongo we can more or less forget about the probes.


They need to STFU until after January 20.
The Zero could pardon Bill & Hillary and maybe a few others, but the rot goes so deep that the investigations could go on and result in a lot more indictments.
My question is this:

Who's going to pardon Obongo?

Don't think he isn't thinking about that one.
Originally Posted by local_dirt
My question is this:

Who's going to pardon Obongo?

Don't think he isn't thinking about that one.


Although it has never been done, I have heard some constitutional law scholars theorize that there is nothing to stop Obongo from pardoning himself.
Originally Posted by ftbt
Originally Posted by local_dirt
My question is this:

Who's going to pardon Obongo?

Don't think he isn't thinking about that one.


Although it has never been done, I have heard some constitutional law scholars theorize that there is nothing to stop Obongo from pardoning himself.


He can. There is nothing to stop him from doing so.
Lock her ass up!!!
Originally Posted by 4ager
Originally Posted by ftbt
Originally Posted by local_dirt
My question is this:

Who's going to pardon Obongo?

Don't think he isn't thinking about that one.


Although it has never been done, I have heard some constitutional law scholars theorize that there is nothing to stop Obongo from pardoning himself.


He can. There is nothing to stop him from doing so.


Wouldn't that be a lasting footnote on The Legacy...
Originally Posted by 4ager
... They need to STFU until after January 20.

This ^^^^^ . Lay low. Keep their mouth shut. Keep the opposition in the dark. Don't tip their hand. After 20 Jan 2017, Game on...

Even if Trump's new team chooses to do nothing, the suspense will kill 'em... smile
Originally Posted by BarryC
The Zero could pardon Bill & Hillary and maybe a few others, but the rot goes so deep that the investigations could go on and result in a lot more indictments.


^^^THIS^^^

If he does pardon her and Bill, that might not help Humma and the gang. Someone needs to go to jail.
If pardoned, she could still be Subpoenaed to testify about the actions of some of her fellow criminals.
If she lies, that's a new charge
Originally Posted by Tracks
If pardoned, she could still be Subpoenaed to testify about the actions of some of her fellow criminals.
If she lies, that's a new charge

Lying hasn't caused her any grief, so far... shocked

DF
Originally Posted by GeorgiaBoy
No one has explained to me how someone can be pardoned...who has not been indited or convicted of a crime.

Maybe you can?



From Wikipedia.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States


Thomas Nast asks pardon for his sketches.
Federal law

See also: List of people pardoned or granted clemency by the President of the United States

In the United States, the pardon power for federal crimes is granted to the President of the United States under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites, and amnesties.[22]

All federal pardon petitions are addressed to the President, who grants or denies the request. Typically, applications for pardons are referred for review and non-binding recommendation by the Office of the Pardon Attorney, an official of the United States Department of Justice. The percentage of pardons and reprieves granted varies from administration to administration; however, fewer pardons have been granted since World War II.[23]

The pardon power was controversial from the outset; many Anti-Federalists remembered examples of royal abuses of the pardon power in Europe, and warned that the same would happen in the new republic. Alexander Hamilton defended the pardon power in The Federalist Papers, particularly in Federalist No. 74. In his final day in office, George Washington granted the first high-profile federal pardon to leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion.

Many pardons have been controversial. Critics argue that pardons have been used more often for the sake of political expediency than to correct judicial error. One of the more famous recent pardons was granted by President Gerald Ford to former President Richard Nixon on September 8, 1974, for official misconduct which gave rise to the Watergate scandal. Polls showed a majority of Americans disapproved of the pardon, and Ford's public-approval ratings tumbled afterward. Other controversial uses of the pardon power include Andrew Johnson's sweeping pardons of thousands of former Confederate officials and military personnel after the American Civil War, Jimmy Carter's grant of amnesty to Vietnam-era draft dodgers, George H. W. Bush's pardons of 75 people, including six Reagan administration officials accused or convicted in connection with the Iran–Contra affair, and Bill Clinton's commutation of sentences for 16 members of FALN in 1999 and of 140 people on his last day in office, including billionaire fugitive Marc Rich and his own brother, Roger Clinton. Most recently, George W. Bush's commutation of the prison term (but not the significant fine) of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was controversial. In commuting Libby's prison term, Bush stated: "I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison ...leaving intact his remaining sentence and fine and leaving on his record his felony". In 2007 Bush issued 29 pardons but did not include Libby among them.

The Justice Department requires that anyone requesting a pardon wait five years after conviction or release prior to receiving a pardon. A presidential pardon may be granted at any time, however, and as when Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime.[24] Clemency may also be granted without the filing of a formal request and even if the intended recipient has no desire to be pardoned. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, the Office of the Pardon Attorney will consider only petitions from persons who have completed their sentences and, in addition, have demonstrated their ability to lead a responsible and productive life for a significant period after conviction or release from confinement.[25]

It appears that a pardon can be rejected, and must be affirmatively accepted to be officially recognized by the courts. Acceptance also carries with it an admission of guilt.[26] However, the federal courts have yet to make it clear how this logic applies to persons who are deceased (such as Henry Ossian Flipper, who was pardoned by Bill Clinton), those who are relieved from penalties as a result of general amnesties and those whose punishments are relieved via a commutation of sentence (which cannot be rejected in any sense of the language).[27]

While a presidential pardon will restore various rights lost as a result of the pardoned offense and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from a conviction, it will not erase or expunge the record of that conviction. Therefore, even if a person is granted a pardon, they must still disclose their conviction on any form where such information is required, although they may also disclose the fact that they received a pardon.[28] In addition, most civil disabilities attendant upon a federal felony conviction, such as loss of the right to vote and hold state public office, are imposed by state rather than federal law, and also may be removed by state action.

A symbolic use of the presidential pardon is the National Thanksgiving Turkey Presentation each Thanksgiving, in which a domestic turkey is pardoned from being slaughtered for Thanksgiving dinner and allowed to live out its life on a farm.[29]

State law[edit]

The pardon power of the President extends only to offenses recognizable under federal law.[28] However, the governors of most of the 50 states have the power to grant pardons or reprieves for offenses under state criminal law. In other states, that power is committed to an appointed agency or board, or to a board and the governor in some hybrid arrangement (in some states the agency is merged with that of the parole board, as in the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board).

Nine states in the United States have Boards of Pardons and Paroles that exclusively grant all state pardons. Alabama (Board of Pardons and Paroles), Connecticut (Board of Pardons and Paroles), Georgia (Board of Pardons and Paroles), Idaho (Commission of Pardons and Paroles), Minnesota (Board of Pardons), Nebraska (Board of Pardons), Nevada (Board of Pardon Commissioners), South Carolina (Board of Probation, Parole and Pardon), and Utah (Board of Pardons and Parole) are the nine states in the United States with all state pardons granted through state boards.

On at least two occasions, state governors—George Ryan[30] of Illinois in 2003 and Toney Anaya[31] of New Mexico in 1986—have commuted all death sentences in their respective states prior to leaving office.

Link to Pardon.
Yep and I believe she would not be able to take the 5th.
Originally Posted by Tracks
If pardoned, she could still be Subpoenaed to testify about the actions of some of her fellow criminals.
If she lies, that's a new charge
Originally Posted by GeorgiaBoy
No one has explained to me how someone can be pardoned...who has not been indited or convicted of a crime.

Maybe you can?


Would pissing off white folks work??????
Originally Posted by StoneCutter
Originally Posted by BarryC
The Zero could pardon Bill & Hillary and maybe a few others, but the rot goes so deep that the investigations could go on and result in a lot more indictments.


^^^THIS^^^

If he does pardon her and Bill, that might not help Humma and the gang. Someone needs to go to jail.


If they are pardoned, then proceed with charges against Chelsea. She's still dangerous....
Originally Posted by Sharpsman
Originally Posted by GeorgiaBoy
No one has explained to me how someone can be pardoned...who has not been indited or convicted of a crime.

Maybe you can?


Would pissing off white folks work??????



In that case, there is a significant number of white folks on this site in need of a pardon...
I hope Obama does pardon her. It would do several things in my opinion; imply her guilt, further damage his legacy (not that there is much of one in the first place), and free up the congress to do more constructive things for our country.
A few underlings may end up taking the rap, just like Webb Hubbell did.

I hope they go after Lois Lerner on the IRS issue.
Originally Posted by IndyCA35
A few underlings may end up taking the rap, just like Webb Hubbell did.

I hope they go after Lois Lerner on the IRS issue.
I really don't see how underlings would take the hit. Hillary was boss. She ordered them to do it. She set up the server. She had her maid print classified info. Guilty. Lerner needs jail as well. Hopefully, playtime is over.
I have asked my congresswoman to seek special prosecutor for each of the separate issues going back to irs problems where nothing was really done.
now is the time to see action, not movement/lip service congress and senate members.

There is good reason why people think even less of you than the press.
© 24hourcampfire