Will Obama pardon Hillary?

[Lewdog]

He pardons her... so she gets called to testify? She gets up there and pleads the 5th. She can't lie if she pleads the 5th.

The fifth affords protection against self incrimination, but since she has been pardoned there is no possibility of incriminating herself so she can't plead the fifth. If she tries to, she can be jailed for contempt of court.

No, because as you said, she could still be indicted for perjury if she were to lie... so therefore she could still plead the 5th. Pleading the 5th is a right afforded by the Constitution.

lol She can only be indicted for perjury if she decides to lie under oath but that would not be the case if she tells the truth. Once she lies and is charged with perjury, she can plead the fifth for that charge, but not for questions about actions for which she received a pardon.

If she pleads the 5th, then she doesn't have to worry about telling a lie. We all know that when she opens her mouth it is usually going to be a lie, so why would she do anything BUT plead the 5th?

She can't plead the fifth for anything for which she has received a pardon because there is no possibility such testimony can lead to self incrimination, however, she can plead the fifth for anything not covered by the pardon unless the prosecutor decides to grant her immunity from prosecution for that particular act.

Why are you so avid to stop an investigation into corruption in government?

I'm just telling you, I don't think you can tell someone they can't plead the 5th. That's part of the Bill of Rights. You're going to have to give me more than your opinion on this before I'll believe you.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The fifth affords protection against self incrimination, but since she has been pardoned there is no possibility of incriminating herself so she can't plead the fifth. If she tries to, she can be jailed for contempt of court.

No, because as you said, she could still be indicted for perjury if she were to lie... so therefore she could still plead the 5th. Pleading the 5th is a right afforded by the Constitution.

lol She can only be indicted for perjury if she decides to lie under oath but that would not be the case if she tells the truth. Once she lies and is charged with perjury, she can plead the fifth for that charge, but not for questions about actions for which she received a pardon.

If she pleads the 5th, then she doesn't have to worry about telling a lie. We all know that when she opens her mouth it is usually going to be a lie, so why would she do anything BUT plead the 5th?

She can't plead the fifth for anything for which she has received a pardon because there is no possibility such testimony can lead to self incrimination, however, she can plead the fifth for anything not covered by the pardon unless the prosecutor decides to grant her immunity from prosecution for that particular act.

Why are you so avid to stop an investigation into corruption in government?

I'm just telling you, I don't think you can tell someone they can't plead the 5th. That's part of the Bill of Rights. You're going to have to give me more than your opinion on this before I'll believe you.

Prosecutors do it all the time by granting immunity from prosecution to people in order to compel them to testify once the threat of criminal prosecution is removed. If the individual still refuses to testify, he or she is jailed for contempt of court; if they lie, they are charged with perjury.

"Witnesses compelled by subpoena to appear before a grand jury are entitled to receive immunity in exchange for their testimony. The grant of immunity impairs the witness's right to invoke the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incriminationas a legal basis for refusing to testify. Per 18 U.S.C. § 6002, if a witness who has been granted immunity nevertheless refuses to offer testimony he or she may be held in contempt of the court that issued the subpoena. In addition, grand jury witnesses may be prosecuted for perjury or making false statements in their testimony."

Witness immunity - Wikipedia

 

[Lewdog]

No, because as you said, she could still be indicted for perjury if she were to lie... so therefore she could still plead the 5th. Pleading the 5th is a right afforded by the Constitution.

lol She can only be indicted for perjury if she decides to lie under oath but that would not be the case if she tells the truth. Once she lies and is charged with perjury, she can plead the fifth for that charge, but not for questions about actions for which she received a pardon.

If she pleads the 5th, then she doesn't have to worry about telling a lie. We all know that when she opens her mouth it is usually going to be a lie, so why would she do anything BUT plead the 5th?

She can't plead the fifth for anything for which she has received a pardon because there is no possibility such testimony can lead to self incrimination, however, she can plead the fifth for anything not covered by the pardon unless the prosecutor decides to grant her immunity from prosecution for that particular act.

Why are you so avid to stop an investigation into corruption in government?

I'm just telling you, I don't think you can tell someone they can't plead the 5th. That's part of the Bill of Rights. You're going to have to give me more than your opinion on this before I'll believe you.

Prosecutors do it all the time by granting immunity from prosecution to people in order to compel them to testify once the threat of criminal prosecution is removed. If the individual still refuses to testify, he or she is jailed for contempt of court; if they lie, they are charged with perjury.

"Witnesses compelled by subpoena to appear before a grand jury are entitled to receive immunity in exchange for their testimony. The grant of immunity impairs the witness's right to invoke the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incriminationas a legal basis for refusing to testify. Per 18 U.S.C. § 6002, if a witness who has been granted immunity nevertheless refuses to offer testimony he or she may be held in contempt of the court that issued the subpoena. In addition, grand jury witnesses may be prosecuted for perjury or making false statements in their testimony."

Witness immunity - Wikipedia

That's just it. What you are talking about is different. I knew about immunity, but that isn't really the same as a pardon. I could be wrong, but I haven't found anything where a person was in the type of situation we are talking about.

 

[toomuchtime_]

lol She can only be indicted for perjury if she decides to lie under oath but that would not be the case if she tells the truth. Once she lies and is charged with perjury, she can plead the fifth for that charge, but not for questions about actions for which she received a pardon.

If she pleads the 5th, then she doesn't have to worry about telling a lie. We all know that when she opens her mouth it is usually going to be a lie, so why would she do anything BUT plead the 5th?

She can't plead the fifth for anything for which she has received a pardon because there is no possibility such testimony can lead to self incrimination, however, she can plead the fifth for anything not covered by the pardon unless the prosecutor decides to grant her immunity from prosecution for that particular act.

Why are you so avid to stop an investigation into corruption in government?

I'm just telling you, I don't think you can tell someone they can't plead the 5th. That's part of the Bill of Rights. You're going to have to give me more than your opinion on this before I'll believe you.

Prosecutors do it all the time by granting immunity from prosecution to people in order to compel them to testify once the threat of criminal prosecution is removed. If the individual still refuses to testify, he or she is jailed for contempt of court; if they lie, they are charged with perjury.

"Witnesses compelled by subpoena to appear before a grand jury are entitled to receive immunity in exchange for their testimony. The grant of immunity impairs the witness's right to invoke the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incriminationas a legal basis for refusing to testify. Per 18 U.S.C. § 6002, if a witness who has been granted immunity nevertheless refuses to offer testimony he or she may be held in contempt of the court that issued the subpoena. In addition, grand jury witnesses may be prosecuted for perjury or making false statements in their testimony."

Witness immunity - Wikipedia

That's just it. What you are talking about is different. I knew about immunity, but that isn't really the same as a pardon. I could be wrong, but I haven't found anything where a person was in the type of situation we are talking about.

With respect to pleading the fifth, the principle behind transactional immunity and a pardon are the same: you can't claim protection against self incrimination once you are immune to prosection.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I know you all hate it, but HRC is never going to be tried and will never be subject to committee, deposition, or grand jury questions again.

You apparently didn't get the memo that a federal grand jury has already been convened in New York.

You don't get it. If Obama pardons her, it's over. Her attorney submits the pardon to the DA. End of story.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, because as you said, she could still be indicted for perjury if she were to lie... so therefore she could still plead the 5th. Pleading the 5th is a right afforded by the Constitution.

lol She can only be indicted for perjury if she decides to lie under oath but that would not be the case if she tells the truth. Once she lies and is charged with perjury, she can plead the fifth for that charge, but not for questions about actions for which she received a pardon.

If she pleads the 5th, then she doesn't have to worry about telling a lie. We all know that when she opens her mouth it is usually going to be a lie, so why would she do anything BUT plead the 5th?

She can't plead the fifth for anything for which she has received a pardon because there is no possibility such testimony can lead to self incrimination, however, she can plead the fifth for anything not covered by the pardon unless the prosecutor decides to grant her immunity from prosecution for that particular act.

Why are you so avid to stop an investigation into corruption in government?

I'm just telling you, I don't think you can tell someone they can't plead the 5th. That's part of the Bill of Rights. You're going to have to give me more than your opinion on this before I'll believe you.

Prosecutors do it all the time by granting immunity from prosecution to people in order to compel them to testify once the threat of criminal prosecution is removed. If the individual still refuses to testify, he or she is jailed for contempt of court; if they lie, they are charged with perjury.

"Witnesses compelled by subpoena to appear before a grand jury are entitled to receive immunity in exchange for their testimony. The grant of immunity impairs the witness's right to invoke the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incriminationas a legal basis for refusing to testify. Per 18 U.S.C. § 6002, if a witness who has been granted immunity nevertheless refuses to offer testimony he or she may be held in contempt of the court that issued the subpoena. In addition, grand jury witnesses may be prosecuted for perjury or making false statements in their testimony."

Witness immunity - Wikipedia

You are ignoring ex parte Garland 1866. She does not have to appearl.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If she pleads the 5th, then she doesn't have to worry about telling a lie. We all know that when she opens her mouth it is usually going to be a lie, so why would she do anything BUT plead the 5th?

She can't plead the fifth for anything for which she has received a pardon because there is no possibility such testimony can lead to self incrimination, however, she can plead the fifth for anything not covered by the pardon unless the prosecutor decides to grant her immunity from prosecution for that particular act.

Why are you so avid to stop an investigation into corruption in government?

I'm just telling you, I don't think you can tell someone they can't plead the 5th. That's part of the Bill of Rights. You're going to have to give me more than your opinion on this before I'll believe you.

Prosecutors do it all the time by granting immunity from prosecution to people in order to compel them to testify once the threat of criminal prosecution is removed. If the individual still refuses to testify, he or she is jailed for contempt of court; if they lie, they are charged with perjury.

"Witnesses compelled by subpoena to appear before a grand jury are entitled to receive immunity in exchange for their testimony. The grant of immunity impairs the witness's right to invoke the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incriminationas a legal basis for refusing to testify. Per 18 U.S.C. § 6002, if a witness who has been granted immunity nevertheless refuses to offer testimony he or she may be held in contempt of the court that issued the subpoena. In addition, grand jury witnesses may be prosecuted for perjury or making false statements in their testimony."

Witness immunity - Wikipedia

That's just it. What you are talking about is different. I knew about immunity, but that isn't really the same as a pardon. I could be wrong, but I haven't found anything where a person was in the type of situation we are talking about.

With respect to pleading the fifth, the principle behind transactional immunity and a pardon are the same: you can't claim protection against self incrimination once you are immune to prosection.

She won't be offered anything or called, period. Once the pardon is issued, the pursuit of HRC is over.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's just it. What you are talking about is different. I knew about immunity, but that isn't really the same as a pardon. I could be wrong, but I haven't found anything where a person was in the type of situation we are talking about.

toomuchtime knows that, but is simply crying because it makes her feel good.

 

[EverCurious]

Its out on the web that Obama promised/threatened Anonymous that if they elected Trump he'd pardon Clinton. Is it true? Who knows.

Either way, nothing will be done until Trump takes over on January 20, and ditches DoJ Lynch & most likely FBI Comey (though I seriously wonder if he actually didn't sell out and it was a kind of a passive aggressive message, whatever either way he's tainted so out he goes.) Nothing /can/ be done until those obstructers are taken out of their positions regardless.

I could easily see Obama pardoning the whole lot of them on his last day in office. I think he's mixed up in it frankly.

 

[The Professor]

Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitutionwhich states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment ..." meaning that he can pardon any such, known and unknown, to the date of the pardon.

You are correct. 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

 

[JakeStarkey]

Its out on the web that Obama promised/threatened Anonymous that if they elected Trump he'd pardon Clinton. Is it true? Who knows.

Either way, nothing will be done until Trump takes over on January 20, and ditches DoJ Lynch & most likely FBI Comey (though I seriously wonder if he actually didn't sell out and it was a kind of a passive aggressive message, whatever either way he's tainted so out he goes.) Nothing /can/ be done until those obstructers are taken out of their positions regardless.

I could easily see Obama pardoning the whole lot of them on his last day in office. I think he's mixed up in it frankly.

Comey is in his fourth year of a ten year term. Trump can't touch him.

 

[EverCurious]

idk he basically admitted to being corrupt. I don't think Trump will touch him but I'm pretty sure there's other folks who can. Checks and balances. I'd have to research into it.

 

[rightwinger]

A pardon for one person does not remove the 5th Amendment protection for anyone else. I hope you did not go to law school.

A pardon for Hillary would remove he fifth amendment protection against self incrimination, and she could then be compelled to testify under oath. If she lied, she could be prosecuted for perjury and if she refused to testify, she could be jailed for contempt of court. Similarly for Comey, Lynch, etc.

A pardon means she can tell you to go fuck yourself

She can do that without a pardon, but a pardon removes any criminal consequences from specified previous acts and that means you cannot refuse to testify as a material witness on the grounds it might incriminate you, so if you refuse to testify, you can be jailed for contempt of court and if you lie you can be prosecuted for perjury. This fact would allow a prosecutor to compel Clinton, Comey, Lynch and even Obama - and probably others - to reveal under oath the full extent of their conspiracy to conceal evidence and cover up possibly criminal actions for the purpose of trying to influence this election.

You seem to be in some bizarre loop

You are asking her to testify on things she has already received a pardon for. You are investigating someone for something she is already off the hook for.
It is not like she is being given a pardon in exchange for testimony

You still don't get it. If President Trump does appoint a special prosecutor it will be to investigate possible criminal activity that led to the corruption of the Obama Justice Department, State Department and WH for the purpose of influencing this election, not to target Clinton specifically. Anyone can be called as a witness in such an investigation if there is reason to believe he or she might have relevant information, and since she cannot be charged for actions that have been pardoned she can't refuse to testify on the grounds such testimony might incriminate her. While a pardon would protect her from being prosecuted for certain past acts, if she refuses to testify or lies under oath, these would be crimes not covered by the pardon and for which she can be prosecuted.

More rightwing Conspiracy Theories
Why don't you come up with some actual facts before launching another fishing expedition?

Why don't they launch an investigation into whether Putin influenced the election ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anyone can be called to such an investigation, and people have the right to invoke their 5th Amendment right.

HRC's counsel will advise her that the committee has no authority to interview her, and the committee can go to court if it wants.

The court will tell the committee, "nuh uh."

 

[Lewdog]

That's just it. What you are talking about is different. I knew about immunity, but that isn't really the same as a pardon. I could be wrong, but I haven't found anything where a person was in the type of situation we are talking about.

toomuchtime knows that, but is simply crying because it makes her feel good.

I think this article about Nixon testifying after his pardon sheds a lot of light on this situation. Basically it details how he negotiated to know the questions to be asked beforehand, and that he specifically said he would not answer questions where he might be caught in a lie that could bring future perjury charges.

Unlike the often-profane voice captured by Oval Office tape recordings, the Nixon who appears in the transcripts is polite, but often disdainful of the prosecutors and their mission. He already had received a pardon from President Ford by the time he testified on June 23 and 24, 1975, and had only one thing to fear — a lie that might expose him to a perjury prosecution. He made perfectly clear he would not cooperate more than necessary.

Richard Nixon's secret Watergate testimony is released

I wouldn't expect anything less from Hillary if the same things happened.

 

[toomuchtime_]

A pardon for Hillary would remove he fifth amendment protection against self incrimination, and she could then be compelled to testify under oath. If she lied, she could be prosecuted for perjury and if she refused to testify, she could be jailed for contempt of court. Similarly for Comey, Lynch, etc.

A pardon means she can tell you to go fuck yourself

She can do that without a pardon, but a pardon removes any criminal consequences from specified previous acts and that means you cannot refuse to testify as a material witness on the grounds it might incriminate you, so if you refuse to testify, you can be jailed for contempt of court and if you lie you can be prosecuted for perjury. This fact would allow a prosecutor to compel Clinton, Comey, Lynch and even Obama - and probably others - to reveal under oath the full extent of their conspiracy to conceal evidence and cover up possibly criminal actions for the purpose of trying to influence this election.

You seem to be in some bizarre loop

You are asking her to testify on things she has already received a pardon for. You are investigating someone for something she is already off the hook for.
It is not like she is being given a pardon in exchange for testimony

You still don't get it. If President Trump does appoint a special prosecutor it will be to investigate possible criminal activity that led to the corruption of the Obama Justice Department, State Department and WH for the purpose of influencing this election, not to target Clinton specifically. Anyone can be called as a witness in such an investigation if there is reason to believe he or she might have relevant information, and since she cannot be charged for actions that have been pardoned she can't refuse to testify on the grounds such testimony might incriminate her. While a pardon would protect her from being prosecuted for certain past acts, if she refuses to testify or lies under oath, these would be crimes not covered by the pardon and for which she can be prosecuted.

More rightwing Conspiracy Theories
Why don't you come up with some actual facts before launching another fishing expedition?

Why don't they launch an investigation into whether Putin influenced the election ?

The fact that so many Democrats are so opposed to an investigation of corrupt in government illustrates just how corrupt and undemocratic the whole culture of the Party is.

 

[Lewdog]

A pardon means she can tell you to go fuck yourself

She can do that without a pardon, but a pardon removes any criminal consequences from specified previous acts and that means you cannot refuse to testify as a material witness on the grounds it might incriminate you, so if you refuse to testify, you can be jailed for contempt of court and if you lie you can be prosecuted for perjury. This fact would allow a prosecutor to compel Clinton, Comey, Lynch and even Obama - and probably others - to reveal under oath the full extent of their conspiracy to conceal evidence and cover up possibly criminal actions for the purpose of trying to influence this election.

You seem to be in some bizarre loop

You are asking her to testify on things she has already received a pardon for. You are investigating someone for something she is already off the hook for.
It is not like she is being given a pardon in exchange for testimony

You still don't get it. If President Trump does appoint a special prosecutor it will be to investigate possible criminal activity that led to the corruption of the Obama Justice Department, State Department and WH for the purpose of influencing this election, not to target Clinton specifically. Anyone can be called as a witness in such an investigation if there is reason to believe he or she might have relevant information, and since she cannot be charged for actions that have been pardoned she can't refuse to testify on the grounds such testimony might incriminate her. While a pardon would protect her from being prosecuted for certain past acts, if she refuses to testify or lies under oath, these would be crimes not covered by the pardon and for which she can be prosecuted.

More rightwing Conspiracy Theories
Why don't you come up with some actual facts before launching another fishing expedition?

Why don't they launch an investigation into whether Putin influenced the election ?

The fact that so many Democrats are so opposed to an investigation of corrupt in government illustrates just how corrupt and undemocratic the whole culture of the Party is.

No, I want Hillary in jail, but I'm not going to make up scenarios that are unrealistic in order to make it happen. I think the real question here should be, does Obama pardon just Hillary, or does he pardon her whole staff? Does he pardon Bill? If he pardons Bill does that tell us that there is some pedophile stuff on Weiner's laptop?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama may pardon everyone in his WH who ever served there.

Then all nine thousand of them smile at Gowdy and Chaffetz, and they can offer then cheez with their winez.

 

[Moxie2]

He may ask Trump, Ryan, and McConnell, "What will you give me if I don't pardon Hillary, and let her become the gift that keeps on giving?"

Honestly, who gives a damn about Hillary Clinton? We have a country to repair.

 

[toomuchtime_]

She can do that without a pardon, but a pardon removes any criminal consequences from specified previous acts and that means you cannot refuse to testify as a material witness on the grounds it might incriminate you, so if you refuse to testify, you can be jailed for contempt of court and if you lie you can be prosecuted for perjury. This fact would allow a prosecutor to compel Clinton, Comey, Lynch and even Obama - and probably others - to reveal under oath the full extent of their conspiracy to conceal evidence and cover up possibly criminal actions for the purpose of trying to influence this election.

You seem to be in some bizarre loop

You are asking her to testify on things she has already received a pardon for. You are investigating someone for something she is already off the hook for.
It is not like she is being given a pardon in exchange for testimony

You still don't get it. If President Trump does appoint a special prosecutor it will be to investigate possible criminal activity that led to the corruption of the Obama Justice Department, State Department and WH for the purpose of influencing this election, not to target Clinton specifically. Anyone can be called as a witness in such an investigation if there is reason to believe he or she might have relevant information, and since she cannot be charged for actions that have been pardoned she can't refuse to testify on the grounds such testimony might incriminate her. While a pardon would protect her from being prosecuted for certain past acts, if she refuses to testify or lies under oath, these would be crimes not covered by the pardon and for which she can be prosecuted.

More rightwing Conspiracy Theories
Why don't you come up with some actual facts before launching another fishing expedition?

Why don't they launch an investigation into whether Putin influenced the election ?

The fact that so many Democrats are so opposed to an investigation of corrupt in government illustrates just how corrupt and undemocratic the whole culture of the Party is.

No, I want Hillary in jail, but I'm not going to make up scenarios that are unrealistic in order to make it happen. I think the real question here should be, does Obama pardon just Hillary, or does he pardon her whole staff? Does he pardon Bill? If he pardons Bill does that tell us that there is some pedophile stuff on Weiner's laptop?

I don't care if Hillary goes to prison or not, now that there is no danger of her ever becoming an important factor in government, but I do care about the level of corruption she brought to the State Department and the corruption of the Justice Department and the WH in trying to cover up her crimes. Although I no longer consider myself a Democrat, I am very concerned about the level of corruption that exists among the Party's leadership and has seeped into its structure and culture.

At the center of all this malfeasance and corruption is Hillary Clinton, so regardless of whether she ends up in prison or not, these issues cannot be investigated without focusing on her actions within the Party and within the government.