- Moderator
- #21
I know how you feelz, but what counts is what is reelz.oky, thank you for admitting that you have no idea about this. Here you go.Fakey you haven't been right about a damn thing this year, go take a nap.
"In 1866, the Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Garland that the pardon power "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." (In that case, a former Confederate senator successfully petitioned the court to uphold a pardon that prevented him from being disbarred.) Generally speaking, once an act has been committed, the president can issue a pardon at any time—regardless of whether charges have even been filed."
Can President Bush pardon people who haven't even been charged with a crime?
Clinton is finished. Obama will see what he can get in return for a pardon or not from the GOP leadership.
So another example of where the court got it wrong. Under our system you are innocent until proven guilty in a court. The innocent can't be pardoned because there is nothing to pardon. At this point they aren't even contemplating charges.
Obama can issue a blanket pardon to Clinton if he so wishes, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
And who would pardon him? He has consistently proclaimed she did nothing wrong, a pardon would be proof of his complicity.