• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would Obama Pardon Hillary Before Leaving Office?

Jesse Booth said:
Because you can't pardon someone for a crime until they've been convicted of a crime.
Click to expand...

Actually you can. Ford preemptively pardoned Nixon....who had not been convicted of a crime.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Didn't Gerald Ford do that for Richard Nixon?
Click to expand...


Yes, he did. it was specific to any possible charges over the watergate scandal. he never was convicted of a crime.
 
Moderate Right said:
Let's assume that Hillary is actually indicted and found guilty and that she is sentenced to jail before Obama leaves office. Would he pardon her?
Click to expand...

I'd love to hear what her supporters would say if it were THEIR loved-ones who were begging for help during the attack. Help which never came, but the cover-up started immediately. Not someone you want steering the ship.
 
imyoda said:
For folks who do not live in the real word it is understandable one cannot fathom..........
Click to expand...

First off, it's both utterly pointless and incredibly annoying when someone responds to a hypothetical topic by stating that they don't want to discuss a hypothetical topic. Imagine if I came into one of your threads, and told you that I thought your thread was uninteresting? How vapid and utterly useless would that be?

Second, your comment seemed completely disjointed from the post you were quoting. As I've already said, there isn't any kind of "reporting" going on in the post you quoted. Were you talking about another thread? Did you not bother to actually read the OP? Perhaps you're just starting to grow senile.

And finally, what the hell did that even mean???

For folks who do not live in the real word it is understandable one cannot fathom..........
Click to expand...

Okay, who are these "folks?"

If it's you, you can understand that I can't fathom... whatever it is you never mentioned. If it's me, I can understand why I can't fathom the unseen and unknowable subject of that "sentence."

In other words, either you're the guy living in a fantasy world who understands the situation, but can't seem to identify whar is and isn't journalism, or I'm the guy living in a fantasy land who completely understands why I can't fathom the ..............

And so, I repeat: what the hell did that even mean???
 
Jesse Booth said:
First off, it's both utterly pointless and incredibly annoying when someone responds to a hypothetical topic by stating that they don't want to discuss a hypothetical topic. Imagine if I came into one of your threads, and told you that I thought your thread was uninteresting? How vapid and utterly useless would that be?

Second, your comment seemed completely disjointed from the post you were quoting. As I've already said, there isn't any kind of "reporting" going on in the post you quoted. Were you talking about another thread? Did you not bother to actually read the OP? Perhaps you're just starting to grow senile.

And finally, what the hell did that even mean???



Okay, who are these "folks?"

If it's you, you can understand that I can't fathom... whatever it is you never mentioned. If it's me, I can understand why I can't fathom the unseen and unknowable subject of that "sentence."

In other words, either you're the guy living in a fantasy world who understands the situation, but can't seem to identify whar is and isn't journalism, or I'm the guy living in a fantasy land who completely understands why I can't fathom the ..............

And so, I repeat: what the hell did that even mean???
Click to expand...

Good luck with this...
 
Jesse Booth said:
First off, it's both utterly pointless and incredibly annoying when someone responds to a hypothetical topic by stating that they don't want to discuss a hypothetical topic. Imagine if I came into one of your threads, and told you that I thought your thread was uninteresting? How vapid and utterly useless would that be?

Second, your comment seemed completely disjointed from the post you were quoting. As I've already said, there isn't any kind of "reporting" going on in the post you quoted. Were you talking about another thread? Did you not bother to actually read the OP? Perhaps you're just starting to grow senile.

And finally, what the hell did that even mean???



Okay, who are these "folks?"

If it's you, you can understand that I can't fathom... whatever it is you never mentioned. If it's me, I can understand why I can't fathom the unseen and unknowable subject of that "sentence."

In other words, either you're the guy living in a fantasy world who understands the situation, but can't seem to identify whar is and isn't journalism, or I'm the guy living in a fantasy land who completely understands why I can't fathom the ..............

And so, I repeat: what the hell did that even mean???
Click to expand...

Sorry you feel that way..........
 
Jesse Booth said:
Because you can't pardon someone for a crime until they've been convicted of a crime.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The POTUS can and has done so in the past. You cannot pardon before the alleged (federal) criminal act has occurred - that would simply eliminate (waive?) the law for that person.

Guide to the Constitution
 
eohrnberger said:
Not sure that a preemptive pardon would be legitimate. I can't this of any in previous history.

A preemptive pardon would be a huge formal admission that Hillary is actually criminal in some of her actions before the DOJ filed charges, which I rather doubt that they will, as it's clear that the fix is in. Not that these criminal charges aren't warranted (they are), but are being thwarted by a huge amount of political pressure, both from the criminally corrupt as well as the corrupt political elites. Given the relative silence of the GOP elites on this matter, one can only conclude that they are in support of this corruption.

This being the case, it's a very sad day in US history, when the known corruption of a political elite is over looked, ignored, not reported, and accepted as some sort of 'normal' expected and accepted behavior and accepted 'normal' state of affairs.

It most certainly is not normal, nor should it be the accepted state of affairs. And I really don't give a single farthing as to which political elite party corruption of this nature is coming from. All of it should be strongly and fervently condemned.
Click to expand...

Someone reminded us of Nixon having been pardoned, if only he would go.
 
chuckiechan said:
Yes, but she will be unable to obtain security clearance.

And I don't think Obama is going to pardon the Clinton Foundation, either.
Click to expand...

That would be cool! A President without security clearance. I like it.
 
Moderate Right said:
Let's assume that Hillary is actually indicted and found guilty and that she is sentenced to jail before Obama leaves office. Would he pardon her?
Click to expand...

MorrisDay said:
I'd love to hear what her supporters would say if it were THEIR loved-ones who were begging for help during the attack. Help which never came, but the cover-up started immediately. Not someone you want steering the ship.
Click to expand...

Wanted to add that I realize she is not being investigated for her role in the Bengazi attack but, the monumental lack of leadership by failing to act, and then lying like a criminal to cover herself. is a bigger story even than the emails. She has no empathy and no one in their right mind would put someone so self-serving in charge of an even larger operation.
 
Moderate Right said:
Let's assume that Hillary is actually indicted and found guilty and that she is sentenced to jail before Obama leaves office. Would he pardon her?
Click to expand...

Who knows?

No one. Pretending to know the answer might answer the question, if there is one, of your own politics, but that's it. Anyway, she's not going to be indicted so forget it.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nonsense. The POTUS can and has done so in the past. You cannot pardon before the alleged (federal) criminal act has occurred - that would simply eliminate (waive?) the law for that person.

Guide to the Constitution
Click to expand...

Thank you, fourth person to correct my lack of awareness on this particular twist of our legal system. Perhaps the next guy will actually make it to post #12 before deciding to address this topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom