• 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!

Manafort Could Totally Escape Jail With Trump Pardon

Tanngrisnir said:
Nah, not really. He's a scofflaw and a criminal. That's simple, objective reality.

Trump pardoning him affected only Trump's image. Arpaio was already essentially ****.
Click to expand...

The only criminal thing he's been convicted of is criminal contempt of the court because he ignored their instructions one too many times. Believe it or not, some people like it when someone "sticks it to The Man".

So, its obvious that you're not going to answer my question. Is that a confirmation that you support illegal immigrants in the US?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Some of the things that you mentioned are criminal acts. Criminal acts get prosecuted. Without that criminal prosecution then yes, it is imaginary. Innocent until proven guilty is our nations motto.
Click to expand...

Yes, you’re right. We have a flawless record of prosecuting misdeeds by law enforcement.
 
Moderate Right said:
I'm not up on the details of Manafort but I find it hard to believe he doesn't have millions lying around somewhere, either in Switzerland or buried in his backyard. If he were to get pardoned I don't see him having to move in with Trump at the White House or living in a homeless shelter.
Click to expand...

He has Russian friends who would likely give him all the money he needs.

The only reason Manafort is reluctant to cooperate is because he's afraid of his Russian friends. That's the kind of people Trump is surrounded with.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The only criminal thing he's been convicted of is criminal contempt of the court because he ignored their instructions one too many times. Believe it or not, some people like it when someone "sticks it to The Man".
Click to expand...

Indeed, and it makes him a criminal. He's corrupt as hell and cost Maricopa County millions of dollars.
So, its obvious that you're not going to answer my question. Is that a confirmation that you support illegal immigrants in the US?
Click to expand...

Again: irrelevant, no matter how much you wish it weren't.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Indeed, and it makes him a criminal. He's corrupt as hell and cost Maricopa County millions of dollars.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to what is being discussed in this thread regarding pardons and likeability.

Tanngrisnir said:
Again: irrelevant, no matter how much you wish it weren't.
Click to expand...

But it IS relevant to what you said. But that is OK. Your posting history shows that you have a strong inclination to let illegal immigrants stay in this country. Which is you hating the rule of the law. So your statement is rather hypocritical.

Tanngrisnir said:
TAAC hates the ever loving snot out of blacks, Jews, you-name-it. Oh, add women to that.

Immigrants, of any stripe, are what make us uniquely great.

I like helping them, and it's fun to think about how much that kills him.
Click to expand...
 
Kal'Stang said:
Actually, lots of people like Arpaio. So while it might not have enhanced his image, it didn't hurt it either. The only people that didn't like Arpaio was those that support illegal immigrants being here illegally.
Click to expand...

Now, that is a load of nonsense. Peopel might not like tent cities for jails and overt racism for example
 
iguanaman said:
Also, a pardon negates your 5th amendment right not to testify. If Manafort still won't come clean he will need more pardons for his contempt charges.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. With federal courts having ruled a person can be tried twice for the same offense - in federal court and again in state court - he could refuse to testify because a federal pardon does not protect him from state court charges - meaning he still can take the 5th.

I also wonder how these people charged with lying can be so stupid to not simply always answer "I don't really remember exactly, I think this might be correct but I'm not sure since in my life I've spoke to about a million people and seen a few million pages of papers..." and then end any statement with "I'm not really sure about that, though. Maybe that's accurate, but I could have this mixed up with something else."

I recall being in a deposition for which my goal was to not be locked down on anything nor reveal anything. My answers were LONG, I would often just ramble on and on, but also endless qualifiers like above. After 5 hours they gave up - and settled the lawsuit on behalf the buddy I was a witness for. Not actually answering any question with any specifics or certainty is a piece of cake for anyone with an IQ over 80. Even the most simple questions are easy to avoid answering.

For example, it certainly would be easy to prove I have posted on this forum. However, getting me to acknowledge that under oath in questions would be impossible if I didn't want to answer. "I've been on and off forums for decades and there are so many. I probably have posted thousands or hundreds of thousands of messages maybe and read millions. But which one for sure? I'm not really certain. The ID you showed me looks familiar, but I usually set any login and passwords to automatically be entered, so maybe that's me, maybe not, I'm not really 100% sure."

Another example is if shown some document and asking "is that your signature and is this the actual document?" Answer: "I'm not a handwriting expert and I scribble my signatures that anyone could do. I certainly don't memorize things I read or sign, so I can't say for sure if that is my signature and certainly can't say whether or not this is the actual document or if it was rewritten by someone changing what it says..." etc.

I'm stunned at how foolish these people are to let themselves get trapped in perjury traps.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Irrelevant to what is being discussed in this thread regarding pardons and likeability.
Click to expand...

No, not at all, given that he was brought up.
But it IS relevant to what you said. But that is OK. Your posting history shows that you have a strong inclination to let illegal immigrants stay in this country. Which is you hating the rule of the law. So your statement is rather hypocritical.
Click to expand...

Nah, but you mischaracterizing what I stated to support your strawman indicates a strong inclination of your part to laughable and frequent dishonesty.

Have someone explain 'hypocritical' for you.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Perhaps. I wouldn't know as I don't know the locals or why the majority voted for someone else. Tell me, when he was voted out, was it a slam dunk? Or were there people that voted for him?
Click to expand...

Of course some people voted for him. I seem to recall it was about 55% to 45% or something. He was beaten by someone he beat in the previous cycle - that shows you the shift.

I haven't been out that way in a couple of years. My father in law passed, and that was the reason for spending time on the ground there.
 
Most people don't understand that you can't talk your way into innocence, only into guilt. Anyone in serious law enforcement will tell you that without confessions - directly or indirectly - they couldn't get half the convictions they do - and even then once a person is trapped they leave their lawyer little left to negotiate with. Negotiations are never made with law enforcement, only prosecutors, so if a person gives away their cards talking to the police the lawyer has few cards left to play. If a person is going to confess, they should only do so on their advice of their attorney as part of a deal with the prosecutor, not the police.

I really don't understand why everyone in all this with Mueller's team of Democrats and with Congress doesn't take the 5th. Are they really that stupid?
 
Here's another example of not getting locked down. This was in a court (civil case) and I a witness. I was handed something I had written out (typed) that was 22 pages long. "Is that your signature?" and "did you write this?"

Answer: "I don't know if that is my signature or not. I'm not a handwriting expert. Sometimes I sign something so fast it is almost just a squiggly line. Other times you can read ever letter." That lead to the question: "Did you write this?" So I sat their looking at the first page. "Did you write this?" Answer: "I'm reading it." How long does it take someone to carefully read 22 pages, single spaced? Getting tired of waiting, the question was "for what you read so far, did you write that?" Answer: "I'm not sure. I'd have to see my copy if I have a copy to see if this is something I wrote." To the question "do you have a copy?" Answer: "I'm not sure. Possibly. But I'm not a very organized person. I could take some pictures of my office and storage container and you'd understand what I mean."

While that sounds trivial, in fact without my testifying "that's my signature and I wrote it" the other side could not "prove up" the document and therefore it could not be put into evidence.

All those are legitimate answers too. Do you memorize everything you write? If someone made a clone of it changing a word here and there would you even know it unless you carefully read it not only so every word is what you wrote - but could you spot any words or sentences that had been left out? Do you REALLY know your signature well enough that no one could copy it good enough? People are TOO QUICK to give absolute yes - no answers, when in reality the truly accurate answer usually is "Maybe."

While potentially Manafort could be forced to testify if given a pardon, it takes little skill to avoid any absolute definitive answers. In fact, the human brain is not a computer for which a perfect memory can be assumed. So, for example, a question "Did you ever talk to the president about..." is easy enough to answer "I don't keep records on everyone I talk to or about what. I don't remember if I ever mentioned that to him or not, or if so, when or what I said. It's not like I didn't talk to thousands of people." There is no way to get past that kind of answer nor is that refusing to cooperate. Rather, it is just saying "I'm human, not a computer, not a tape recorder and not a camera."
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
Most people don't understand that you can't talk your way into innocence, only into guilt. Anyone in serious law enforcement will tell you that without confessions - directly or indirectly - they couldn't get half the convictions they do - and even then once a person is trapped they leave their lawyer little left to negotiate with. Negotiations are never made with law enforcement, only prosecutors, so if a person gives away their cards talking to the police the lawyer has few cards left to play. If a person is going to confess, they should only do so on their advice of their attorney as part of a deal with the prosecutor, not the police.

I really don't understand why everyone in all this with Mueller's team of Democrats and with Congress doesn't take the 5th. Are they really that stupid?
Click to expand...

And I got a horse I want to sell you. You’ll love it, trust me. Such a deal. A man with your wisdom should have no fear.
 
joko104 said:
Most people don't understand that you can't talk your way into innocence, only into guilt. Anyone in serious law enforcement will tell you that without confessions - directly or indirectly - they couldn't get half the convictions they do - and even then once a person is trapped they leave their lawyer little left to negotiate with. Negotiations are never made with law enforcement, only prosecutors, so if a person gives away their cards talking to the police the lawyer has few cards left to play. If a person is going to confess, they should only do so on their advice of their attorney as part of a deal with the prosecutor, not the police.

I really don't understand why everyone in all this with Mueller's team of Democrats and with Congress doesn't take the 5th. Are they really that stupid?
Click to expand...
Yes, they actually are that stupid.

Most of these people (Cohen, Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Trump, Jr, Corsi) are all pathological liars that tell the most obvious and clumsy lies in public.

But worse than that, they're narcissists who fancy themselves far more cunning and intelligent than they really are, so they think they can fool the people that put away the Gambino crime family and brought down Enron, and they'll be able to get away with it.

:doh
 
joko104 said:
Most people don't understand that you can't talk your way into innocence, only into guilt. ...
I really don't understand why everyone in all this with Mueller's team of Democrats and with Congress doesn't take the 5th. Are they really that stupid?
Click to expand...

These are all damaged or clueless people. Cohen, Corsi, Flynn, Papadopolus. Trump hires the worst, remember?

The issue is that for innocent people, they volunteer to help law enforcement all the time by answering general questions, understood to be the best of their knowledge.

Investigators, especially FBI, may also be pretty slick about talking to you, without being threatening...we're just trying to figure out this thing, can you help us? Sort of thing. And a lot of people from all walks of life, feel strange to be stand-offish to federal investigators. to say "no, I won't answer any questions, talk to my attorney". Just human nature. They are also "trying" to appear innocent, and they may feel that's a guilty sort of thing to do, and thus, avoid it.

Also, these are guys that run their mouth and are never called out on things. They are all arrogant in their own way. They figure they can talk their way out of anything. Besides, Trump is their boss, and he's president, why can't he just fix it, or pardon? They have a parachute they figure, either way. Worse, in his family's case, it's their father, he'll never let them come to harm..right? Yet another reason why nepotism should simply not be allowed. Cant' count on Trump to show restraint or do the right thing...
 
joko104 said:
Not necessarily. With federal courts having ruled a person can be tried twice for the same offense - in federal court and again in state court - he could refuse to testify because a federal pardon does not protect him from state court charges - meaning he still can take the 5th.

I also wonder how these people charged with lying can be so stupid to not simply always answer "I don't really remember exactly, I think this might be correct but I'm not sure since in my life I've spoke to about a million people and seen a few million pages of papers..." and then end any statement with "I'm not really sure about that, though. Maybe that's accurate, but I could have this mixed up with something else."

I recall being in a deposition for which my goal was to not be locked down on anything nor reveal anything. My answers were LONG, I would often just ramble on and on, but also endless qualifiers like above. After 5 hours they gave up - and settled the lawsuit on behalf the buddy I was a witness for. Not actually answering any question with any specifics or certainty is a piece of cake for anyone with an IQ over 80. Even the most simple questions are easy to avoid answering.

For example, it certainly would be easy to prove I have posted on this forum. However, getting me to acknowledge that under oath in questions would be impossible if I didn't want to answer. "I've been on and off forums for decades and there are so many. I probably have posted thousands or hundreds of thousands of messages maybe and read millions. But which one for sure? I'm not really certain. The ID you showed me looks familiar, but I usually set any login and passwords to automatically be entered, so maybe that's me, maybe not, I'm not really 100% sure."

Another example is if shown some document and asking "is that your signature and is this the actual document?" Answer: "I'm not a handwriting expert and I scribble my signatures that anyone could do. I certainly don't memorize things I read or sign, so I can't say for sure if that is my signature and certainly can't say whether or not this is the actual document or if it was rewritten by someone changing what it says..." etc.

I'm stunned at how foolish these people are to let themselves get trapped in perjury traps.
Click to expand...

LOL There is no such thing as a "perjury trap" only criminals who think they should be allowed to lie with impunity.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Of course some people voted for him. I seem to recall it was about 55% to 45% or something. He was beaten by someone he beat in the previous cycle - that shows you the shift.

I haven't been out that way in a couple of years. My father in law passed, and that was the reason for spending time on the ground there.
Click to expand...

So, people do still like him. Which was my whole point that him pardoning Arpaio didn't actually hurt his image.
 
Risky Thicket said:
And I got a horse I want to sell you. You’ll love it, trust me. Such a deal. A man with your wisdom should have no fear.
Click to expand...

I suggest that you never listen to any attorney about anything because no one is smarter than you and you can talk your way into or out of anything.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL There is no such thing as a "perjury trap" only criminals who think they should be allowed to lie with impunity.
Click to expand...

That is a foolish a comment as it gets. Hopefully you are never on a jury for your claim that no one in law enforcement nor any prosecutor never says anything but the truth AND that anyone who accuses another person of lying 100% of time is telling the truth. Obviously you would have convicted Hilary Clinton of perjury because someone said she lied.

Then again, it is clear you have no clue what "perjury trap" means. 10 people can tell one story with video tape to back it up, and 1 person tell an opposite story with nothing to back it up. Any prosecutor could have all 10 secretly indicted for perjury or lying to law enforcement, with none of those 10 having any opportunity to even speak to a grand jury. However, maybe 6 months or 2 years later they would be released from jail if found not guilty. You really have NO clue what "perjury trap" means. Anyone who makes any statement to law enforcement can be secretly indicted for perjury even if what they say is 100% true and 100% provable.

So far, Mueller has not allowed ONE person indicted by a secret grand jury indictment to have any opportunity to even speak to the grand jury as all have been secretly indicted. THAT is what a "perjury trap" is.
 
Moderate Right said:
LOL. Seriously? This is the politics of both sides and always has been. Don't you remember? Billy boy was actually impeached (not only for lying under oath but for obstruction of justice (regarding the sexual assault of a subordinate intern)) and yet the Democratic Senate voted that that was acceptable. They set the precedent.
Click to expand...

What didn't the Senate flip to Republicans right before impeachment ? something like 53 seats.
 
joko104 said:
That is a foolish a comment as it gets. Hopefully you are never on a jury for your claim that no one in law enforcement nor any prosecutor never says anything but the truth AND that anyone who accuses another person of lying 100% of time is telling the truth. Obviously you would have convicted Hilary Clinton of perjury because someone said she lied.

Then again, it is clear you have no clue what "perjury trap" means. 10 people can tell one story with video tape to back it up, and 1 person tell an opposite story with nothing to back it up. Any prosecutor could have all 10 secretly indicted for perjury or lying to law enforcement, with none of those 10 having any opportunity to even speak to a grand jury. However, maybe 6 months or 2 years later they would be released from jail if found not guilty. You really have NO clue what "perjury trap" means. Anyone who makes any statement to law enforcement can be secretly indicted for perjury even if what they say is 100% true and 100% provable.

So far, Mueller has not allowed ONE person indicted by a secret grand jury indictment to have any opportunity to even speak to the grand jury as all have been secretly indicted. THAT is what a "perjury trap" is.
Click to expand...

First of all there is quite a high bar for perjury charges You must prove intent to defraud meaning you must know you are lying to protect yourself or others. The "weather" does not qualify and even not correctly recalling something is not perjury. Hillary was not indicted for the reasons stated above, no motive was proven.

LOL The accused NEVER speak to a Grand Jury...ever in ANY case. Their job is to determine if there is enough evidence brought by the prosecuting Federal or State attorneys for a criminal indictment NOT adjudicating a crime. Where do you get such far fetched talking points or are you that clueless about how our justice system works?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom