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

[bluesmoke]

Bill of Attainder to get Manafort will violate New York State Constitution.

I don’t see how the legislation in question would qualify as a Bill of Attainder. The legislation would simply delete what is an exception to existing law. It would not declare a particular person or group of people guilty of a crime.

 

[code1211]

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.

Your post was before the testimony of the Inspector General.

Your inaccuracy in light of what the actual facts revealed can be excused.

I find it interesting that the Democrat faithful just can't seem to grasp that all of their heroes are dishonest crooks. This despite the obvious corruption being revealed.

I also find it interesting that the folks you present to be supporters of the Republican party interests consistently have obstructed justice and have worked apparently for years to hurt the Republicans and help the Democrats.

The testimony of the IG seems to be indicating that Comey and his whole cabal at the top of his FBI Administration are going down.

If you feel dizzy, it's because the tables are turning.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Your post was before the testimony of the Inspector General.

Your inaccuracy in light of what the actual facts revealed can be excused.

I find it interesting that the Democrat faithful just can't seem to grasp that all of their heroes are dishonest crooks. This despite the obvious corruption being revealed.

I also find it interesting that the folks you present to be supporters of the Republican party interests consistently have obstructed justice and have worked apparently for years to hurt the Republicans and help the Democrats.

The testimony of the IG seems to be indicating that Comey and his whole cabal at the top of his FBI Administration are going down.

If you feel dizzy, it's because the tables are turning.

LOL! How bizarrely delusional. No, the IG report doesn't indicate that in any way, nor can you demonstrate where it did.

There are no tables turning, but I certainly understand why someone would desperately need to think that they were.

 

[Mach]

I find it interesting that the Democrat faithful just can't seem to grasp that all of their heroes are dishonest crooks.

Looks like a number of Trumps republicans are in jail or pleading guilty, with more indictment’s coming. Which Obama admin dems were jailed as crooks? Zero.

Looks like you are the only zealot here, sorry to break reality to ya.

 

[code1211]

LOL! How bizarrely delusional. No, the IG report doesn't indicate that in any way, nor can you demonstrate where it did.

There are no tables turning, but I certainly understand why someone would desperately need to think that they were.

Well, McCabe was dismissed and is now the subject of a Criminal Referral based on actual evidence of his corrupt actions. He was a direct report to Comey.

Strzok was previously re-assigned to be an HR clerk and now escorted out of the FBI HQ sans security clearance. Page quit. Two other FBI Agents who displayed extreme bias are under scrutiny.

This is from only the Hillary Investigation Report. They haven't even gotten to the other two related reports that are forthcoming.

This is worse than Watergate. Way worse. The crime for Watergate was a third rate break in. The cover up was where the famous criminality occurred.

This is the expose' of a years long, organized and directed abuse of power within the FBI AND a cover up.

This is gong to be very enlightening for those who have not buried their heads in the sand.

 

[code1211]

Looks like a number of Trumps republicans are in jail or pleading guilty, with more indictment’s coming. Which Obama admin dems were jailed as crooks? Zero.

Looks like you are the only zealot here, sorry to break reality to ya.

The Hillary cabal received pardons while the Trump gang is getting the doors kicked down and their family members threatened as a form of extortion by the Witch Hunters.

 

[Athanasius68]

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?

That the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Which means the pardoning piwer of a president has two restrictions upon it: does not apply to state crimes or impeachments.
Can a president be charged with a crime for exercising his lawful authority? Tough to see how.

 

[Athanasius68]

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.



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.

How would Trump find that courts would decide? Is their power without limits?

Nobody is talking about political limits. A president who abuses his pardoning authority can very well run into political problems which could be grounds for impeachment. But those are not legal questions.

Nor is there "whataboutism" at work when observing that President Obama ordered the cessation of investigation and prosecution of immigration crimes. Naturally, the president had the right to exercise that authority with respects to prosecution. It is therefore not obstruction.
And the current president has the right to exercise his authority.

 

[haymarket]

That the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Which means the pardoning piwer of a president has two restrictions upon it: does not apply to state crimes or impeachments.
Can a president be charged with a crime for exercising his lawful authority? Tough to see how.

I have explained previously that a president can commit a crime if he uses a legitimate power for a corrupt purpose. The commission of a crime would be one example or the protection of others who have assisted him in the commission of a crime would be another.

The constitution - regardless if it is a federal constitution or a state constitution - lays out powers for the head of the executive branch of the government. The Constitution of the State of Illinois states that when a vacancy occurs in the midst of a term of a US Senator from that state, the Governor has the power to appoint a new one. The only restriction upon that appointment is that the person meet the qualifications of the constitution.

However, we know that when the Governor of the state attempted to sell that office for private enrichment in his own pocket, he was prosecuted and is now in prison for using a power corruptly.

The exact same thing would apply to the President in his use of power that is given to him by the Constitution is he uses it corruptly in a criminal fashion.

 

[prometeus]

That the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Which means the pardoning piwer of a president has two restrictions upon it: does not apply to state crimes or impeachments.
Can a president be charged with a crime for exercising his lawful authority? Tough to see how.

Explain how is something like this protected by the Constitution. A sitting President tells someone to kill someone on federal property and promises to pardon that person.

 

[Athanasius68]

I have explained previously that a president can commit a crime if he uses a legitimate power for a corrupt purpose. The commission of a crime would be one example or the protection of others who have assisted him in the commission of a crime would be another.

The constitution - regardless if it is a federal constitution or a state constitution - lays out powers for the head of the executive branch of the government. The Constitution of the State of Illinois states that when a vacancy occurs in the midst of a term of a US Senator from that state, the Governor has the power to appoint a new one. The only restriction upon that appointment is that the person meet the qualifications of the constitution.

However, we know that when the Governor of the state attempted to sell that office for private enrichment in his own pocket, he was prosecuted and is now in prison for using a power corruptly.

The exact same thing would apply to the President in his use of power that is given to him by the Constitution is he uses it corruptly in a criminal fashion.

The governor was prosecuted by the federal government and convicted of, federal crimes. Those laws - Federal bribery laws I believe it was- take precedence over state law, even the state constitution.
You know this.

Well, the Constitution takes precedence over federal law. And that document places only the two aforementioned restrictions on pardoning power of the president.

 

[Athanasius68]

Explain how is something like this protected by the Constitution. A sitting President tells someone to kill someone on federal property and promises to pardon that person.

Probably.

 

[haymarket]

The governor was prosecuted by the federal government and convicted of, federal crimes. Those laws - Federal bribery laws I believe it was- take precedence over state law, even the state constitution.
You know this.

Well, the Constitution takes precedence over federal law. And that document places only the two aforementioned restrictions on pardoning power of the president.

President cannot use a legitimate power to break the law or in a corrupt manner. You and I simply differ on that and our difference can only be resolved by the Supreme Court should it come to that.

Let me ask you this: The US Constitution states that a President is restricted in using his power of pardon "EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT". Now a President or other officer being impeached is not in itself a crime... it is simply the trial for other crimes and the punishment is removal from office.

Note that the Constitution does not say "the President cannot pardon a person who has been impeached". That is NOT the prohibition.

So what if the appropriate persons are investigating crimes committed by the President which could result in impeachment and the President steps in and pardons persons who were possibly going to present evidence against him resulting in impeachment or conviction. Would that not violate the constitutional prohibition on the use of the pardon power since that case involves impeachment and "cases of impeachment" are what is forbidden to his use of the power?

 

[Athanasius68]

President cannot use a legitimate power to break the law or in a corrupt manner. You and I simply differ on that and our difference can only be resolved by the Supreme Court should it come to that.

Let me ask you this: The US Constitution states that a President is restricted in using his power of pardon "EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT". Now a President or other officer being impeached is not in itself a crime... it is simply the trial for other crimes and the punishment is removal from office.

Note that the Constitution does not say "the President cannot pardon a person who has been impeached". That is NOT the prohibition.

So what if the appropriate persons are investigating crimes committed by the President which could result in impeachment and the President steps in and pardons persons who were possibly going to present evidence against him resulting in impeachment or conviction. Would that not violate the constitutional prohibition on the use of the pardon power since that case involves impeachment and "cases of impeachment" are what is forbidden to his use of the power?

In that situation there is no impeachment occuring so it is difficult to see how it would apply.

 

[prometeus]

Probably.

Great explanation.

 

[haymarket]

In that situation there is no impeachment occuring so it is difficult to see how it would apply.

It applies because the investigation which involves possible crimes committed by a person who is president could result in impeachment. And it is "cases of impeachment" which are barred from the pardon power.

 

[Athanasius68]

It applies because the investigation which involves possible crimes committed by a person who is president could result in impeachment. And it is "cases of impeachment" which are barred from the pardon power.

An impeachment though is a specific action. It can only originate with Congress. Presently there is no inpeachment investigation occuring within that body.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Well, McCabe was dismissed and is now the subject of a Criminal Referral based on actual evidence of his corrupt actions. He was a direct report to Comey.

Strzok was previously re-assigned to be an HR clerk and now escorted out of the FBI HQ sans security clearance. Page quit. Two other FBI Agents who displayed extreme bias are under scrutiny.

This is from only the Hillary Investigation Report. They haven't even gotten to the other two related reports that are forthcoming.

This is worse than Watergate. Way worse. The crime for Watergate was a third rate break in. The cover up was where the famous criminality occurred.

This is the expose' of a years long, organized and directed abuse of power within the FBI AND a cover up.

This is gong to be very enlightening for those who have not buried their heads in the sand.

LOL! This isn't even remotely in the same universe as Watergate. To try and pretend that it is is to display ignorance of what Watergate was.

Nixon PERSONALLY authorized a Federal crime. Then he PERSONALLY destroyed evidence of that crime and PERSONALLY organized a coverup of that crime.

So far NOTHING is a federal crime or a coverup of a crime and NOTHING reaches remotely to a the nonsensical bull**** you're implying.

This is going to be a very sad year for those forced to rely on fantasy scenarios in order to avoid the facts.

 

[haymarket]

An impeachment though is a specific action. It can only originate with Congress. Presently there is no inpeachment investigation occuring within that body.

"IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT" .... that phrase does not say "an office holder who has been impeached". The case of impeachment is just like any other civil or criminal case as it involves investigation, evidence, witnesses, testimony, and everything that goes with proving a case and deciding a case and resolving a case.

As such, the prohibition against a president using his power of pardon is prohibited "in cases of impeachment" and that would cover everything I described in solving a case of impeachment.

 

[Athanasius68]

"IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT" .... that phrase does not say "an office holder who has been impeached". The case of impeachment is just like any other civil or criminal case as it involves investigation, evidence, witnesses, testimony, and everything that goes with proving a case and deciding a case and resolving a case.

As such, the prohibition against a president using his power of pardon is prohibited "in cases of impeachment" and that would cover everything I described in solving a case of impeachment.

And there is NO case of impeachment for which Congress is presently investigating,

 

[Athanasius68]

Great explanation.

It was an absurd argument. The president has no authority to order a murder on anyone.

 

[haymarket]

And there is NO case of impeachment for which Congress is presently investigating,

It does not matter if it is Congress or some other lawful investigator - and that would be Robert Mueller as empowered by the awful authorities.

 

[prometeus]

It was an absurd argument. The president has no authority to order a murder on anyone.

I did not say he had the authority, but based on your argument he could do it without consequences and it was not an argument but an example to refute your assertion which you clearly can not support.

 

[fishnthec]

This is exactly why anyone charged with a federal crime must also be charged with any and all applicable and relevant state crimes that cover the events and actions to make sure justice will be served. Trump must be made to understand that he cannot fix this by obstructing justice even if his own party would look the other way and do nothing about it.

Bingo! I approve of this message! LOL!

 

[fishnthec]

And there is NO case of impeachment for which Congress is presently investigating,

Yes! That is only because The House Of Representatives has been hijacked by cowards, hypocrites, corruption, special interest, and those playing deaf, dumb, and blind to Donald Trump's corrupt Administration!

Otherwise Trump would have already been impeached!

Not to worry, this will change after November!