Hillary's Pardon

[theHawk]

Obama can give her pardon for anything without a charge or indictment, etc.

He could, but it would be completely invalid. There are no specific charges at this time, much less has she been convicted.

Not True.

Yes, a president can pardon someone for crimes he/she has never been convicted or even accused of. That is exactly what Gerald Ford did to Richard Nixon in September 8, 1974.
Ford’s pardon ended any possibility of Nixon being prosecuted criminally. It covered more than obstruction of justice, however. It excused 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. In short, Ford’s pardon covered any crimes Nixon may have committed between the time he was sworn in for his first term and the day he resigned.

Blanket Pardons

Nor was this the first such pardon.

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.''

Constitution Allows Pardons Before Conviction

In the cited case Garland, an attorney took part in a rebellion against the United States Government. Congress passed a law on January 24th, 1865, which specified that no one would be allowed to practice law unless first taking an oath swearing, essentially, that he had never participated in any action against the United States. On July of 1875, Garland received a blanket pardon from President. Andrew Johnson and attempted to resume his legal practice. However he was denied because he could not take the oath required the act of January 24, 1865. Garland appealed to the Supreme Court and the following are excerpts from that case:

“The power [to pardon] thus conferred is unlimited, with the exception stated. It extends to every offence 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. This power of the President is not subject to legislative control. Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders. The benign prerogative of mercy reposed in him cannot be fettered by any legislative restrictions.”

“The pardon produced by the petitioner is a full pardon 'for all offences by him committed, arising from participation, direct or implied, in the Rebellion,' and is subject to certain conditions which have been complied with. The effect of this pardon is to relieve the petitioner from all penalties and disabilities attached to the offence of treason, committed by his participation in the Rebellion. So far as that offence is concerned, he is thus placed beyond the reach of punishment of any kind. But to exclude him, by reason of that offence, from continuing in the enjoyment of a previously acquired right is to enforce a punishment for that offence notwithstanding the pardon. If such exclusion can be effected by the exaction of an expurgatory oath covering the offence, the pardon may be avoided, and that accomplished indirectly which cannot be reached by direct legislation. It is not within the constitutional power of Congress thus to inflict punishment beyond the reach of executive clemency. From the petitioner, therefore, the oath required by the act of January 24th, 1865, could not be exacted even if that act were not subject to any other objection than the one thus stated.”

“It follows, from the views expressed, that the prayer of the petitioner must be granted.”

Ex Parte Garland

Just because Ford did a blanket pardon, does not mean it was legit. It was never challenged in the courts. The Feds could had proceeded to charge Nixon. They saw no sense in doing so because any conviction would had been pardoned by Ford, not to mention there was probably no evidence that Nixon himself ever did anything illegal. But Ford would had most certainly had to issue another pardon after any conviction.

It will be funny though, if Obama does issue a pardon and Hillary accepts it. It will validate everything we'd said about her.

You are wrong.

The issue has already been ruled upon by the highest court in the land. Either you have not read what I posted or you did not understand it. I will repeat what the United States Supreme Court said in the historic Garland case I gave you:

“The power [to pardon] thus conferred is unlimited, with the exception stated. It extends to every offence 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. This power of the President is not subject to legislative control. Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders. The benign prerogative of mercy reposed in him cannot be fettered by any legislative restrictions.”

If Hillary Clinton is granted a pardon, that pardon will have the full force and effect of law.
Unless conditions were attached to the pardon, prosecution would be forever barred. The fact that she was not convicted or even charged with any crimes is immaterial. I have no idea where you got your information but it is not from a reliable source.

You have the last word. I've done my best to inform you and can do no more.

You seem to think that one SCOTUS ruling puts their opinion into law. It does not. For him to claim that "Congress can neither limit the effect or exclude from its exercise" is outlandish and outright false. Congress has the power to change any law, it may take a Constitutional Amendment, but nonetheless laws can be changed. SCOTUS rulings are precedent for the lower courts to follow, however they can be overturned by future SCOTUS rulings or by Constitutional Amendment.

Now you've been correctly informed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This SCOTUS ruling is the law until opined differently.

No indications exist whatever that this power of the President will be changed in our lifetimes.

Absolutely nothing.

I don't think Obama will pardon her today.