frankfurter + 562 ff November 15, 2020 https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/11/09/trump-justice-department-pardon/ A president can pardon himself for all crimes? Is this not bizarro? What about accountability? Justice? Morality? Logic? Even to entertain such discussion shows the depth of decay in America. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BradleyPNW + 282 ES November 17, 2020 A president can pardon all federal crimes. That pardon can be a blanket pardon. It does not even need to specifically identify a crime, "My co-conspirator is pardoned from all past crimes." Courts have not determined if a president can pardon himself. No president has been dumb enough to try. If Donald were to give himself a blanket pardon it would remove his 5th amendment protections for all past crimes. After a president leaves office they are just like every other citizen. No special protections. Thus, congress could force Donald to testify and ask him anything about everything. He could never decline to answer based on the 5th amendment. He can't not lie because he is a liar. Thus, he'd rack up enough perjury charges to earn hisseff a life sentence in a federal prison. Trump circumvented the loss of 5th amendment protections for Roger Stone by waiting until after Roger was sentenced and then issuing a commutation. No loss of 5th amendment protections because Donald did not issue a pardon, he just said Roger served enough time and set him free. As I said above, a president can pardon all federal crimes. But a president cannot pardon state crimes. Donald is under criminal investigation by the State of New York so he's likely destined for prison no matter what happens at the federal level. Finally, Joe Biden is going to release Donald's tax returns to the public. That will expose Donald to criminal risk in every state and foreign country he ever did business. Why is that so dangerous for Donald et al? White collar financial crimes are extremely labor intensive to prosecute. You have to find and describe all the money changing schemes. Placing the information into the public sphere distributes the labor cost. In Donald's case, it's not just prosecutors who will be digging but armies of journalists. Donald was never smart enough to not be hateful. And his attacks on journalists motivate them to keep working even when they're off the clock. Bye, Don. 1 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enthalpic + 1,496 November 18, 2020 From what I read he could but it would be highly unusual and frowned upon. More straightforward way is to resign and have Pence blanket pardon him. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BLA + 1,666 BB November 18, 2020 On 11/15/2020 at 1:49 AM, frankfurter said: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/11/09/trump-justice-department-pardon/ A president can pardon himself for all crimes? Is this not bizarro? What about accountability? Justice? Morality? Logic? Even to entertain such discussion shows the depth of decay in America. Pardon from what ? 2 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frankfurter + 562 ff November 18, 2020 5 hours ago, BradleyPNW said: A president can pardon all federal crimes. That pardon can be a blanket pardon. It does not even need to specifically identify a crime, "My co-conspirator is pardoned from all past crimes." Courts have not determined if a president can pardon himself. No president has been dumb enough to try. If Donald were to give himself a blanket pardon it would remove his 5th amendment protections for all past crimes. After a president leaves office they are just like every other citizen. No special protections. Thus, congress could force Donald to testify and ask him anything about everything. He could never decline to answer based on the 5th amendment. He can't not lie because he is a liar. Thus, he'd rack up enough perjury charges to earn hisseff a life sentence in a federal prison. Trump circumvented the loss of 5th amendment protections for Roger Stone by waiting until after Roger was sentenced and then issuing a commutation. No loss of 5th amendment protections because Donald did not issue a pardon, he just said Roger served enough time and set him free. As I said above, a president can pardon all federal crimes. But a president cannot pardon state crimes. Donald is under criminal investigation by the State of New York so he's likely destined for prison no matter what happens at the federal level. Finally, Joe Biden is going to release Donald's tax returns to the public. That will expose Donald to criminal risk in every state and foreign country he ever did business. Why is that so dangerous for Donald et al? White collar financial crimes are extremely labor intensive to prosecute. You have to find and describe all the money changing schemes. Placing the information into the public sphere distributes the labor cost. In Donald's case, it's not just prosecutors who will be digging but armies of journalists. Donald was never smart enough to not be hateful. And his attacks on journalists motivate them to keep working even when they're off the clock. Bye, Don. Many thanks for detailed response. Very educational. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frankfurter + 562 ff November 18, 2020 47 minutes ago, BLA said: Pardon from what ? yes, a pertinent question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan Warnick + 6,100 November 18, 2020 (edited) On 11/18/2020 at 9:39 AM, BLA said: Pardon from what ? Well, that WaPo article was written by: Asha Rangappa Asha Rangappa is a senior lecturer at the Jackson Institute for Global Affairs at Yale University and a former FBI agent. She is a legal and national security analyst for CNN Clearly an impartial figure at the WaPo rag (sarcasm). It is amazing that she graduated Yale, let alone a community college mail-in studies course. I say that because the article reads like someone presenting their "legal thesis" to a part time professor at a community college mail-in class. It is full of "Gee, what ifs", conjecture, supposition, hearsay, repetition of accusations that have no basis, contextual extractions, and basically any other tabloid level BS she can think of to justify her tenuous position at Jeff Bezos' WaPo smear magazine. Let's highlight some of her "facts" in the article, shall we: The final votes from Pennsylvania and Nevada not only changed President Trump’s political future — they changed his legal prospects, too. When Trump leaves the Oval Office for the last time, he will face potential liability for any criminal acts he committed while in office, and even before. Between now and Jan. 20, though, Trump has a lot of power to make it harder for the Justice Department and FBI to follow through on any investigations once he is no longer president. Until now, the office of the presidency has largely shielded Trump from the prospect of criminal prosecution. Some of this is because of Justice Department policy: Despite finding substantial evidence of obstruction of justice in the Russia investigation, for example, special counsel Robert S. Mueller III declined to charge Trump, citing a 1973 Justice Department policy memo precluding it. Attorney General William P. Barr has further protected Trump, defending the president’s actions in public and pressuring prosecutors who might harm the president’s interests in private. But without the immunity offered by his position, and with a new attorney general in charge under Joe Biden’s administration, Trump will be accountable to the law like any other citizen. Trump reportedly planned to fire FBI Director Christopher A. Wray once the election ended. While that might be emotionally satisfying for the president, we saw when he fired former director James B. Comey that simply deposing the head of the FBI doesn’t actually stop any ongoing investigations. Nevertheless, Trump can take much more concrete steps to protect himself and his family than the simple symbolic one of throwing out an appointee he has decided was disloyal. The strongest, and broadest, immunity from federal prosecution for Trump would come from a presidential pardon. President Gerald Ford offered Richard Nixon a blanket pardon for any crimes committed while in office, and President George H.W. Bush — with help from Barr, then also the attorney general — pardoned six people involved in the Iran-contra affair in 1992, stopping two ongoing prosecutions dating back to the Reagan administration dead in their tracks. However, since President-elect Biden has categorically stated that he will not pardon Trump, Trump would have to engineer that during the transition. He has two options. First, he could try to pardon himself. This is a risky move, as whether a self-pardon would be constitutionally valid is an unsettled legal question because no previous president has tried it. Most legal scholars agree that it’s not permissible, though, and if a Trump pardon of himself were later challenged and invalidated, he would be back to square one. Alternatively, Trump could resign at some point before his term ends at noon on Jan. 20, 2021, leaving Vice President Pence to assume the presidency, however briefly — giving him the plenary power to pardon Trump. Thanks to the precedent that Ford set with Nixon, such a pardon, which Pence could also extend to members of Trump’s family, would probably be constitutionally secure if it covered uncharged crimes committed while Trump was in office. Trump also has a couple of quieter options he could pursue behind the scenes to protect himself. For one, he could get Barr to provide “legal cover” for anything that future prosecutors might want to examine in the form of internal memos written by the Office of Legal Counsel. We already know that Barr has expressed, before taking his current position, legal theories supporting an expansive view of presidential power — including the idea that the president cannot, as a matter of law, obstruct justice. Barr also determined (without investigation) that Trump’s solicitation last year of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Biden was not a “thing of value” that would have constituted a criminal finance violation. The Office of Legal Counsel could incorporate arguments like these into official legal positions of the Justice Department. While they wouldn’t be binding on a future attorney general, they would undermine future investigations and prosecutions by giving Trump a basis to argue that his actions were legally justified and sanctioned by his own legal advisers. Trump has a bigger problem with investigations that have already taken place or that may be actively underway. For example, the indictment by federal prosecutors in New York of Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen for campaign finance violations stemming from the concealed payment before the 2016 election to a porn actress alleging an affair with the president lists “Individual-1” — who appears to be Trump — as a co-conspirator. It is also possible that federal law enforcement officials there or in other jurisdictions might be actively investigating Trump for tax or bank fraud, given the series of reporting based on Trump’s tax returns. Barr can’t make these investigations literally disappear: The investigative documentation that has been gathered is protected from tampering at this stage. However, he can “paper over” the files, adding memos justifying closing the case(s) or calling into doubt the evidence or the assessment of investigators or prosecutors who have worked on them. We have seen him do this already in his attempt to reverse the sentencing recommendation of Trump’s campaign adviser Roger Stone and in the Justice Department’s current attempt to drop the charges against Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn. By “poisoning” the cases in this way, Barr can effectively plant exculpatory material into the record (prosecutors would be legally required to provide these memos to Trump’s defense team) and set up future prosecutions to seem as though they are pursuing legally baseless cases because of political bias. Of course, none of these actions would protect Trump from being prosecuted for state crimes — a very real possibility, given that the New York attorney general and the Manhattan district attorney are actively investigating Trump’s finances and those of the Trump Organization. They also wouldn’t cover any crimes that might be uncovered later (it’s hard to imagine that even a blanket, retroactive pardon would legally cover crimes that were unknown at the time it was granted), and a pardon extending to uncharged crimes before Trump took office might be open to legal challenges. And, of course, it’s hard to know what Trump might do during the transition itself, if he feels panicked and decides to get rid of anything he thinks might incriminate him. Any records relating to Trump’s official duties as president, even if contained on personal devices or servers, are officially presidential records, and attempts to destroy them would constitute a new host of federal crimes. In short, Trump won’t be in the clear, no matter what he does, once he no longer has the protection of the presidency. This is especially true when we consider that the FBI’s counterintelligence interest in Trump will continue even after he leaves office: He’ll still know highly classified information, so it will be more important than ever for the intelligence community to know whether foreign countries have any leverage they can exploit over the former president. This would provide grounds for further investigation into Trump’s, and the Trump Organization’s, financial entanglements abroad. Still, before Trump leaves office, he has the power to muck up any cases that could be made against him by a future Justice Department — enough to set up Biden to continue as the villain in the same “witch hunt” narrative Trump has been talking about for the past four years. Edited November 20, 2020 by Dan Warnick 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frankfurter + 562 ff November 18, 2020 well, if Trump is liable for prosecution, why not Obama, Bush, Cheney, Clinton, all of whom who would qualify as war criminals and more? 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoMack + 549 JM November 18, 2020 Is that writer actually working in a newspaper? Oh, it's the Washington Post, forget I asked. This is the kind of nonsense that gets a ball rolling. She went to Yale, then the CIA, then CNN - that says it all - a perfect addition to the Post. Such a waste of a brain and lumber. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan Warnick + 6,100 November 18, 2020 50 minutes ago, JoMack said: Is that writer actually working in a newspaper? Oh, it's the Washington Post, forget I asked. This is the kind of nonsense that gets a ball rolling. She went to Yale, then the CIA, then CNN - that says it all - a perfect addition to the Post. Such a waste of a brain and lumber. Dear Asha has an interesting background, including doxxing someone who dared question her and even taking a stab at Nikki Haley: Asha Rangappa Asha Rangappa From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search Asha Rangappa Born Renuka Asha Rangappa 1974 (age 45–46) United States Education Princeton University (BA)Yale University (JD) Asha Rangappa (born 1974) is an American lawyer. She is a senior lecturer at Yale University’s Jackson Institute for Global Affairs and a commentator on CNN. She was previously an Associate Dean at Yale Law School.[1] Contents 1Early life 2Career 3Personal life 4References 5External links Early life[edit] Rangappa was born in the United States to parents from Karnataka, India[2] who immigrated to the US in 1970. She told Elle that her parents "came under a provision where the government was specially looking for doctors," under the 1965 Hart-Celler Act.[3] Her father is an anesthesiologist and worked at a Virginia army base.[3] Her mother is an accountant.[3] As a child she participated in beauty pageants.[3] She grew up in Hampton, Virginia[3] and graduated from Kecoughtan High School. She graduated cum laude with a A.B. from the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs in 1996 after completing a 136-page long senior thesis, titled "The Rule of Law: Reconciling, Judicial Institution Building and U.S. Counternarcotics Policy in Colombia", under the supervision of John Dilulio.[4][5] Following graduation, she was awarded a Fulbright scholarship, studying constitutional reform in Bogotá, Colombia.[3] She attended Yale Law School and did an internship with the US Attorneys office in Baltimore.[3] She graduated in 2000[2] and took a clerkship serving the Honorable Juan R. Torruella on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in San Juan, Puerto Rico.[6] In 2003 she was admitted to the state bars of New York and Connecticut.[7] Career[edit] In 2001, Rangappa began her FBI training in Quantico, Virginia. After graduation from Quantico Academy, she moved to New York City where she took a job as an FBI special agent, specializing in counterintelligence investigations,[6] and became one of the first Indian Americans to hold the position.[8][2] In 2005, Rangappa left the FBI to get married and have children.[2] She returned to Yale to become an associate dean of its law school.[9] Currently she serves as a director of admissions at Jackson Institute for Global Affairs.[10] She has taught at Yale University,[11] Wesleyan University, and University of New Haven, teaching National Security Law and related courses.[7] She has published op-eds in HuffPost,[12] The Washington Post,[13] The New York Times, Time,[14] The Atlantic,[7] and The Wall Street Journal.[15] She has appeared on BBC, NPR,[16] and other networks as a commentator. She serves as a legal and national security analyst for CNN.[17][18] Rangappa is a member of the board of directors for the South Asian Bar Association of Connecticut,[19] the Connecticut Society of Former FBI Agents,[19] and the Connecticut Women's Hall of Fame. In 2020 Rangappa accused Nikki Haley of bowing to racism for going by Nikki instead of first name Nimarata.[20] Unknown to Rangappa at the time, Nikki is a Punjabi name and is Haley's middle name, similar to how Asha is Rangappa's middle name. In pursuit of the apparent double standard, a young intern at the Washington Free Beacon emailed Yale, where Rangappa was the director of admissions in the Jackson Institute, for comment. Upon learning about the request for comment, Rangappa doxxed the intern by posting her cell phone number and email to Twitter. In the tweet with the doxxed contact information, Rangappa told her followers to "Feel free to respond to" the reporter. After receiving intense criticism for doxxing a reporter, Rangappa defended her actions by saying the reporter had tried to "Karen me at my job."[21] Twitter eventually deleted the tweet for violating their terms and conditions. Personal life[edit] Rangappa married a fellow FBI agent in 2005; they later divorced. She lives in Hamden, Connecticut with her son and daughter.[2][22] 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bob D + 562 RD November 18, 2020 What if Trump resigned as President on Jan 20th, making Pence President for a day who then pardons Trump?? Would that work?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan Warnick + 6,100 November 18, 2020 Just now, Bob D said: What if Trump resigned as President on Jan 20th, making Pence President for a day who then pardons Trump?? Would that work?? 4 years of investigations. Pardon him for what? 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bob D + 562 RD November 18, 2020 2 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said: 4 years of investigations. Pardon him for what? Dan The thread is about Trump pardoning himself. If we simply focus on whether or not that is possible then my comment twists the pardon question to how Trump can be pardoned. For what ... I don't know. There has been commentary that Mueller has sealed indictments for the day after Trump leaves. For what ... again I don't know. That commentary comes from trustworthy individuals like Schiff so I have no idea if what's up. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan Warnick + 6,100 November 18, 2020 2 minutes ago, Bob D said: Dan The thread is about Trump pardoning himself. If we simply focus on whether or not that is possible then my comment twists the pardon question to how Trump can be pardoned. For what ... I don't know. There has been commentary that Mueller has sealed indictments for the day after Trump leaves. For what ... again I don't know. That commentary comes from trustworthy individuals like Schiff so I have no idea if what's up. Like Schiff? Oh, brother. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BradleyPNW + 282 ES November 18, 2020 11 hours ago, frankfurter said: well, if Trump is liable for prosecution, why not Obama, Bush, Cheney, Clinton, all of whom who would qualify as war criminals and more? Because Donald committed statutory crimes codified in both state and federal law, the others did not. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eyes Wide Open + 3,555 November 18, 2020 (edited) I see your back, and now sharing your in-depth working knowledge of not only US federal law but also 50 state criminal law. I would suggest you might cite spefic examples of your accusations and innuendos. Until such time one can only reason your accusations are that of a lost soul...also known as a person with a delusional psychosis. Speaking to psychosis, how many personalities will manifest themselves behind this screen name Bradley? A opinion only of course...you will make your own destiny as you repeatedly do over and over Edited November 18, 2020 by Eyes Wide Open 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BradleyPNW + 282 ES November 18, 2020 27 minutes ago, Bob D said: What if Trump resigned as President on Jan 20th, making Pence President for a day who then pardons Trump?? Would that work?? Yes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frankfurter + 562 ff November 19, 2020 9 hours ago, BradleyPNW said: Yes. It would? Are not pardons given after a conviction? If a president can pardon someone prior, then in substance that pardon is a decree, and such decree is the hallmark of a dictatorship. A very real consequence of such pardons is crime beyond reproach at the highest level. Is this what the USA has become? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BradleyPNW + 282 ES November 19, 2020 A president can issue a blanket pardon that covers all past federal crimes even if those crimes are not specifically listed in the pardon or even known. That's what Ford did with Nixon. If a prosecutor discovered Nixon committed additional crimes they would have been covered by Ford's pardon. After conviction, a president can issue a commutation. To a certain extent, an American president is an alternative to a king. That's the political framework the constitutional authors understood and used at the time. It is expected that American values (ethics) are followed in the presidential pardon power but it is not codified. Trump is the criminal made king just like Nixon. The way Americans deal with a criminal president is to impeach and remove them. If congress refuses to impeach and remove the voters vote them out during the next election. It is non-violent revolution and keeps heads from getting lopped off. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frankfurter + 562 ff November 19, 2020 2 hours ago, BradleyPNW said: A president can issue a blanket pardon that covers all past federal crimes even if those crimes are not specifically listed in the pardon or even known. That's what Ford did with Nixon. If a prosecutor discovered Nixon committed additional crimes they would have been covered by Ford's pardon. After conviction, a president can issue a commutation. To a certain extent, an American president is an alternative to a king. That's the political framework the constitutional authors understood and used at the time. It is expected that American values (ethics) are followed in the presidential pardon power but it is not codified. Trump is the criminal made king just like Nixon. The way Americans deal with a criminal president is to impeach and remove them. If congress refuses to impeach and remove the voters vote them out during the next election. It is non-violent revolution and keeps heads from getting lopped off. Interesting. So, in reality, a pardon means a president and those pardoned can be held not accountable for their crimes? Basically, a pardon means to usurp the rule of law? I thought only the supreme court had the final say. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bob D + 562 RD November 19, 2020 On 11/18/2020 at 10:11 AM, BradleyPNW said: Because Donald committed statutory crimes codified in both state and federal law, the others did not. Could you list these statutory crimes codified in both state and federal law for me please. Thank you? 1 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BradleyPNW + 282 ES November 19, 2020 1 hour ago, Bob D said: Could you list these statutory crimes codified in both state and federal law for me please. Thank you? Better yet, I will use your request as an opportunity to call attention to something that people should familiarize themselves with: Sealioning. Wikipedia explains it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#:~:text=Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning,invitations to engage in debate". 2 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BradleyPNW + 282 ES November 19, 2020 12 hours ago, frankfurter said: Interesting. So, in reality, a pardon means a president and those pardoned can be held not accountable for their crimes? Basically, a pardon means to usurp the rule of law? I thought only the supreme court had the final say. Not accountable in federal criminal court. They could be held accountable in federal civil court if there was some sort of civil liability. A presidential pardon is law, therefore, exercising the pardon does not usurp the rule of law. I realize a bald faced self-serving pardon sounds like a get-out-of-jail-free card but it isn't the strategic advantage people think -- precisely because it is morally revolting. The only thing Trump could do to avoid prison at this point is to flee to a country that does not have an extradition treaty with the United States. He is so thoroughly hosed that he's desperately trying to overturn the election. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eyes Wide Open + 3,555 November 19, 2020 19 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said: Better yet, I will use your request as an opportunity to call attention to something that people should familiarize themselves with: Sealioning. Wikipedia explains it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#:~:text=Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning,invitations to engage in debate". I must say...a troll calling out trolling is indeed rare. As i have stated in prior threads you alone are accountable for your own destiny. To that point i do believe it is a meme time, odd how the below visual comes up over and over..yet still bring startling clarity. 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BradleyPNW + 282 ES November 19, 2020 Thanks, my Eyes are Wide Open to the Deep State conspiracy theories now. I see the lizard people who are pulling Anteefa strings. Your posts have been immensely...Illuminati-ng. 2 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members