• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If Trump Wins, Does Hillary Get Indicted?

well, and what if it is true?

And btw why these very strange and bizarre reactions, by refllex action?
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
We have a subforum to quarantine that in for a reason.
Click to expand...
Tsk Tsk Tsk
You were feeding him in the science section.
I know it seems like all his threads should be quarantined but some of them manage to avoid it somehow
 
ah well ok condemnation before... ah you know the drill.


‘Americas worst nightmare potentially just got the green light. The blue helmets of the UN are coming to police the streets of the USA. Foreign Military is now allowed to police the streets, arrest, and use force in combat.

In May 2016, the USA approved a set of principles that give the green light for UN peacekeeping troops AND POLICE to use force to “protect” citizens in armed conflicts, but the agreement does not specify exactly where. The Blue Helmets are coming, and the American police force could now be a part of a global police force
Click to expand...


http://www.govtslaves.info/did-the-us-just-agree-to-allow-un-foreign-troops-to-police-the-streets-of-the-usa/
 
Untitled-52.jpg
 
Chomsky said:
Agreed!

I'm always blown away that can legally be done.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how clear the law is on it--not familiar with the Supreme Court cases on that specific point, if there are any. The power is very broad, and the Court in at least one post-Civil War case invalidated an action Congress had taken because it encroached on the president's pardon power. If I had to guess, I'd say the original intent was to allow a president to restore a person's reputation, particularly if he believed politics had played a role in charging or convicting him. (In the early days of this country, for example, more than one prosecution for treason had political overtones.) I don't think pardons were meant to be a permanent grant of immunity from prosecution, even if overwhelming evidence were later to come to light that the person who had been pardoned had committed the most serious federal felonies.
 
I see nothing wrong with questioning the validity of an official story that isn't specifically in the CT sub-forum,

...you are, however, pushing it, PinDar.
 
eohrnberger said:
Get a pardon at the beginning of / before Hillary's term in office? Last time there was a presidential pardon, Nixon resigned, and was then pardoned. I don't think it's likely that she'll be pardoned AND be in office.
Click to expand...

You are right. Whether Hillary wins or not, Obama would probably pardon her on the way out the door.
 
matchlight said:
I suppose Obama could do that. He may want to, because if she were prosecuted for her handling of emails--e.g. under section 793(f)--I suspect evidence would come to light that implicated him in it. It's just not credible that he did not both receive and respond to some of her emails that contained government information. I tend to think pardoning a person for any federal crime he might have committed, even though he had never been convicted or even charged, is an abuse of the pardon power. It allows a president to pardon even the most serious federal felonies without ever having the charges exposed to public scrutiny, so that the people could see just how bad the pardoned actions looked.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately at least one president has abused his pardon power. Bill Clinton pardoned 13 Puerto Rican terrorists who did not even request a pardon. He pardoned them for the sake of assisting Hillary in her Senate campaign with hispanic voters. But you are right. Obama had to know Hillary was operating on a private email server and could fear being implicated at least bad enough to harm his so-called legacy.
 
Why not? Since we will be just like other banana republic if Trump gets elected, why wouldn't he throw his opponent in jail? It's what they do in those countries.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
I see nothing wrong with questioning the validity of an official story that isn't specifically in the CT sub-forum,

...you are, however, pushing it, PinDar.
Click to expand...

This is conspiracy forum bull****, plain and simple.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Unfortunately at least one president has abused his pardon power. Bill Clinton pardoned 13 Puerto Rican terrorists who did not even request a pardon. He pardoned them for the sake of assisting Hillary in her Senate campaign with hispanic voters. But you are right. Obama had to know Hillary was operating on a private email server and could fear being implicated at least bad enough to harm his so-called legacy.
Click to expand...

You're exactly right. Mr. B.J. "The Horny Hick" Clinton," who is our only other impeached president beside Andrew Johnson, is a crook just like his wife. He also commuted the sentences of two female Communists who had been convicted of felonies for their involvement in bombings and other violence as members of the Weather Underground. One of them, in addition to various gun crimes and harboring a fugitive, had been found with more than 700 pounds of dynamite in her apartment, along with evidence of plans to bomb several very important government buildings, including the Capitol, FBI headquarters, and the National War College. The forty years she was sentenced to was lenient, considering that she was part of a conspiracy to wage war against the United States, and yet she was released after serving only sixteen years of that sentence.
 
Moderate Right said:
Just read a post where this question popped into my head.
Click to expand...

Depends.

If you are talking about the Benghazi or email stuff, then no. It's past history at this point.

If you are talking about new charges for other stuff, then yes...she's fair game.

Of course, if Trump gets elected, I think most people would be satisfied with her just slinking away in shame for being a two-time loser.
 
No. She is privileged and in a position of power regardless. I work in healthcare, if I was careless with HIPAA policies, it would be my job. However, she is careless with sensitive information and gets to run for president. It's gross.
 
Mycroft said:
Depends.

If you are talking about the Benghazi or email stuff, then no. It's past history at this point.

If you are talking about new charges for other stuff, then yes...she's fair game.

Of course, if Trump gets elected, I think most people would be satisfied with her just slinking away in shame for being a two-time loser.
Click to expand...

Yep. I think everyone including Hillary knows this is her last shot. She has felt entitled to the office all along. Her original plan was a run in 2004. Bush had just won a razor thin election and was not in her mind able to claim any real voter mandate. He was supposed to be easy to beat in 2004, just like his dad was in 92. Then the terrorist attacks occurred on 9/11/01. Alternate plan was to run in 2008. Then a Obama came out of nowhere to beat her. Now in 2016, she is facing the wrath of an electorate that has had it with status quo establishment politicians. It will be poetic justice if she gets beat by a political novice like Trump.
 
matchlight said:
I'm not sure how clear the law is on it--not familiar with the Supreme Court cases on that specific point, if there are any. The power is very broad, and the Court in at least one post-Civil War case invalidated an action Congress had taken because it encroached on the president's pardon power. If I had to guess, I'd say the original intent was to allow a president to restore a person's reputation, particularly if he believed politics had played a role in charging or convicting him. (In the early days of this country, for example, more than one prosecution for treason had political overtones.) I don't think pardons were meant to be a permanent grant of immunity from prosecution, even if overwhelming evidence were later to come to light that the person who had been pardoned had committed the most serious federal felonies.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your opinion.

I'd think an important point would be that pardons only effect past incidents, not future events. But even so, as you posited it seems murky over past incidents where new evidence of additional offense come to light from the incident!

Yowsa', it sounds like a 'get out of jail free card'! :doh
 
ObamacareFail said:
You are right. Whether Hillary wins or not, Obama would probably pardon her on the way out the door.
Click to expand...

If Hillary loses, then maybe.

If Hillary wins, I don't think so. Especially not if such a pardon would ever become public.

Can you imagine what sort of legitimate outrage do you think would occur?
Can you imagine what sort of hobbled presidency would Hillary have as a result?

No, I think she'd be more likely to take the impeachment, and continue on with her presidency, much as Bill did. Of course, it would be a single term presidency, and I don't think it likely that she'd win a second term with an impeachment.
 
The FBI inspector said if someone under him behaved this way they could be reprimanded or fired. This is a long way from going to prison so you have to get off it folks.

Pin dÁr said:
It really doesn't matter, They are just 'puppets on a string". They will not calling the shots at all!

Hence, it doesn't matter who wins, they are all manipulated by the same hidden hand.
Click to expand...

Moderate Right said:
I'm not sure I understand who you are saying is the hidden hand pulling the puppet strings. Are you referring to the one percent?
Click to expand...

Pin dÁr said:
Actually , it is even less then one percent.

View attachment 67204342
Click to expand...

Pin dÁr said:
View attachment 67204343
Click to expand...

Nonsense anyone can control the puppeteer and our collective controlling manifests in the systems built around us. Your vote is very important.
 
ObamacareFail said:
You are right. Whether Hillary wins or not, Obama would probably pardon her on the way out the door.
Click to expand...

What would Obama pardon her for? She hasn't been convicted of anything.
 
Moderate Right said:
Just read a post where this question popped into my head.
Click to expand...

If trump wins I can see him pushing an indictment, but not a conviction. Trump like hillary has alot of power and connections, but also knows how to satisfy the public without doing much of anything.

If he did he would likely push an indictment, which would be nothing more than a dog and pony show to say the govt takes accountability and the law serious, then it falls short of a conviction with no one being charged, as anyone in a position of power does not want someone else as powerfull charged, as it brings in oversight into their own daily actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom