Originally posted by lemon lime How do you pardon someone who wasn't indicted and charged with a crime?
This doesn't mean she can't (or won't) be indicted. If the investigation of Hillary had not stalled and effectively ended with a recommendation to NOT indict, she would now be free and clear of any possibility of facing future prosecution. Obama would have undoubtedly pardoned her ...[text shortened]... n't want The People looking too close into his own complicity in regard to Hillary's activities.
Obama could have pardoned her at any time as President Ford pardoned ex-President Nixon, so your "analysis" is incorrect.
Are you seriously suggesting that President Trump is so corrupt that he would ignore supposedly serious violations of the law if their perpetrators did not engage in political activities against him?
Who are "The People" in your last sentence? Certainly the American People have no interest in your right wing fantasies of Obama's "complicity" in Hillary's "activities"; he leaves office with his highest approval rating in years, about 20 points higher than the ass clown moving in.http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/videos/a52353/trump-approval-ratings-obama/
Originally posted by no1marauder Ofbama could have pardoned her at any time as President Ford pardoned ex-President Nixon, so your "analysis" is incorrect.
Are you seriously suggesting that President Trump is so corrupt that he would ignore supposedly serious violations of the law if their perpetrators did not engage in political activities against him?
Who are "The People" in you ...[text shortened]... clown moving in.http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/videos/a52353/trump-approval-ratings-obama/
Ofbama could have pardoned her at any time as President Ford pardoned ex-President Nixon, so your "analysis" is incorrect.
Obama pardoning Hillary would have sent a clear message that she had done something wrong. If in your opinion she had done nothing wrong, then how would pardoning her work to cement the impression of her innocence?
Who are "The People" in your last sentence?
I thought that might get your attention. You've often referred to "The People" without explaining who those people are, but now it seems you are calling them 'The American People'... as if ALL of The American People agree with you. Well guess what?
They don't.
Originally posted by lemon lime [b]Ofbama could have pardoned her at any time as President Ford pardoned ex-President Nixon, so your "analysis" is incorrect.
Obama pardoning Hillary would have sent a clear message that she had done something wrong. If in your opinion she had done nothing wrong, then how would pardoning her work to cement the impression of her innocence?
Who ...[text shortened]... erican People'... as if ALL of The American People agree with you. Well guess what?
They don't.
You stated:
Obama would have undoubtedly pardoned her but he couldn't,
You were wrong. Whatever "message" it may have conveyed, he retained the legal power to do so.
When I use the term "The People" I do not imply unanimity of opinion as any reasonable person would know. I use the term as the Framers did i.e. to express the majority will.
Obama would have undoubtedly pardoned her [b]but he couldn't,
You were wrong. Whatever "message" it may have conveyed, he retained the legal power to do so.
When I use the term "The People" I do not imply unanimity of opinion as any reasonable person would know. I use the term as the Framers did i.e. to express the majority will.[/b]
You're not making any sense. Are you now admitting Hillary was guilty? If Hillary was innocent, then why would she need to be pardoned? Pardoned for doing WHAT? You seem to have forgotten that Nixon took responsibility for his actions and resigned... where do we see Obama or Hillary taking any responsibility for what they've done?
She hasn't been charged with a crime. And she has not admitted to any wrong doing, other than in effect saying 'Oopsie, I made a little mistake. So what? Let it go already, and let me get back to the important work of serving 'The People.'
I use the term as the Framers did i.e. to express the majority will.
And yet you seem to have no idea why those same Framers set up our election process in such a way that elections are won and lost by way of electoral votes. I've know this since 8th grade civics class... I have no idea why this should come as a surprise to any intelligent, educated grown up (adult) in the United States.
Originally posted by lemon lime You're not making any sense. Are you now admitting Hillary was guilty? If Hillary was innocent, then why would she need to be pardoned? Pardoned for doing WHAT?
She hasn't been charged with a crime. And she has not admitted to any wrong doing, other than in effect saying 'Oopsie, I made a little mistake. So what? Let it go already, and let me get back ...[text shortened]... is should come as a surprise to any intelligent, educated grown up (adult) in the United States.
You're being a shrill idiot as always. The only point I was addressing was your incorrect claim that Obama "couldn't have" pardoned Hillary. You were wrong, so man up and admit it. The rest of your post is irrelevant to that error.
Unlike you, I actually know quite a lot about why the Electoral College system was put in. And it was not for the reasons idiot right wingers keep insisting on. That the Electoral College system as presently constituted could come up with a winner separate from the popular vote is no "surprise" to me, fool; as a student of history I'm aware it has happened in the past.
Originally posted by no1marauder You're being a shrill idiot as always. The only point I was addressing was your incorrect claim that Obama "couldn't have" pardoned Hillary. You were wrong, so man up and admit it. The rest of your post is irrelevant to that error.
Unlike you, I actually know quite a lot about why the Electoral College system was put in. And it was not for the reasons ...[text shortened]... ote is no "surprise" to me, fool; as a student of history I'm aware it has happened in the past.
Okay, have it your way. So now tell me why he would need to pardon her. What did she do to warrant a presidential pardon?
Originally posted by lemon lime Okay, have it your way. So now tell me why he would need to pardon her. What did she do to warrant a presidential pardon?
Obama obviously didn't feel the need to pardon her. That is different from saying he couldn't have.
Originally posted by lemon lime You're not making any sense. Are you now admitting Hillary was guilty? If Hillary was innocent, then why would she need to be pardoned? Pardoned for doing WHAT? You seem to have forgotten that Nixon took responsibility for his actions and resigned... where do we see Obama or Hillary taking any responsibility for what they've done?
She hasn't been charg ...[text shortened]... is should come as a surprise to any intelligent, educated grown up (adult) in the United States.
Just on a point of information, a pardon does not imply guilt. In the British system there are a number of reasons why a jury verdict can be overturned at appeal, that the jury made a perverse decisions isn't one of them. By a perverse decision I mean contrary to the evidence, out of prejudice or spite. Unless the law here has changed without my realising in the meantime, the only way of getting someone out of prison who has incorrectly been found guilty in those circumstances is a pardon.
Originally posted by no1marauder Obama obviously didn't feel the need to pardon her. That is different from saying he couldn't have.
Do you think it would have been a smart move for Obama to pardon her before he left office?
I seriously doubt either one of them wanted to re-open that nasty box of worms by way of a presidential pardon becoming headline news. If Obama had asked Hillary, 'Hey girl, you want I should give you a pardon?', what do you think she might say?
I think she might say, 'Hell no! Are you crazy?!
I'm aware of the mind games played by left wing liberals such as yourself, and this is why personal insults and name calling don't bother me... if you have a choice between telling it like it is or trying to manipulate public opinion to your advantage, you will choose the latter almost every time.
Originally posted by lemon lime Do you think it would have been a smart move for Obama to pardon her before he left office?
I seriously doubt either one of them wanted to re-open that nasty box of worms by way of a presidential pardon becoming headline news. If Obama had asked Hillary, 'Hey girl, you want I should give you a pardon?', what do you think she might say?
I think she mig ...[text shortened]... ng to manipulate public opinion to your advantage, you will choose the latter almost every time.
Will you do yourself a favor and give this up please. You're arguing legal issues with a lawyer, that's like arguing the finer points of surgery with a surgeon. I know you don't like Hillary or the Democrats, but you just walked up to the plate with 3 strikes against you, so please find another subject to discuss. 😵
Originally posted by no1marauder You're being a shrill idiot as always. The only point I was addressing was your incorrect claim that Obama "couldn't have" pardoned Hillary. You were wrong, so man up and admit it. The rest of your post is irrelevant to that error.
Unlike you, I actually know quite a lot about why the Electoral College system was put in. And it was not for the reasons ...[text shortened]... ote is no "surprise" to me, fool; as a student of history I'm aware it has happened in the past.
As a progressive your view ofthe past and how to view documents is tainted by the same root as t
Communism.
You believe in a false anti-American point of view.
Originally posted by Eladar As a progressive your view ofthe past and how to view documents is tainted by the same root as t
Communism.
You believe in a false anti-American point of view.
🙄🙄
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.
Originally posted by DeepThought Just on a point of information, a pardon does not imply guilt. In the British system there are a number of reasons why a jury verdict can be overturned at appeal, that the jury made a perverse decisions isn't one of them. By a perverse decision I mean contrary to the evidence, out of prejudice or spite. Unless the law here has changed without my reali ...[text shortened]... someone out of prison who has incorrectly been found guilty in those circumstances is a pardon.
Pardons are granted on the whims of presidents for those who have been 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.
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]
Wrong as already pointed out. Nixon was pardoned without ever being charged with a crime.
HiIlary Wasn't Pardoned
21 Jan '17 05:281 edit
Back to Top