President Obama Should Grant a Presidential Pardon to Hillary Clinton (Putin, Palestinian)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The downside of not pushing ahead on putting her in jail is that the snowflake crowd will never learn why she lost. They will be back in four years ignoring the truth and supporting the liar du jour. We need to educate the masses that don't want to be educated.
It wouldn't matter anyway. The pro-Nixon cerw, including New York Sun columnist Conrad Black, ignore Nixon's efforts to subvert legal and constitutional procedures. The snowflake crowd still has not reconciled itself to Bush or even Reagan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl
Again, there is nothing for him to pardon, pardons are only for people convicted of a crime in a court if law, not the court of public opinion.
It's a little more interesting now that Flynn also violated his handling of classified information.
Nixon was pardoned notwithstanding the lack of any conviction or even indictment. This has been rehashed many times in the thread.
The downside of not pushing ahead on putting her in jail is that the snowflake crowd will never learn why she lost. They will be back in four years ignoring the truth and supporting the liar du jour. We need to educate the masses that don't want to be educated.
More partisan nonsence. At this point Trump could nuke China and some of you will still be talking about Liberals. So really how valid is this concern?
I don't think this is the case at all. I think most democrats were well aware of her flaws, in fact many of us were very openly saying "I'm going to vote for her but I don't like her". That said, there were a variety of factors that led to her loss, trust being one of them but also failure to have a message for the middle class, not going to Wisconsin or other blue collar areas.
C'mon now....I am giving Trump a chance open-mindedly, but you cannot possibly release him from the liar umbrella...that's just wearing blinders. He just lies about stupider things (saying he never said something that is on TAPE for instance). Or claiming Melania's going to have a press conference any day now to explain whether she worked here illegally, or that he's not allowed to release his tax returns.
Just saying, you can support him fully without being stupid about it. There is no moral high ground for him to claim, either, that is clear to anyone. Just stay vigilant, it's not about sides it's about the country. When we start rooting for sides like a WWF match and lauding "our guy" like he has God-like perfection, the whole country loses.
Just because the loser is flawed doesn't mean the winner has no flaws. That's just silly and simplistic.
Why did you respond to me about Trump when my post was strictly about Hillary? I never said Trump was an angel. Trump has his flaws, but at least he still had/has some potential to be a good president. He hasn't been in public office before, while Hillary has, so she has a record that would never allow me to vote for her, so, by default I had to vote for Trump, although, not voting would have had the same result, since I live in Maryland.
We'll just have to wait and see and hope that a vote for him in 2020 will be a slam dunk decision based on his first four years.
More partisan nonsence. At this point Trump could nuke China and some of you will still be talking about Liberals. So really how valid is this concern?
My post was directed toward the people who were in anguish and uncontrollable tears over Hillary's loss. I actually feel sorry for them to some extent. I even tried to console one, but she ran out of the room screaming at me, because I dared to try and show her some information that described the reasons why HRC lost. These are the kind of people that I call snowflakes, and who need to get educated in history, or at the very least some form of therapy. She probably went through her early years getting trophies for showing up and never had to face losing a game before. I didn't dare discuss anything more with her for fear I would get charged with creating a difficult situation in her workplace, where I happened to interact with her. Sad.
My post was directed toward the people who were in anguish and uncontrollable tears over Hillary's loss. I actually feel sorry for them to some extent. I even tried to console one, but she ran out of the room screaming at me, because I dared to try and show her some information that described the reasons why HRC lost. These are the kind of people that I call snowflakes, and who need to get educated in history, or at the very least some form of therapy. She probably went through her early years getting trophies for showing up and never had to face losing a game before. I didn't dare discuss anything more with her for fear I would get charged with creating a difficult situation in her workplace, where I happened to interact with her. Sad.
Your interactions with your co-worker have nothing to do with whether or not Clinton should receive a pardon. Federal pardons don't get granted based on some random person's sense of self-righteousness.
It wouldn't matter anyway. The pro-Nixon cerw, including New York Sun columnist Conrad Black, ignore Nixon's efforts to subvert legal and constitutional procedures. The snowflake crowd still has not reconciled itself to Bush or even Reagan.
Nixon was pardoned notwithstanding the lack of any conviction or even indictment. This has been rehashed many times in the thread.
This is not the same. The FBI declined to prosecute Hillary and said there was nothing to charge her with under the law, that was not the case with Nixon at all. Again, FBI says no crime, no indictment = no cause to pardon her. They were, indeed preparing charges and indictments against Nixon, which is WHY Ford pardoned him, so the country could put it in the past and move on rather than a court fight and continued scandal.
If the FBI had come out and said Nixon was careless but didn't commit a prosecutable crime, then there would have been nothing for Ford to pardon.
Should that ever change, should they discover something else and then come out and announce they are indicting her, THEN you can start this thread. Until then it has no basis in the reality of how things work or the President's powers.
My post was directed toward the people who were in anguish and uncontrollable tears over Hillary's loss. I actually feel sorry for them to some extent. I even tried to console one, but she ran out of the room screaming at me, because I dared to try and show her some information that described the reasons why HRC lost. These are the kind of people that I call snowflakes, and who need to get educated in history, or at the very least some form of therapy. She probably went through her early years getting trophies for showing up and never had to face losing a game before. I didn't dare discuss anything more with her for fear I would get charged with creating a difficult situation in her workplace, where I happened to interact with her. Sad.
Just s an aside, THIS above is the main reason I have a hard time getting behind the Trump movement, the constant meanness.
This is not the same. The FBI declined to prosecute Hillary and said there was nothing to charge her with under the law, that was not the case with Nixon at all. Again, FBI says no crime, no indictment = no cause to pardon her. They were, indeed preparing charges and indictments against Nixon, which is WHY Ford pardoned him, so the country could put it in the past and move on rather than a court fight and continued scandal.
If the FBI had come out and said Nixon was careless but didn't commit a prosecutable crime, then there would have been nothing for Ford to pardon.
Should that ever change, should they discover something else and then come out and announce they are indicting her, THEN you can start this thread. Until then it has no basis in the reality of how things work or the President's powers.
What Comey said about Hillary was that no one had ever been prosecuted previously for what Hillary had done. There is a difference. He did not say what she had done was not prosecutable. At the most he admitted that the chances for a successful prosecution were minimal, because of the lack of any previous attempts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
