Soren wrote:How much longer does this trend continue before the system just breaks all together and we have to reboot the government?

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.

While pre-emptive pardons remain very rare, there are a few notable exceptions. Perhaps the most famous presidential pardon of all time occurred before any charges were filed. Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon absolved the former president of "all offenses against the United States which he … has committed or may have committed or taken part in" between the date of his inauguration in 1969 and his resignation in August 1974. In other cases, presidents have pardoned individuals after criminal proceedings have begun but before a judgment has been handed down. In late 1992, less than a month before leaving office, President George H.W. Bush pardoned former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, who had been indicted earlier that year on perjury charges surrounding the Iran-Contra affair. (A lawyer for Roger Clemens' former trainer Brian McNamee claimed the pitcher might receive a similar pardon from Bush if he were ever indicted.) In addition, broad presidential amnesties—like the one President Carter issued to those who had avoided the draft during the Vietnam War—are essentially pre-emptive pardons issued to a large group of individuals.

Soren wrote:How much longer does this trend continue before the system just breaks all together and we have to reboot the government?

JFLNYC wrote:

heyeaglefn wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:I can't believe I'm writing this but -- for the good of the country and to remove at least one of the Republicans' obstructionist weapons -- Obama must pardon Hillary before he leaves office. I know the optics will be horrible, but we just can't have another 4 years (or more) of fishing expeditions.

They can still try to impeach her so I don't see Obama doing that.

Of course, but that wasn't the point. They're going to try to impeach her under any circumstances. The point is any criminal investigations would end.

heyeaglefn wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

heyeaglefn wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:I can't believe I'm writing this but -- for the good of the country and to remove at least one of the Republicans' obstructionist weapons -- Obama must pardon Hillary before he leaves office. I know the optics will be horrible, but we just can't have another 4 years (or more) of fishing expeditions.

They can still try to impeach her so I don't see Obama doing that.

Of course, but that wasn't the point. They're going to try to impeach her under any circumstances. The point is any criminal investigations would end.

Still think they will investigate as others wouldn't necessarily be pardoned.

TenuredVulture wrote:You'd have to think at some point the Republicans will pay a price at the polls for all this. It certainly happened in the 90s--the impeachment of Bill Clinton cost the Republicans.

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

Soren wrote:How much longer does this trend continue before the system just breaks all together and we have to reboot the government?

after Civil War II

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Pardoning her is an implicit admission that Obama thinks she is guilty. Talk about delegitimizing an incoming president.

JUburton wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Pardoning her is an implicit admission that Obama thinks she is guilty. Talk about delegitimizing an incoming president.

yeah it would be a complete disaster.

MoBettle wrote:Which of the 25 Clinton conspiracies of varying legitimacy that the far right peddle are we pardoning her for?

JFLNYC wrote:

JUburton wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Pardoning her is an implicit admission that Obama thinks she is guilty. Talk about delegitimizing an incoming president.

yeah it would be a complete disaster.

Unlike the rainbows and lollipops if he doesn't.

heyeaglefn wrote:

MoBettle wrote:Which of the 25 Clinton conspiracies of varying legitimacy that the far right peddle are we pardoning her for?

The pay for play stuff seems like it has the most legs, but who knows.