As another Lame Cherry exclusive in matter anti matter.
There is a legality in an Executive can not issue a pardon or clemency to anyone, if the person has not been charged with a crime.
A President can pardon someone who has been indicted as HW Bush did Cap Wienberger by that crooked Lawrence Walsh to throw the election in 1992, to install the Clinton's, but again that was an indictment.
A person has to be indicted or convicted. image Obama can not pardon someone for a crime they are not charged, or they might be charged, as that type of abuse of power would allow image Obama to pardon Hamrod for attacking Bill Clinton in the future.
This has been the huge mistake in all of this Clinton crime cover up in that idiot Attorney General Loretta Lynch should have indicted Hillary Clinton in August and image Obama could have pardoned Hamrod and that would have ended all FBI investigations and the entire story.
The puppy press would have given cover, the GOP would have howled, and it would have been brushed off as a witch hunt and Wikileaks would have had absolutely no power to bring the allure of crimes.
The Lame Cherry will address this tomorrow in how to handle this correctly to free America from Clinton Crimes.
The White House isn’t ruling out the possibility of Hillary Clinton receiving a last-minute pardon from President Obama — even though she hasn’t been charged with a crime.
Asked at Wednesday’s press briefing whether Obama had considered utilizing his unique executive power, press secretary Josh Earnest was cryptic.
“The president has offered clemency to a substantial number of Americans who were previously serving time in federal prisons,” Earnest said.
As some asstard was bitching about this in image Obama can issue pardons for crimes not charged or convicted, the basis of this is Ex Parte Garland, which took place in 1866, and dealt with:
By the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Supreme Court has power to make rules and decide upon the qualifications of attorneys.
At the December Term of 1860, A. H. Garland, Esquire, was admitted as an attorney and counsellor of the court, and took and subscribed the oath then required.
The explanation of this ruling of the expanded pardon was thus:
By the second section of the second article of the Constitution, power is given to the President 'to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.' With that exception the power is unlimited. It extends to every offence, and is intended to relieve the party who may have committed it or who may be charged with its commission, from all the punishments of every description that the law, at the time of the pardon, imposes.
The power is not unlimited, for image Obama could not for Joe Biden hire a person to off Hamrod, so Joe Biden could be the candidate, and hand out pardons for crimes it commissioned, no more than image Obama could pardon itself.
There never have been unlimited powers in pardons, and like numbers of political decisions in the Supreme Court, this one is bogus, as it does not convey unlimited powers for "oaths of office" for lawyers, when compared to criminal acts by those not involved inside the government.
I reached my limit years ago in these asstards who lurk around trying to find fault in things posted to validate their pathetic existences in attempting to be right about something. This is an issue which would bring an immediate appeal of the Department of Justice challenging image Obama for attempting something which has absolutely no precedent. This includes President Ford's pardon of President Richard Nixon, which is a completely different issue involving an officer of the government who could not be arrested in office, and was protected by that service.
image Obama attempts this, and the Supreme Court will strike that pardon down, as all extensions have been struck down. It is known to be worthless law, and is why no President has ever attempted something this criminal to ruin their legacy.
agtG
