Ford pardoned Nixon without any legal charges made against him.
Posted on 11/21/2016 8:59:37 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
The following article was published by the American Thinker on November 18th of this year. Should Barack Obama decide to pardon Hillary Clinton, it would only apply against federal investigation and prosecution. Interested parties would retain the right to indict and prosecute the former Secretary of State and investigate the goings on at the Clinton Foundation on the state level. Russ Vaughn explains in his article below.
Leslie Rutledge, Arkansas A.G.: Hillary's worst nightmare?
By Russ Vaughn
The blog for the Arkansas Times is reporting that our attorney general, Leslie Rutledge, is in New York meeting with Trump transition planners. Rutledge, a diminutive fireball conservative elected two years ago, is quoted:
"My interest is in helping the Trump administration," Rutledge told reporters as she arrived for meetings at Trump Tower in New York. "Whether that's continuing on as the attorney general of Arkansas or (working) in the administration, then my ears are open."
It's the first of those two options, "staying on in Arkansas," that sets my antennae tingling for the simple reason that Rutledge is one of two state attorneys general in the country who have undisputed standing to investigate the Clinton Foundation. The other state is New York, but their thoroughly politicized Democrat attorney general would never lift a hand against the Clintons, no matter how outrageous their corruption. Both A.G.s have standing by virtue of the physical location of Clinton Foundation offices within their borders.
Rutledge could do a great service for both her own considerable political ambitions and the Trump administration by accepting the Trump's Justice Department's help...
(Excerpt) Read more at thecoachsteam.com ...
Heh heh heh. Some follks are beginning to get it.
BHO cannot pardon HRC because she was never charged, let alone convicted, of any crime. Secondly, were he to attempt to do so, it would be a de facto admission of guilt.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/71/333#writing-USSC_CR_0071_0333_ZO
...The Constitution provides that the President “shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”
The power thus conferred is unlimited, with the exception stated.
It extends to every [Federal] 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...
She still would have to be charged with a crime (offence) and she simply is not (yet).
Why isn’t the link to the original source?
HERE IS THE LINK TO THE ORIGINAL STORY
Nixon wasn't charged. Jimmy Carter's draft dodgers mostly were not charged. Garland wasn't charged and neither were many former Confederates who received pardons/amnesties.
Thus, Ex Parte Garland notes that pardons "...may be exercised at any time after its [the crime's] commission, either before legal proceedings are taken..."
From Wikipedia: “A presidential pardon may be granted at any time, however, and as when Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime.”
The titles assertion is incorrect. There are no restrictions on the presidential pardon.
Or from extradition to Egypt.
Correct. It would take a constitutional amendment to limit the power of the pardon.
Speaking of, I would support the limiting the pardon to those who have been convicted in a court of law, with the pardon naming the person and the conviction to be pardoned.
Egypt isn’t the United States.
Game, Set, and Match.
The Confederates had taken part in a rebellion against the US, so yes, they did commit an offence. As to Nixon, he was expected to be impeached and chose resignation instead. But I believe Ford bastardized the power of the pardon. Draft dodgers had committed a crime and would have been charged upon return to the US.
As the pardon power goes now, I believe is not how it is written nor exercised. JMHO and thanks for the examples.
heh heh
An *unchallenged* SC decision in clear language isn’t good enough? Amazing!
Ford pardoned Nixon without any legal charges made against him.
From your own post: “shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”
Contary to what your weird professors seem to be teaching you, Egypt is another country.
If Hillary were to accept a pardon, she would be admitting guilt, as did those others who received pardons/amnesties.
Benton Becker negotiated the pardon deal with Nixon. Using the language of Burdick v. US, Nixon admitted legally to obstruction of justice. Becker describes how he gave Nixon a take-it-or-leave-it deal.
Leftist rage against Nixon was that he never groveled before the moral authority of the MSM. And Leftists conveniently do not cite Garland because it relies on original intent and common law.
The author is wrong. The President’s power to pardon is absolute. Federal crimes, state crimes, even parking tickets.
Pardons should only apply to people convicted of or who pleaded guilty to a crime.
Open-ended pardons are oxymorons. Gerald Ford was a moron.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.