HiIlary Wasn't Pardoned

Originally posted by no1marauder
🙄🙄

I doubt you've spent 1/1,000th the time as I have studying the Framers and their philosophical beliefs. For many years, I had Max Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 on my bed stand.

They'd have been ashamed and appalled by the positions you routinely take on this forum if they were alive today.

In all that time, did you ever crack the actual US Constitution?
How about Article 2, Section 2, which describes the topic in the first paragraph thereof?

"...and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

Those who have studied or casually glanced at the topic know the extension of a presidential pardon was intended to be nearly universal.
But, most people don't know that, do they?
Most people read the Constitution at face value.
They hear the word pardon and immediately equate the same with conviction and/or guilt.
The pardon is intended to allow the person to escape the legal consequences of their actions, so O'Bammy could, techinically, have granted The Crook a pardon...
which would only have served to cement her reputation as a criminal in the minds of millions--- all without an opportunity to stand before a jury of her peers and question what is meant by the word "is."
So, really, O'Bammy couldn't pardon her, politically speaking, could he?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
In all that time, did you ever crack the actual US Constitution?
How about Article 2, Section 2, which describes the topic in the first paragraph thereof?

"...and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for [b]offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

Those who have studied or casually glanced ...[text shortened]... the word "is."
So, really, O'Bammy couldn't pardon her, politically speaking, could he?[/b]

The other poster wasn't talking about "politically speaking", so your "point" is obscure.

Off hand, I have no idea whether it would have been politically feasible or not. Given Trump's vindictiveness and unpopularity, a case could have been made that an HRC pardon would protect her from King Donald I overriding the judgment of the legal experts in the Executive Branch and proceeding with a politically motivated prosecution to satisfy his more rabid supporters. How that would have played out, I don't know.

At any rate, there is no indication that Hillary ever applied for a pardon, so the whole subject is moot.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Wrong as already pointed out. Nixon was pardoned without ever being charged with a crime.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/07/preemptive_presidential_pardons.html

I'm well aware of the situation in Nixon's case as well as the 1867 Garland case which was narrowly decided to allow a rebel back in the good graces of the world occupied by attorneys.
The dissent in the opinion didn't contend with the power of the pardon, but rather made the case that some crimes--- even though pardoned and the expected sentence for punishment relieved--- automatically exclude the person from, in this case, particular fields of endeavor.
Can you imagine what that would do to Clinton, Inc., if both of them were disbarred?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'm well aware of the situation in Nixon's case as well as the 1867 Garland case which was narrowly decided to allow a rebel back in the good graces of the world occupied by attorneys.
The dissent in the opinion didn't contend with the power of the pardon, but rather made the case that some crimes--- even though pardoned and the expected sentence for puni ...[text shortened]... or.
Can you imagine what that would do to Clinton, Inc., if [b]both of them were disbarred?[/b]

What difference would it make? Neither of them have practiced law for decades.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Pardons are granted on the whims of presidents for those who have been [b]convicted of a federal crime with one exception: impeachment.
I haven't seen the latest polls, but I'm guessing most people consider conviction indicative of guilt.[/b]

What is in most people's consciousness is irrelevant to whether a pardon implies guilt or not. In the British system it does not, although prisoners have refused pardons on those grounds. Someone found guilty is not necessarily actually guilty and in the case of a pre-emptive pardon there's no guilty verdict so even less reason to suppose actual guilt.

Originally posted by DeepThought
What is in most people's consciousness is irrelevant to whether a pardon implies guilt or not. In the British system it does not, although prisoners have refused pardons on those grounds. Someone found guilty is not necessarily actually guilty and in the case of a pre-emptive pardon there's no guilty verdict so even less reason to suppose actual guilt.

It does not appear the US Supreme Court agrees with your interpretation. In the 1833 case of US v. Wilson, it stated:

A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual, on whom it is bestowed, from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_2_1s29.html

Wilson choose death rather than accepting the pardon.

The principle was upheld in Burdick v. US, 1916 the Court stated:

escape by confession of guilt implied in the acceptance of a pardon may be rejected, preferring to be the victim of the law rather than its acknowledged transgressor, preferring death even to such certain infamy.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/236/79/case.html

The Syllabus in that case stated:

There are substantial differences between legislative immunity and a pardon; the latter carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it, while the former is noncommittal, and tantamount to silence of the witness.

While the Syllabus is not part of the main opinion, it is "a summary added by the Court to help the reader better understand the case and the decision." and thus generally states accepted principles of law. http://www.americanbar.org/publications/insights_on_law_andsociety/13/fall_2012/how_to_read_a_ussupremecourtopinion.html

Originally posted by DeepThought
What is in most people's consciousness is irrelevant to whether a pardon implies guilt or not. In the British system it does not, although prisoners have refused pardons on those grounds. Someone found guilty is not necessarily actually guilty and in the case of a pre-emptive pardon there's no guilty verdict so even less reason to suppose actual guilt.

'No present conviction' is not the final parameter in pardons.
Those preemptive pardons are meant to include even future trials and possible convictions which arise from the same.
The pardon simply commutes the sentence and or punishment associated with whatever federal crime may have been committed.
So really, the onus is passed onto the states, if the new executive decides not to pursue action against her.
If Trump decides to stick with his reversal to lock her up, the states can save the day and charge her for their individual complaints... and there isn't anything anyone can do about it.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
'No present conviction' is not the final parameter in pardons.
Those preemptive pardons are meant to include even future trials and possible convictions which arise from the same.
The pardon simply commutes the sentence and or punishment associated with whatever federal crime may have been committed.
So really, the onus is passed onto the states, if the ...[text shortened]... d charge her for their individual complaints... and there isn't anything anyone can do about it.

What possible charges against Clinton could the States bring?

Originally posted by no1marauder
What possible charges against Clinton could the States bring?

Depends on the state, of course.
I'm still thinking...

Originally posted by Eladar
So why didn't Obama pardon Hillary?

I wonder what agreement was made behind closed doors.

Because there is nothing to pardon her for. Duh.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Depends on the state, of course.
I'm still thinking...

Actually, any one of the states could go after her for perjury and destruction of evidence, although the success of the same is highly unlikely.
The lack of success is on account of corruption, certainly not merit.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Actually, any one of the states could go after her for perjury and destruction of evidence, although the success of the same is highly unlikely.
The lack of success is on account of corruption, certainly not merit.

Perjury ............... where?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Perjury ............... where?

Something to do with pizzas, no doubt.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Perjury ............... where?

Her lies while testifying to the committees.
Can't get her for those she made to the FBI: wasn't under oath.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What difference would it make? Neither of them have practiced law for decades.

That has far more truth than you intended.