• 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!

Trump team seeks to control, block Mueller’s Russia investigation

beefheart

Ice Cream for Crow?
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
61,099
Reaction score
63,919
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Oh my....Trump wants to know if he can pardon himself?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-lawyers-seek-to-undercut-muellers-russia-investigation/2017/07/20/232ebf2c-6d71-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_no-name%3Apage%2Fbreaking-news-bar&tid=a_breakingnews&utm_term=.5bac663472e2

Trump team seeks to control, block Mueller’s Russia investigation

President Trump has asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself in connection with the Russia probe, according to a person familiar with the effort. (Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post)
By Carol D. Leonnig, Ashley Parker, Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger July 20 at 9:10 PM

Some of President Trump’s lawyers are exploring ways to limit or undercut special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation, building a case against what they allege are his conflicts of interest and discussing the president’s authority to grant pardons, according to people familiar with the effort.

Trump has asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself in connection with the probe, according to one of those people. A second person said Trump’s lawyers have been discussing the president’s pardoning powers among themselves.

Trump’s legal team declined to comment on the issue. But one adviser said the president has simply expressed a curiosity in understanding the reach of his pardoning authority, as well as the limits of Mueller’s investigation.

“This is not in the context of, ‘I can’t wait to pardon myself,” a close adviser said.

With the Russia investigation continuing to widen, Trump’s lawyers are working to corral the probe and question the propriety of the special counsel’s work. They are actively compiling a list of Mueller’s alleged potential conflicts of interest, which they say could serve as a way to stymie his work, according to several of Trump’s legal advisers.

A conflict of interest is one of the possible grounds that can be cited by an attorney general to remove a special counsel from office under Justice Department regulations that set rules for the job.

The president is also irritated by the notion that Mueller’s probe could reach into his and his family’s finances, advisers said.

Trump has been fuming about the probe in recent weeks as he has been informed about the legal questions that he and his family could face. His primary frustration centers on why allegations that his campaign coordinated with Russia should spread into scrutinizing many years of Trump dealmaking. He has told aides he was especially disturbed after learning Mueller would be able to access several years of his tax returns.

Breaking a tradition that began with President Jimmy Carter, Trump has repeatedly refused to make his tax returns public after first claiming he could not do so because he was under audit or after promising to release them after an IRS audit was completed.

Further adding to the challenges facing Trump’s outside lawyers, the team’s spokesman, Mark Corallo, resigned on Thursday, according to two people familiar with his departure. Corallo did not respond to immediate requests for comment.

“If you’re looking at Russian collusion, the president’s tax returns would be outside that investigation,” said a close adviser to the president.
 
Wonderful. News breaks that Mueller is probing the Trump criminal empire. Trump immediately becomes curious if he has the power to pardon himself.

What the hell has happened to this country?
 
Trump’s legal team declined to comment on the issue. But one adviser said the president has simply expressed a curiosity in understanding the reach of his pardoning authority, as well as the limits of Mueller’s investigation.

“This is not in the context of, ‘I can’t wait to pardon myself,” a close adviser said.

giphy.gif
 
Wonderful. News breaks that Mueller is probing the Trump criminal empire. Trump immediately becomes curious if he has the power to pardon himself.

What the hell has happened to this country?

Morons elected a complete POS as president...
 
Wonderful. News breaks that Mueller is probing the Trump criminal empire. Trump immediately becomes curious if he has the power to pardon himself.

What the hell has happened to this country?

Partisans in the base of both sides became so blinded by those who told them what they wanted to hear, they lost the ability to vet their own candidates?
 
Partisans in the base of both sides became so blinded by those who told them what they wanted to hear, they lost the ability to vet their own candidates?

One side screened out the demagogue telling the base what it wanted to hear. The other didn't.
 
One side screened out the demagogue telling the base what it wanted to hear. The other didn't.

.....no. Both sides chose awful candidates because they told themselves they were actually awesome candidates. Hillary beating Sanders is only slightly more impressive than had Trump beat out the The Rent Is Too Damn High guy.
 

Yes. I'm sorry your party gave its nomination to this flimflam man--the least experienced and likely worst equipped president in the history of the United States--but this is not a "both sides did it" situation.
 
Yes. I'm sorry your party gave its nomination to this flimflam man--the least experienced and likely worst equipped president in the history of the United States--but this is not a "both sides did it" situation.

1. I left the GOP when they decided to turn over the show to an abusive immoral carnival barker
2. That being said, we have Trump as POTUS because Dems managed to find a someone who was - somehow - an equally bad if not worse candidate for President than he.

You asked how we got here. That's how we got here. Both bases became immune to critical thinking, and both therefore put up awful candidates, believing them to be great.
 
1. I left the GOP when they decided to turn over the show to an abusive immoral carnival barker
2. That being said, we have Trump as POTUS because Dems managed to find a someone who was - somehow - an equally bad if not worse candidate for President than he.

You asked how we got here. That's how we got here. Both bases became immune to critical thinking, and both therefore put up awful candidates, believing them to be great.

Actually, we have Trump because the founding fathers thought it a good idea to have a system where the will of most wasn't synonymous with how the EC would go. The plurality of the country voted for a specific character who it thought was better. In the nearest political systems, this would have allowed that candidate to form a government. In ours, it doesn't mean jack.

The EC system literally led us to this possibility, not who Democrats chose.
 
Actually, we have Trump because the founding fathers thought it a good idea to have a system where the will of most wasn't synonymous with how the EC would go. The plurality of the country voted for a specific character who it thought was better. In the nearest political systems, this would have allowed that candidate to form a government. In ours, it doesn't mean jack.

The EC system literally led us to this possibility, not who Democrats chose.
Good point. No one on the DNC side has ever read the Constitution, so they couldn't have been expected to know the rules, and compete accordingly.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
Good point. No one on the DNC side has ever read the Constitution, so they couldn't have been expected to know the rules, and compete accordingly.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

Knowing the rules doesn't mean you'll win. Boxers generally know the rules to boxing; technical knockouts still happen to the best of them. We have a system where a candidate can have the fewest votes, and still win as voting power fluctuates wildly between states. The Democrats could have beaten Trump by 10 million, and still lost the election.

So it's really not who the Democrats picked.
 
Because.......a truly innocent man would never inquire as to whether he could pardon himself....:roll:
 
POTUS's legal team spokesperson has resigned.

If he pardons himself, his family and aides, it is in itself an admission of guilt since a pardon for crimes against the US.
 
Knowing the rules doesn't mean you'll win. Boxers generally know the rules to boxing; technical knockouts still happen to the best of them. We have a system where a candidate can have the fewest votes, and still win as voting power fluctuates wildly between states. The Democrats could have beaten Trump by 10 million, and still lost the election.

So it's really not who the Democrats picked.

No nanny state! Personality responsibility! Also, all of the GOP's bad decisions are the fault of Democrats for not sufficiently intervening to same them from themselves.

Somehow the Dems' nominating process resulted in the GOP nominating Trump.
 
POTUS's legal team spokesperson has resigned.

If he pardons himself, his family and aides, it is in itself an admission of guilt since a pardon for crimes against the US.

He can't pardon himself.

Dictators in crappy countries can though...but not in the US.
 
Knowing the rules doesn't mean you'll win.

That's right, it doesn't. You have to actually win. Hillary, it turns out, couldn't do that, not even against a candidate as toxic as Trump.

The Democrats could have beaten Trump by 10 million, and still lost the election.

Sure. And you can gain more yards than your opponent, yet still lose the football game. You can spend more time in control of the ball, and still lose the football match. You can lead the pack for the majority of the race, and yet lose if you aren't in front at the end. You can be taller, and yet lose at Jeopardy. You can speak better English, and yet lose the chess tournament. Irrelevant measurements are irrelevant measurements.

Democrats chose a candidate so awful, she managed to lose to Trump. I realize that's a hard to admit to being ones' self.


Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
Because.......a truly innocent man would never inquire as to whether he could pardon himself....:roll:

Apparently that "audit" doesn't prevent Mueller's team from seeing his tax returns and it's making him sweat. Weird, that.

But at least he's acting innocent. Innocent people are always looking for pardons.
 
Democrats chose a candidate so awful, she managed to lose to Trump. I realize that's a hard to admit to being ones' self.

Who says decades of voter suppression don't pay off in the end?
 
Apparently that "audit" doesn't prevent Mueller's team from seeing his tax returns and it's making his sweat. Weird, that.

But at least he's acting innocent. Innocent people are always looking for pardons.

And the scary thing is the steadily decreasing number of voters who still stand up for this guy. If you want to know how despots rose to power...do a psychological study on these nimrods.
 
Who says decades of voter suppression don't pay off in the end?
Still in the denial phase of mourning?

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
And the scary thing is the steadily decreasing number of voters who still stand up for this guy. If you want to know how despots rose to power...do a psychological study on these nimrods.

Well, in unrelated news, I heard a funny joke the other day.



Zing!
 
Back
Top Bottom