It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump to Obama: Do Not Pardon Hillary Clinton "Or Her Co-Conspirators"

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Annee
Don't you have to have a conviction before you can be pardoned?

Don't you have to have facts of criminal activity before you can even charge someone? Let alone get a conviction?


Would you agree with these facts?

1. Congress subpoenaed Clintons emails.

2. Clinton aware of the subpoenas purposely deleted the emails.

3. Clinton advised some people involved to ignore congressional requests for statements.

4. Clinton advised people involved to take the fifth so as not to tell on her.

5. Clinton in doing this obstructed justice.


Show me the official charges.


Didn't you ask for facts?

Do you agree with those facts?




posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
Would you agree with these facts?

1. Congress subpoenaed Clintons emails.

2. Clinton aware of the subpoenas purposely deleted the emails.

3. Clinton advised some people involved to ignore congressional requests for statements.

4. Clinton advised people involved to take the fifth so as not to tell on her.

5. Clinton in doing this obstructed justice.


1. Yes.
2. Maybe, that has been the big question... but it's looking like a no from the investigation.
3. No.
4. No. Their lawyers did, there's a big difference.
5. No.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Annee
Don't you have to have a conviction before you can be pardoned?

Don't you have to have facts of criminal activity before you can even charge someone? Let alone get a conviction?


Nope. Ford pardoned Nixon, who was never convicted.

This is actually pretty interesting. The Department of Justice's info for Presidential Pardon applications says it has to be both a federal conviction and a minimum of 5 years after the conviction for a pardon to be considered. But Ford & Nixon's case was clearly different. The same goes for some other major pardons, like the blanket amnesty that most Confederates got after the Civil War.

So maybe the Dept of Justice's list of guidelines/qualifications is only for normal citizens, while the President can ignore them if desired.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Constitution Allows Pardons Before Conviction


The leading Supreme Court case is Ex parte Garland (1867). Justice Stephen J. Field, writing for the Court in a 5-4 decision, held that the President's pardoning power is ''unlimited,'' and ''It extends to every offense known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.''



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   
A pardon does not eliminate a conviction. The conviction always stays on the record of the criminal. Only thing a pardon does is keep someone from going to jail. They should have still gone after Nixon despite the pardon. Could have still got a conviction.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Annee
Don't you have to have a conviction before you can be pardoned?

Don't you have to have facts of criminal activity before you can even charge someone? Let alone get a conviction?


Would you agree with these facts?

1. Congress subpoenaed Clintons emails.

2. Clinton aware of the subpoenas purposely deleted the emails.

3. Clinton advised some people involved to ignore congressional requests for statements.

4. Clinton advised people involved to take the fifth so as not to tell on her.

5. Clinton in doing this obstructed justice.


Show me the official charges.


Didn't you ask for facts?

Do you agree with those facts?


You respond to my question with questions?

Do you have official charges on Clinton or not?



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Interesting wording.

Now, Therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

www.presidency.ucsb.edu...


Article II, Section 2:

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

The Constitution does not require a conviction. Or charges, for that matter. Apparently.

By resigning Nixon avoided impeachment. Which would have precluded a pardon.

edit on 9/30/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Thanks.

This stuff does get confusing.

However, back to Hillary. There's nothing to pardon.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Obama could say the same thing Ford did.

But Trump is threatening the President? Really?



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Constitution Allows Pardons Before Conviction


The leading Supreme Court case is Ex parte Garland (1867). Justice Stephen J. Field, writing for the Court in a 5-4 decision, held that the President's pardoning power is ''unlimited,'' and ''It extends to every offense known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.''




So if Obama pardons, that means a law breaking offense has been committed.

The existence of the server containing classified information is an open and shut case of a law breaking offense.

Those immunities handed out like candy are extremely limited, when the next administration takes office they are null and void. Their purpose is to obstruct fact finding to delay for time till after the election happens, it is sick perverted use of power for political reasons.

If Trump wins, Obama will pardon because it is the only way to cover anything that leads to him, not because he loves Clinton. Her political career and fundraising career will be over, all power lost.

If Clinton wins she will purge all offices so that it never sees the light of day again till long after she passes on from old age. She is literally running for POTUS to escape political and financial ruin.

Nixon's karma is going to get her in the end, he lost power over a missing 18 minute segment of an audio tape, she will lose power over the missing 30,000 emails.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 09:42 PM
link   
it must be really nice to be one of the one percenters,you can be pardoned for any and all present and future crimes that you haven`t been convicted of or even charged with yet. democracy my ass!



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Annee

Obama could say the same thing Ford did.

But Trump is threatening the President? Really?


It's hard to keep up.

I dismiss what to me is nonsense.

Stuff others grab like its the "second coming:.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Annee
Don't you have to have a conviction before you can be pardoned?

Don't you have to have facts of criminal activity before you can even charge someone? Let alone get a conviction?


Would you agree with these facts?

1. Congress subpoenaed Clintons emails.

2. Clinton aware of the subpoenas purposely deleted the emails.

3. Clinton advised some people involved to ignore congressional requests for statements.

4. Clinton advised people involved to take the fifth so as not to tell on her.

5. Clinton in doing this obstructed justice.



Except "Clinton" didn't do it, subordinates did, who were granted immunity. The End.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Nice catch. So I'm guessing the Dept of Justice's guidelines are just an extra layer of "safeguards", probably intended to prevent the appearance of presidential overreach? It'd be nice to know when they started using those rules, or if those rules change with every President (as in, each President issues new directions on how they'll handle pardons and clemency).



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
I dont care as long as its not the HIllbeast.




posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 12:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingFox

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Annee
Don't you have to have a conviction before you can be pardoned?

Don't you have to have facts of criminal activity before you can even charge someone? Let alone get a conviction?


Would you agree with these facts?

1. Congress subpoenaed Clintons emails.

2. Clinton aware of the subpoenas purposely deleted the emails.

3. Clinton advised some people involved to ignore congressional requests for statements.

4. Clinton advised people involved to take the fifth so as not to tell on her.

5. Clinton in doing this obstructed justice.



Except "Clinton" didn't do it, subordinates did, who were granted immunity. The End.


Are suggesting she had no involvement in this even though they were HER emails? Your eyes are blind to this? No, you are just asleep...wake up to reality this is pathetic.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant




It'd be nice to know when they started using those rules, or if those rules change with every President

In this case the "rules" are the Constitution. That DOJ website talks about convictions and requests for pardon. It does not address other situations (like that of Nixon).

I don't think anyone challenged the legality of Ford's pardon of Nixon. We were all sick of it and just happy to see him gone, I think.

edit on 10/1/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 03:47 AM
link   
I've been reading story's regarding some of the donors to Hillary that she better win,one prince gave her 50 mil and now he is whining she has to win,if she loses does she get a taste of her own medicine?I'm sure there are a few rogue CIA agent's,soldiers of fortune might be having their resumes checked by some scorned donors



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

But the Constitution is open to interpretation, particularly through different court rulings. That's why I'm wondering if additional rules like the Dept of Justice's rules are legit or not. As in, were they added through a particular court ruling or through new legislation (and simply never challenged through the courts for constitutionality)? Or are they simply self-imposed ways specific Presidents have decided to use that power?

I'm leaning towards the last suggestion, since I have no clue how the Bush administration determined its criteria for pardons. And Pres Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich doesn't fit the current Justice Dept's rules, either.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I think Trump is saying something rather different with all of this: if you pardon Hillary Clinton, then I will pursue and prosecute you, President Obama. In other words, if Obama is concerned to cover himself from prosecution once leaving office, he better not pardon Clinton.




top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join