I second that emotion.
Impeachment
- Thread starter mchammer
- Start date
Sad but true.
How can you pardon someone who has not been charged nor convicted of a crime?
The History of the Pardon Power
Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution states that the President has the authority to “grant Reprieves...
First, who are the people who published this?
The History of the Pardon Power
Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution states that the President has the authority to “grant Reprieves...www.whitehousehistory.org
First, who are the people who published this?
I'm not sure who wrote it, but it's pretty much accurate. I think the founding fathers were wrong on this.
In what way?
What caught my attention was the line, "First, a crime must have been committed for a pardon to be issued."
Is that true? Based on what "controlling legal authority?" (Thanks to Mr. Gore for that one).
That is misleading and poorly written, because it gives the impression that the person has to have been guilty of something. That isn't the case. What I think they're trying to say is that the alleged or possible crime must have already occured. For example, if Hunter Biden comitts a crime tomorrow, his pardont won't protect him.
Definitely poorly written then. I read "crime" as already gone through the legal process to find a guilty verdict.
Understandable interpretation.
I’m more simple, I read it no crime no pardon regardless of conviction. Ie, if there’s no crime no need to pardon therefore if you pardon you must know there’s a crime or evidence enough such that a conviction is likely, hence preemptive. And no I never even played one on tv.
I am not sure I see the functional difference between "crime" and your interpretation. An act against a statute or the public is a crime.
Common sense dictates that one cannot pardon someone without that person or persons committing a crime. The issue is whether a crime has to be adjudicated to be a crime.
In SloJoe's Pardons, he either knows or has reason to believe, crimes have been committed, thus the pardons. What he failed to consider (or went to sleep while researching) is even with a pardon, the true facts can be discovered and published.
I seriously wonder how much involvement did he have in any of the actions taken by his administration during his entire term.
He probably got the deciding vote on ice cream flavors.
And which brand of adult diapers he preferred.
Yes, but the alleged criminal act must have already occurred. It can't be in the future.
Remember that all crimes are alleged until proven otherwise in court. You don't need to be convicted of anything to receive a pardon. That's why Jimmy Carter's DoJ couldn't prosecute Nixon.
But supposed LBJ had anticipated that Nixon would do something slimy and pardoned him in 1968. That wouldn't have helped him for crimes he committed in 1972.
No, he doesn't have to believe crimes were committed. All he has to believe is that there's a possibility that crimes will be alleged.
I believe you're correct but let's hope the SCOTUS holds your view
The Federal and UCMJ codes should be amended to preclude pardons for non-crimes.
Biden will be found to have accepted money for access. However, it is doubtful that any president (including Trump) will insist on a trial so a pardon isn't in the cards for that charge. However, the easiest case will be he (and the rest of their families) didn't pay income tax on that money so most will end up like Al Capone.
Their lawyers and the liberal media will yell that they were pardoned, but that should not hold water if Mr. Deez' interpretation holds.
Biden will be found to have accepted money for access. However, it is doubtful that any president (including Trump) will insist on a trial so a pardon isn't in the cards for that charge. However, the easiest case will be he (and the rest of their families) didn't pay income tax on that money so most will end up like Al Capone.
Their lawyers and the liberal media will yell that they were pardoned, but that should not hold water if Mr. Deez' interpretation holds.
Two things. First, the US Code and UCMJ can't limit pardon power. That would be unconstitutional. Second, pardons are always issued for criminal activity (either convicted, alleged, or potentially alleged).
Biden didn't pardon himself, so if he accepted bribes, he could be charged for that or for tax evasion. His family members have been pardoned. They are off the hook for any underlying crimes and for tax evasion, which is also criminal.
I think we're misunderstanding each other.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Might as well go after them. We are in a war.
This is all they have. As soon as Trump was sworn in the last time they called for impeachment. This time he doesn't give a f@ck AND republicans run everything...Prez, House, Senate....
Now we just get to laugh at them while they throw tantrums and **** gets fixed and back to normal in the grand ole America.
The founding father didn't intend to have the impeachment tool used as a political weapon. They are probably turning over in their graves as they see what's going on in Congress now.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Impeachment is by its nature a political act. They may not agree with the Left's usage of it, but not because the Left is being "political".
NEW: Pro Sports Forums
Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.
Pro Sports Forums
Pro Sports Forums
Recent Threads
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 582
- West Mall
-
Elon Musk Stuff
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 544
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Post Right Wing looniness here
- Started by Seattle Husker
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
