I like the CT that Manafort had a secret promise of a pardon from Trump all along, and only pretended to flip so he could be Trump’s eyes and ears inside Mueller’s investigation.
Can someone please let me in on the joke?
nm
In the Bible, the words “mene mene tekel upharsin” were written on the wall by the hand of God at the feast of an evil King. The prophet Daniel interpreted it as “God had numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end.”
Trump on Manafort pardon: ‘I wouldn’t take it off the table’
Seems like clear obstruction of justice to me; I await word on why the POTUS pardoning people who could incriminate him would not be, in fact, obstruction of justice.
I’m not a legal or constitutional scholar at all but theoretically isn’t the president’s pardon power pretty absolute. He also didn’t give a definite no or yes answer, careful wording and all?
But if the pardons are used as part of a criminal enterprise, are they valid? If a judge is bribed to render decision A instead of B, when his bribe is discovered, does that negate his ruling?
That was actually my second guess
Not if the act is performed for a corrupt purpose, such as obstructing an investigation into your own potential criminal behavior.
Example: A president has the power to fire an attorney general. But if he fires that attorney general in the hope of frustrating an investigation into any potential criminal actions he himself committed, then that act becomes a another potentially criminal act.
Another example: A president has the power to pardon an individual, but if that pardon is dangled as an incentive to persuade a witness to testify in a certain way or to lie about a case that may involve that president, then the act of pardon-dangling becomes a potentially criminal act: Witness tampering, obstruction of justice or even possibly bribery.
Careful wording (which it wasn’t, in my opinion) notwithstanding, if the intent is clear, then how he said it won’t avoid a consequence. (In a normal world, of course.)
IANAL.
I don’t really know the answer, was hoping someone might know the answer from a legal perspective, would you have to prove some prior intent of a plan to do that from beginning or conspiracy to grant pardon after being directed to commit the crime? Definitely sounds like an impeachable offense but then again that could happen for all kinds of reasons without there being an actual crime right?
It is absolutely an impeachable offense. It was one of the articles of impeachment that Nixon would have faced had he not resigned.
The problem we have is with a Republican senate that won’t remove Trump from office even if he shoots and kills Mueller on Fifth Avenue.
“Obstruction? Oh, you think that’s obstruction? Nah. We’re good.”
Sorry another question, I haven’t really read about the recent Assange revelations. If he was indeed working with Paul Manafort, was this strictly some kind of paid mercenary type act for Assange’s motive to cooperate, did he have something to gain. Has he said much about Trump in the past, good or bad. I know Trump acts like he’s never heard of Assange but googling revealed he had made a statement that seemed supportive of prosecuting Assange on US soil in a past interview or something.
There’s a lot of circumstantial evidence surrounding a connection between Manafort and Assange, but I’m not aware of any direct evidence as yet. There are emails between Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi that indicate they were well aware of email dumps that were coming from Wikileaks in October 2016, and Stone in particular seems to have been in regular contact with Trump during this period in the run-up to the election. Certainly we have the evidence of Trump calling attention to Wikileaks repeatedly during the month of October 2016. What was it, something like 163 times? Someone mentioned the actual number earlier in the thread.
The possible connection between Manafort and Assange hasn’t been verified, but The Guardian is generally a reputable British paper that would not knowingly publish false information. As Fiveyearlurker cited in his Post #7715 and Merneith pointed out in his/her Post #7744, they seem to have relied on Ecuadoran intelligence as one of their sources.
Assange’s hatred of Hillary is well documented, and his operation is largely financed by the Russians. The linkage to Trump seems to be: Assange to Stone/Corsi/possibly Manafort to Trump. And these are only some of the points of entry to Trump himself.
There were also Russians communicating regularly with Don Jr., Eric, Jeff Sessions, Michael Flynn and others I can’t think of right now because it’s late and I’m tired. It defies common sense to believe these people weren’t regularly speaking to Trump about what the Russians were doing to help the Trump campaign along.
I do encourage you to read the links referenced in Posts #7715 and #7744.
And once again, the Senate Republicans refused to support Mueller’s investigation. It’s almost like they’re giving him the wink and nod.
I heard on the radio this morning that Jeff Flake is holding up judicial nominations as long as McConnell refuses to hear the Mueller protection stuff. So there’s that.
Yes, after voting in lockstep with the administration he “opposes” all along until now. Pence is still able to break the tie if there are no defectors, which is how the latest controversial pick advance to a vote.
I give him half a bravo.
It’s a hold, which I believe would require a cloture vote to defeat.
Because-- Because… Her emails!!1!!
Oh! Wall!
Michael Cohen in a surprise court appearance this morning
And Deutsche Bank raided this morning in money laundering case. Trump’s favorite bank.