• 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!

Possible trump pardons?

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,303
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is discussion again on talking heads shows about several of the convicted and indicted Trump people being given pardons by Trump. Who do you think should be pardoned and why?
 
I wouldn't pardon any of them, from what is currently publicly known.
 
I might pardon hillary and her minions. At least then the shocking lack of equal justice may make some sense.
 
There is discussion again on talking heads shows about several of the convicted and indicted Trump people being given pardons by Trump. Who do you think should be pardoned and why?

Mueller went in knowing these people are all liars. The talking heads might be saying that pardons are coming, but there's these pesky things called states and they can Trump Trumps pardons. Manafort's going to prison either way. Also, what if Mueller let Manafort lie, and let Trump install Whitaker? Now you have Manafort and Whitaker feeding Trump bad info. Trump then based off those lies, answered Mueller's questions. It's the perfect trap for an egomaniac who never admits he is wrong.
 
Also, what if Mueller let Manafort lie, and let Trump install Whitaker? Now you have Manafort and Whitaker feeding Trump bad info. Trump then based off those lies, answered Mueller's questions. It's the perfect trap for an egomaniac who never admits he is wrong.

This is the most likely scenario in my opinion, and par for the course in investigations like these. Liars and double-dealers are far more dangerous to their co-conspirators than the investigator would have ever been if they think the investigator believes they are being honest.
 
None of the convicted should be pardoned. However, here is the bottom line. As we all well know Trump does nothing if it does not ultimately benefit Donald J. Trump. If Trump pardons anyone connected to/convicted by the special investigation it will result in a Constitutional crisis. All hell will break loose. Realizing that, Trump will have to assume his net gain in pardoning said people will be worth the massive blow back on him and damage to nation as a whole. If Trump pardons it will be for Trump's ultimate benefit.

In addition, I suspect if Trump pardons people it will be a blanket pardon, everyone all at once: Flynn, Manafort, Don Jr., Ivanka, Jared, Eric, etc. It will also end his presidency long before 2020.

Trump now finds himself between a rock and a hard place. Ain't no way out for him except maybe by resigning.
 
This is the most likely scenario in my opinion, and par for the course in investigations like these. Liars and double-dealers are far more dangerous to their co-conspirators than the investigator would have ever been if they think the investigator believes they are being honest.

I think Mueller knows how to beat Trump methodologically. He has a media strategy too. This press release was from Mueller and it was ONLY the first shot. He hasn't even filed charges against Manafort yet, as far as I am aware. I'm looking for more reports about other Trump henchmen this week that will damage them in the court of public opinion first and then they will be indicted.
 
There is discussion again on talking heads shows about several of the convicted and indicted Trump people being given pardons by Trump. Who do you think should be pardoned and why?

Eric Rudolph. Give him a teachers job at Langley.
 
He should pardon every single person Mueller attacked who's crime is not related to 'collusion'. Ad every US citizen should support those pardons, unless you are really excited about law enforcement having carte blanche in attacking citizens without cause.
 
He should pardon every single person Mueller attacked who's crime is not related to 'collusion'. Ad every US citizen should support those pardons, unless you are really excited about law enforcement having carte blanche in attacking citizens without cause.

I figured someone would be along to repeat the same old painfully stupid lie.


(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. s. 600.4(a).


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...nt-Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.html





:lamo
 
I opine that Trump issues Mueller related pardons just before the inauguration of POTUS #46.
 
He should pardon every single person Mueller attacked who's crime is not related to 'collusion'. Ad every US citizen should support those pardons, unless you are really excited about law enforcement having carte blanche in attacking citizens without cause.

Just a question, should the FBI and Mueller look the other way when someone commits a crime, even if it did not start with the investigation of the Russian's interference with the 2016 election? Just asking so I know where you stand on crime.
 
Just a question, should the FBI and Mueller look the other way when someone commits a crime, even if it did not start with the investigation of the Russian's interference with the 2016 election? Just asking so I know where you stand on crime.
Should the FBI or police have carte blanche to investigate you and every one you know without cause and limit and act on anything they find?
 
I figured someone would be along to repeat the same old painfully stupid lie.


(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. s. 600.4(a).


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...nt-Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.html





:lamo
i) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation;

You probably shouldnt talk about 'painfully stupid'....

like...at all....
 
I think he should pardon Jacob Wohl. That young man does everything short of wiping Trump's rear end after he's been Tweeting on his toilet. He deserves a pardon. Then he can be Trump's cabana boy and massage him in hot oils.
 
i) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation;

You probably shouldnt talk about 'painfully stupid'....

like...at all....

read more carefully: You pretended it's about "collusion". Your comment - it's still actually on this page of the thread, you realize? - is triply stupid.

(i) of the letter is far broader than "collusion";

(ii) of the letter says what anyone who has ever pretended to be concerned about government exercise of power should pretend to respect: that if the special counsel uncovers evidence of other crimes, he doesn't turn a blind eye because of (i), or because someone wanted to say something he thought was snappy on the internet.

(iii) of the letter makes the scope of the investigation even broader, since it refers to regulations you've never tried to read. And to summarize, the relevant regulations do things like expand the investigation to any cover-up (be it 'obstruction' or another crime), gives the special counsel the full authority of a US Attorney.....meaning they have to, must, and WILL investigate anything they fine.




I understand that think you're scoring an Internets Point, but you're just making more obvious how idiotically dishonest your whine is.

For once, I invite you to resist the urge to try to throw some blinkered word salad at me to make a show of *getting* me back. You're just wrong. Plain and simple. So stop.
 
read more carefully: You pretended it's about "collusion". Your comment - it's still actually on this page of the thread, you realize? - is triply stupid.

(i) of the letter is far broader than "collusion";

(ii) of the letter says what anyone who has ever pretended to be concerned about government exercise of power should pretend to respect: that if the special counsel uncovers evidence of other crimes, he doesn't turn a blind eye because of (i), or because someone wanted to say something he thought was snappy on the internet.

(iii) of the letter makes the scope of the investigation even broader, since it refers to regulations you've never tried to read. And to summarize, the relevant regulations do things like expand the investigation to any cover-up (be it 'obstruction' or another crime), gives the special counsel the full authority of a US Attorney.....meaning they have to, must, and WILL investigate anything they fine.




I understand that think you're scoring an Internets Point, but you're just making more obvious how idiotically dishonest your whine is.

For once, I invite you to resist the urge to try to throw some blinkered word salad at me to make a show of *getting* me back. You're just wrong. Plain and simple. So stop.
Nothing I can say to you or of you will contribute to the level of stupid you create for yourself.

Or perhaps you can explain how alleged tax records from 2006 are related to Russian Collusion.

GTFOH.
 
read more carefully: You pretended it's about "collusion". Your comment - it's still actually on this page of the thread, you realize? - is triply stupid.

(i) of the letter is far broader than "collusion";

(ii) of the letter says what anyone who has ever pretended to be concerned about government exercise of power should pretend to respect: that if the special counsel uncovers evidence of other crimes, he doesn't turn a blind eye because of (i), or because someone wanted to say something he thought was snappy on the internet.

(iii) of the letter makes the scope of the investigation even broader, since it refers to regulations you've never tried to read. And to summarize, the relevant regulations do things like expand the investigation to any cover-up (be it 'obstruction' or another crime), gives the special counsel the full authority of a US Attorney.....meaning they have to, must, and WILL investigate anything they fine.




I understand that think you're scoring an Internets Point, but you're just making more obvious how idiotically dishonest your whine is.

For once, I invite you to resist the urge to try to throw some blinkered word salad at me to make a show of *getting* me back. You're just wrong. Plain and simple. So stop.

Nothing I can say to you or of you will contribute to the level of stupid you create for yourself.

Or perhaps you can explain how alleged tax records from 2006 are related to Russian Collusion.

GTFOH.

Why are you trying to change the subject?

You pretended it was about collusion. That was a lie (unless you really never looked at the appointment letter, the relevant CFR provisions, or even the history of special counsel investigations). I showed you. I linked to the appointment letter. The words are right there, on the page. Saying snotty words to me don't change what the appointment letter says, what the CFR says, nor do they change what the history of special counsel investigations is.

I won't re-quote the whole exchange because it is still on the last page, but I will quote my last post so that the misdirection in your post is obvious.





No doubt congress was wrong to consider whether to impeach Nixon because he wasn't actually part of the break-in and therefore the cover-up was outside the scope of the investigation. Right?

:roll:
 
Should the FBI or police have carte blanche to investigate you and every one you know without cause and limit and act on anything they find?

That isn't what is happening. Once the FBI determines there is probable cause to launch an investigation, then EVERYTHING that turns up during said investigation becomes fair game. This isn't carte blanche, nor is it a fishing expedition. Russians interfered with the 2016 election using social media with the intent to swing the election to Donald Trump. The primary focus of the investigation is to see if any Americans aided and abetted this act. Donald Trump asked wikileaks to find Hillary's emails. Donald Trump allowed Junior to attend a secret meeting with a Russian lawyer with the intent on obtaining dirt on his opponent. His National Security Advisor had a secret meeting with the Russian ambassador before he even had the job to discuss incoming Russian sanctions. His son in law attempted to set up a secure line of communication with Russian officials that bypassed American intelligence agencies, and also met with the head of a Russian state-owned bank before Trump was even inagurated.

Once the probable cause condition has been met, Mueller's job is to go where the evidence leads him. If it leads him to Trump, we need to know.
 
Should the FBI or police have carte blanche to investigate you and every one you know without cause and limit and act on anything they find?

Actually yes, that is what law enforcement is all about, investigating crimes. In this case they were investigating another possible crime, Russian interference in our election and possible collusion and came across these crimes. It is not as if they were doing the primary investigation without cause and in doing so came across other crimes. And yes when they do come across a crime they have carte blanche to investigate any crime they find. Would you expect them to do otherwise? Or is it because they are now investigating GOpers instead of Hillary that you are objecting to this investigation?
 
There is discussion again on talking heads shows about several of the convicted and indicted Trump people being given pardons by Trump. Who do you think should be pardoned and why?

Let's see..WON'T BE CONVICTED TERRORISTS WHO KILLED PEOPLE WITH BOMBS (Obama)

CONVICTED DRUG LORDS (Obama)

DRUG LORDS again (Clinton)

Convicted international WAR PROFITEER GUN RUNNERS (Clinton)...
 
The good things are:

A. Trump can't do a damned thing about state law prosecutions.
B. Manafort's plea agreement sacrificed literally all his wealth. No matter what happens, he's a broken, destitute man.

True, and Manafort already has pleaded guilty to crimes under the laws of three states. The pleas are contained in his 175 page plea agreement with Mueller.
 
Back
Top Bottom