As Paul Manafort Goes to jail, Rudy Giuliani Suggests Trump Could Issue Pardons

[prometeus]

It proves to me that Mueller has a lot of juice over the judge to jail Manfort for weak charges.

This proves that you have little to no understanding of these matters so you spout ignorant partisan talking points instead of relevant arguments.

 

[Rogue Valley]

With speaking of pardons, Trump is already planning/trying to subvert justice.

 

[Excon]

No you do not and all your deflections do not change reality. You can not support the ignorant assertions you make.

Just because you are ignorant of what is being spoken about does not mean the assertions are unsupportable.

So you are wrong, as usual.

 

[Excon]

Why are you impotent to explain why you believe your invocation of two words - SUPREMACY CLAUSE - applies to the pardon power as claimed by Donald Trump?

Attacking me with personal remarks that you have no knowledge about is NOT a substitute for the lack of your own argument.

So what you are now saying is that you do not understand the terminology used even though you previously professed to understand. Doh!
Figures.
You already know the phrase I chose (if you are not ignorant of what it means) crushed and flushed your stupid comparisons.
I do not have to explain anything else if you understand what the phrase means. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous and is a game you are playing.

The reality here is you are impotent to refute the argument the phrase presents.

 

[upsideguy]

iLOL No. Not in this case.
The limitations on the power is contained in the Constitution. There is no limitation on pardoning those accused, charged, or convicted of a Federal crime.
Unless stated in the Constitution a Constitutional Clause can not be beholden to legislation. The use of the power within the limitations listed can not be challenged by legislation.
The only thing that can happen is Congress ignoring the legal action and instead issuing an Article of Impeachment simply because of dislike, which would then be voted on by the House and tried by Senate if they so choose.




Many/most? iLOL No.
In addition, an appeal to the masses is a logical fallacy.
If you, and this so-called group of many/most do not like it, change the Constitution.

Trump also has the power to order a unilateral strike. In doing so, he has the cover of it being in the interest of US security. He will be accountable for his actions, with the presumption that they were done in the interest of US security. However, if not legitimate argument for US security could be made and the actions can be shown to be largely person, he could be accountable for murder. Now, whether he can be charged as a sitting president is arguable, he can be impeached. Once impeached and removed, he could be subject to full prosecution later. Now, I appreciate that such is an absurd example. It is offered to help you understand that having the power does not mean you can not be held accountable for the misuse of that power, either politically or legally.

Similarly, using the power of the pardon to protect yourself could easily be construed as obstruction of justice for which charges can be made. Again, its arguable as to whether a sitting president can be indicted, he certainly can be impeached. When the president is no longer president, he could then be indicted.

Having the power is not a defense for using the power in a way the violates law. Obstruction of justice is a violation of law. If you use the pardon in a manner that obstructs justice, such as exonerating material witnesses so they don't feel compelled to tell the truth*, you just used you power to violate a law. The pardon is not the violation of the law; the resultant obstruction of justice is.

Again, the immediate remedy is impeachment as indictment of a sitting president may not be legal or practical. Even if so, the fact that it is difficult to indict a sitting president does not change the FACT that they may have broken a law, in this case obstruction of justice.

 

[upsideguy]

Mrs. Clinton was under criminal investigation. Which is more than what Mr. Trump was.

Actually, Trump is a subject of a criminal investigation. That investigation is ongoing and has already led to more than 100 criminal charges, which exceeds the number of charges levied in the Clinton investigation by at least 100.

It seems to me that temperature of the pot of water the boils around Trump is at least 100 C hotter than the soup Clinton was in.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/us/politics/mueller-investigation-charges.html

Is it more plausible that after 2 years of investigation, the only thing to show for it is that by squeezing somebody on completely unrelated charges, it will break the dam?

You have no idea what Mueller has. Unless you can explain all of this:

Donald Trump'''s Many, Many, Many, Many Ties to Russia | Time
https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...ies-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-contacts-idUSKCN18E106
What we know so far about contacts between Trump campaign and Russia | CBC News
http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/29/news/donald-trump-russia-ties/index.html

I suggest you think about this:



BTW, Mueller has been on the case for 13 months, not two years. Much of what they are investigating took place 2 years ago.

 

[upsideguy]

If the Constitution so spells it out, then indeed it is an unlimited right.

Trump could pardon Manafort for any reason he chooses. Trump would not be committing a crime.
However, Congress could decide to impeach, viewing that such a pardon constitutes an abuse of power (unless you wish to argue that this is one of those situations where Congress right to impeach is not an unlimited right...).

Actually, not true. Not all rights are unlimited. To make an extreme example, the 2nd amendment is not unlimited. The government can keep you from having tactical nuclear weapons in your gun locker. The SCOTUS has explicitly stated that the 2nd amendment is not unlimited....

Don't blame the 2nd Amendment. Blame our politics

From article:

"In the court's decision in D.C. vs. Heller left a much wider scope for gun control than is commonly recognized. In his majority opinion, the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that "the right secured by the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited" and that the 2nd Amendment does not prevent the state from banning "dangerous and unusual weapons."

Nor is the right of free speech unlimited...

https://www.csmonitor.com/1988/0707/dcurt7.html

Similarly, the right to pardon does not exonerate you from illegal actions that may arise from the use of the pardon any more than the 2nd amendment does not exonerate you from claims of how you use your gun. The "make my day law" may give you great cover in the use of force, but it breaks down quickly if you use it as a cover to murder someone.

With great power comes great responsibility. The irresponsible use of power can get you into a heap of trouble. The problem with Trump is that he seems to suffer from the delusion that he has unlimited power and is above the law. As a result, he seems to be rapidly working to tangle himself up in Mueller's web like a fly would before a black widow.

 

[Athanasius68]

The Illinois Constitution gives the Governor the power to appoint anyone to the Senate vacant seat who is constitutionally qualified. He did that. And now he is in prison because he used a power that the governments chief executive officer has under the constitution corruptly. The same would be true of the chief executive at the federal level who attempted to use his power of pardon to silence a person under investigation who he believed might implicate him in criminal behavior.

The governor was convicted of federal, not state, crimes. Whatever the authority an Illinois governor has to appoint senators under its state constitution, federal law trumps it.

However, the USA Constitution trumps federal law. It gives the president the right to pardon all, except state crimes and impeachments. It cannot be against the law for the president to exercise his lawful authority.

 

[Athanasius68]

Actually, Trump is a subject of a criminal investigation. That investigation is ongoing and has already led to more than 100 criminal charges, which exceeds the number of charges levied in the Clinton investigation by at least 100.

It seems to me that temperature of the pot of water the boils around Trump is at least 100 C hotter than the soup Clinton was in.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/us/politics/mueller-investigation-charges.html



You have no idea what Mueller has. Unless you can explain all of this:

Donald Trump'''s Many, Many, Many, Many Ties to Russia | Time
https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...ies-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-contacts-idUSKCN18E106
What we know so far about contacts between Trump campaign and Russia | CBC News
http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/29/news/donald-trump-russia-ties/index.html

I suggest you think about this:

View attachment 67234529

BTW, Mueller has been on the case for 13 months, not two years. Much of what they are investigating took place 2 years ago.

Mueller inherited Comey’s investigation, which began about two years ago.
If Trump is the subject of a criminal investigation, we have all been lied to by Comey and Clapper.
But it is true, nobody knows what Mueller has.

 

[Athanasius68]

Actually, not true. Not all rights are unlimited. To make an extreme example, the 2nd amendment is not unlimited. The government can keep you from having tactical nuclear weapons in your gun locker. The SCOTUS has explicitly stated that the 2nd amendment is not unlimited....

Don't blame the 2nd Amendment. Blame our politics

From article:

"In the court's decision in D.C. vs. Heller left a much wider scope for gun control than is commonly recognized. In his majority opinion, the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that "the right secured by the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited" and that the 2nd Amendment does not prevent the state from banning "dangerous and unusual weapons."

Nor is the right of free speech unlimited...

https://www.csmonitor.com/1988/0707/dcurt7.html

Similarly, the right to pardon does not exonerate you from illegal actions that may arise from the use of the pardon any more than the 2nd amendment does not exonerate you from claims of how you use your gun. The "make my day law" may give you great cover in the use of force, but it breaks down quickly if you use it as a cover to murder someone.

With great power comes great responsibility. The irresponsible use of power can get you into a heap of trouble. The problem with Trump is that he seems to suffer from the delusion that he has unlimited power and is above the law. As a result, he seems to be rapidly working to tangle himself up in Mueller's web like a fly would before a black widow.

View attachment 67234531

The presidential right to pardon is clear and unambiguous.

 

[Athanasius68]

To entice a crime, IS a crime always, no matter who or under what circumstance it is done.

That is incorrect. Nixon was not convicted of anything.

One would then to prove that a crime was being committed- which if they could the issue would be moot anyhow.

 

[Athanasius68]

Trump also has the power to order a unilateral strike. In doing so, he has the cover of it being in the interest of US security. He will be accountable for his actions, with the presumption that they were done in the interest of US security. However, if not legitimate argument for US security could be made and the actions can be shown to be largely person, he could be accountable for murder. Now, whether he can be charged as a sitting president is arguable, he can be impeached. Once impeached and removed, he could be subject to full prosecution later. Now, I appreciate that such is an absurd example. It is offered to help you understand that having the power does not mean you can not be held accountable for the misuse of that power, either politically or legally.

Similarly, using the power of the pardon to protect yourself could easily be construed as obstruction of justice for which charges can be made. Again, its arguable as to whether a sitting president can be indicted, he certainly can be impeached. When the president is no longer president, he could then be indicted.

Having the power is not a defense for using the power in a way the violates law. Obstruction of justice is a violation of law. If you use the pardon in a manner that obstructs justice, such as exonerating material witnesses so they don't feel compelled to tell the truth*, you just used you power to violate a law. The pardon is not the violation of the law; the resultant obstruction of justice is.

Again, the immediate remedy is impeachment as indictment of a sitting president may not be legal or practical. Even if so, the fact that it is difficult to indict a sitting president does not change the FACT that they may have broken a law, in this case obstruction of justice.

When President Obama announced DACA, he directed the Justice Dept. to cease prosecution and deportation of the relevant children and adults.
The immigration law itself was never changed.
Was Obama engaging in obstruction of justice? Or was he exercising his lawful authority in directing how he was going to enforce the laws of the country?

 

[haymarket]

So what you are now saying is that you do not understand the terminology used even though you previously professed to understand.

What I have repeatedly said is that YOU have not explained why you invoked two words - SUPREMACY CLAUSE - in a discussion about the pardon powers of Trump.

 

[haymarket]

The governor was convicted of federal, not state, crimes. Whatever the authority an Illinois governor has to appoint senators under its state constitution, federal law trumps it.

However, the USA Constitution trumps federal law. It gives the president the right to pardon all, except state crimes and impeachments. It cannot be against the law for the president to exercise his lawful authority.

What does federal law have to do with one using their powers corruptly in the furtherance of a crime?

 

[Excon]

What I have repeatedly said is that YOU have not explained why you invoked two words - SUPREMACY CLAUSE - in a discussion about the pardon powers of Trump.

And as repeatedly pointed out to you, if you know what those words mean (as you supposedly do), I need not further explain because you already know.
And because you do know, you know that your stupid comparison was crushed and flushed.

You do know and are playing a silly game

 

[haymarket]

And as repeatedly pointed out to you, if you know what those words mean (as you supposedly do), I need not further explain because you already know.
And because you do know, you know that your stupid comparison was crushed and flushed.

You do know and are playing a silly game

Your surrender is noted due to your impotence to explain why you invoked the words SUPREMECY CLAUSE in a discussion about the litmus of a pardon in the furtherance of a crime.

 

[Athanasius68]

What does federal law have to do with one using their powers corruptly in the furtherance of a crime?

As we are talking about a crime, one would suspect law, and in this situation federal law, would be germane.

 

[Excon]

Your surrender is noted due to your impotence to explain why you invoked the words SUPREMECY CLAUSE in a discussion about the litmus of a pardon in the furtherance of a crime.

iLOL
Says the guy who knows, not only what the phrase means , but also that it crushes and flushes his absurdly stupid comparison.

You showed you surrendered when you deflected with your game.

 

[Excon]

Trump also has the power to order a unilateral strike. In doing so, he has the cover of it being in the interest of US security. He will be accountable for his actions, with the presumption that they were done in the interest of US security. However, if not legitimate argument for US security could be made and the actions can be shown to be largely person, he could be accountable for murder.

iLOL Not a relevant comparison.
The power to unilaterally strike is beholden to what? What has been laid out in legislation.

The power to pardon is not subject legislation. Such a Constitutional power is not and can not be beholden to legislation. Period.
There is no restriction that Congress can put on it without changing the Constitution.

Now, whether he can be charged as a sitting president is arguable, he can be impeached.

Irrelevant to it's use to pardon or commute, accusations, charges and convictions for Federal crimes.

Once impeached and removed, he could be subject to full prosecution later.

Still irrelevant to it's use to pardon, commute accusations, charges or convictions for Federal crimes.

Now, I appreciate that such is an absurd example. It is offered to help you understand that having the power does not mean you can not be held accountable for the misuse of that power, either politically or legally.

Not going to happen. Congress can use pretty much any excuse they desire to Impeach, but only dishonorable would impeach for using the Power of Pardon they way the Constitution allows.

Legally, its is not, and could not be an abuse of Power and no criminal charge could follow because the Constitution clearly allows it to be used the way it is anticipated being used.
Nor can such a Constitutional power be subject to legislation. It simply does not work that way.

If the people or Congress think it is a power the President should not have, an Amendment needs to be proposed to remedy the situation.

Now let me provided you with an example to try and make the point.

Let's say for arguments sake that it is considered an abuse of power for Congress to impeach a President simply for exercising his Constitutional authority in a way they dislike. What is the remedy for that abuse of power??
But for amending the Constitution, none, because it is a Constitutional authority that is not beholden to legislation.

Similarly, using the power of the pardon to protect yourself could easily be construed as obstruction of justice for which charges can be made.

iLOL No.
There is no such criminal remedy if anyone thinks it is an abuse of power.

Having the power is not a defense for using the power in a way the violates law.

iLOL It says that nowhere in the Constitution.
Exercising the power they way it was intended is not abuse and can not be challenged under law as the power is not beholden to the legislation.

Obstruction of justice is a violation of law.

Irrelevant. Exercising such a Constitutional power is not subject to the law.

The pardon is not the violation of the law; the resultant obstruction of justice is.

No. That puts a restriction upon the Constitutional power by legislation. Such interpretation is impermissible.
You can not make a legal act illegal by separating the legality of it's exercise form it's outcome.

In addition. Nixon was pardoned. Not obstruction.

 

[upsideguy]

Mueller inherited Comey’s investigation, which began about two years ago.
If Trump is the subject of a criminal investigation, we have all been lied to by Comey and Clapper.
But it is true, nobody knows what Mueller has.

The Comey / Clapper comments to which you refer occurred in 2017.... things change. That does not mean you were lied to. He is currently the subject of an investigation(s), some of which are criminal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.157cd3359e8a

 

[haymarket]

As we are talking about a crime, one would suspect law, and in this situation federal law, would be germane.

and what does the germane federal law say about a president being able to use his pardon power to protect him from his own possible impeachment and protect others who are his fellow criminals?

 

[haymarket]

iLOL
Says the guy who knows, not only what the phrase means , but also that it crushes and flushes his absurdly stupid comparison.

You showed you surrendered when you deflected with your game.

You still have not yet stated any argument as to what your invocation of SUPREMACY CLAUSE has to do with a president using his power of pardon in a corrupt manner.

Why are you impotent to do that as a normal part of debate?

What you pejoratively call a "game" is normal debate.

 

[Mach]

I love this! Muldoon and his goons gain "confessions" using intimidation, harassment and outright deceit and you call it "criminality". What's criminal is Muldoon and the Gang That Won't Shoot Straight. The reason that Obama had nobody jailed is pretty obvious at this point. The whole cabal running the DOJ and the FBI was in the tank for the Boy King.
Regarding the "best left to come", you are probably right. There are two more IG Reports being prepared right now.It is very likely that even more documents will be produced that reveal even more of the corruption and CYA cover up that seems to define our current legal system. It's evident that we no longer have a justice system. If you are not concerned that out of 35,000 FBI employees, the folks that assign duties could only appoint to Strzok to run the investigations into Hillary, the Russians and Trump, you are really a deaf and blind analyst. Perhaps not deaf and blind. Perhaps just a run of the mill FBI Goon. Like Muldoon.

Best tinfoil rant of the month. Maybe the year. I've never seen so much stupid language and absurdity crammed into one post. Congrats.

I think anyone with a brain, even if skeptical of politicians, understands that Republicans in the House/Senate could have gotten to the bottom of this Deep State pizzagate theory if there was one. BUt instead they harassed Hillary about private emails, and Obama about his pace of birth. That was the best they could do.

Meanwhile, Trump's former campaign chairmen just got jailed, another Dutch guy served time and was deported, and some what, 4 other felony pleas...and this investigation by a Republican, appointed by Trumps own Deputy AG, supported by Trump's AG, is still going, and not doubt holding the best for last.

 

[upsideguy]

The presidential right to pardon is clear and unambiguous.

No one is arguing that the President does not have the power to pardon. However, like any right, he can misuse that power and get himself into a whole lot of trouble. He can well pardon his way into obstruction of justice and abuse of power charges, a la Nixon. No man is above the law; no power is unlimited

One of the limitations on the Presidential pardon is the act of pardoning himself. Some have argued he can; many have argued he can not. The mere notion that this is unclear means that the right has limits.... he tries it, he will find out the courts will decide. That uncertainty alone means its not unlimited. The fact that it also could be political suicide means its not unlimited. Moreover, his pardoning witnesses actually acts to take away the witnesses right to plead the 5th, meaning they would have to provide full and complete testimony as they would be not be relieved of A) state charges and B) charges of perjury.

No, all rights have limits.

When President Obama announced DACA, he directed the Justice Dept. to cease prosecution and deportation of the relevant children and adults.
The immigration law itself was never changed.
Was Obama engaging in obstruction of justice? Or was he exercising his lawful authority in directing how he was going to enforce the laws of the country?

While you could make a perverse political claim that it was, it would not get very far.

The executive branch of government, including the POTUS, typically have broad discretion to prioritize law enforcement resources to enforce laws. Not every city hall enforces its vagrancy or zoning laws (two males living in the same house hold is still illegal in many places) or governors enforcing moral laws (fellatio remains illegal in many states or marijuana criminal in others). The federal government is also selective in enforcing drug laws...and they have been institutional in handicapping the IRS for enforcing its laws. No, no body is going to make allegations that failure to enforce laws is obstruction of justice.

Just for fun, here are some absurd laws still on the books....

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/top-craziest-laws-still-on-the-books

no one is going to make the point that a failure to enforce the laws to their fullest is obstruction of justice.

Obstruction of justice is usually about thwarting or frustrating an on-going investigation, particular criminal. OoJ is particularly egregious when you are the subject of that investigation, as is Trump and much of his senior campaign staff and family members.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice

So, nice try attempting to deflect with a whataboutism, but like most whataboutisms, this one isn't even remotely comparable; and like all whataboutisms, it serves as an admission that you lack a direct defense for the proposition at hand. We all appreciate your admission.

 

[Excon]

You still have not yet stated any argument as to what your invocation of SUPREMACY CLAUSE has to do with a president using his power of pardon in a corrupt manner.

Why are you impotent to do that as a normal part of debate?

What you pejoratively call a "game" is normal debate.

Wrong on all counts as usual haymarket.
If a person knows what the phrase means (as you do), it is a complete argument against your comparison. It shows it is not a valid comparison at all.

Your failure to openly recognize that and stupidly demand more when none is required is a game that you are playing.

Your position was thrashed and trashed so push on.