Manafort Trial Thread

#553
#553
Anything new in the trial? Been off the grid for a week..missed the updates. Has he been drawn and quartered for his heinous crimes against America yet??
 
#554
#554
lawgator1 said:
If Manafort is convicted and Trump pardons him prior to or as he is negotiating a deal with Mueller to spill the beans on Trump, is that obstruction of justice?

If it emerges that Trump secretly let Manafort know that he is going to be pardoned so long as he keeps his mouth shut, is that obstruction of justice?
Click to expand...
It might be douchey but pretty sure the constitution says he can do all of that..
 
#557
#557
lawgator1 said:
Not a question of authority. Just because he can doesn't mean he can for an illegal purpose.
Click to expand...

Trump owes zero explanation to anybody on why he decided to grant a pardon.

And the burden of proof is on you guys to show it would have been negotiated before hand. Sadly for you your opinion on a football message board or even in the MSM provides zero legal basis as such proof.
 
#558
#558
NorthDallas40 said:
Trump owes zero explanation to anybody on why he decided to grant a pardon.

And the burden of proof is on you guys to show it would have been negotiated before hand. Sadly for you your opinion on a football message board or even in the MSM provides zero legal basis as such proof.
Click to expand...

We shall see.
 
#565
#565
Grand Vol said:
You know what sucks?

He grants a pardon and you can't do **** about it.
Click to expand...


Depends.

1) If there is evidence that it was done to shut him up, that would be obstruction and impeachment for that, alone, would be warranted.

2) If he is convicted of tax evasion charges Trump would be excusing someone who is the definition of "the swamp" of Washington, D.C. and insider deals. He'd be excusing someone who defrauded the government and in a major, multi million dollar way, with no benefit to the US for it.

Either one would be tough to explain or justify. I think you'd see a lot of people distance themselves from him on that. Its a little too real.
 
#566
#566
lawgator1 said:
Depends.

1) If there is evidence that it was done to shut him up, that would be obstruction and impeachment for that, alone, would be warranted.

2) If he is convicted of tax evasion charges Trump would be excusing someone who is the definition of "the swamp" of Washington, D.C. and insider deals. He'd be excusing someone who defrauded the government and in a major, multi million dollar way, with no benefit to the US for it.

Either one would be tough to explain or justify. I think you'd see a lot of people distance themselves from him on that. Its a little too real.
Click to expand...

So, you are saying any pardon he grants can (will) be overturned?
 
#567
#567
I’m still waiting on a reasonable and rational explanation ( hat tip to Luth) as to why 10 year old financial crimes which were already known to the DOJ suddenly became a bigly Yuge deal once Trump got elected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and FLVOL_79
#568
#568
lawgator1 said:
Not a question of authority. Just because he can doesn't mean he can for an illegal purpose.
Click to expand...
Not sure what is illegal about it though. I believe the constitution literally says the President can pardon anyone for any offense against the United States unless it involves articles of impeachment....like ..now this is all in the realm of fantasy and make believe...if Manafort turned tail and spilled the beans that lead to a impeachment proceedings against the President and he then pardoned him and THEN Manafort recanted...Yeah that would be a problem.

Again not a lawyer.
 
#569
#569
Grand Vol said:
So, you are saying any pardon he grants can (will) be overturned?
Click to expand...

FLVOL_79 said:
Not sure what is illegal about it though. I believe the constitution literally says the President can pardon anyone for any offense against the United States unless it involves articles of impeachment....like ..now this is all in the realm of fantasy and make believe...if Manafort turned tail and spilled the beans that lead to a impeachment proceedings against the President and he then pardoned him and THEN Manafort recanted...Yeah that would be a problem.

Again not a lawyer.
Click to expand...


No, no. He has the power and the authority to do it. But, if he did it in order to obstruct the investigation, that would be a crime.

You have the power and authority to drive. It doesn't mean you can drive the get away car in a robbery and get away with it by showing your license.
 
#570
#570
lawgator1 said:
Depends.

1) If there is evidence that it was done to shut him up, that would be obstruction and impeachment for that, alone, would be warranted.

2) If he is convicted of tax evasion charges Trump would be excusing someone who is the definition of "the swamp" of Washington, D.C. and insider deals. He'd be excusing someone who defrauded the government and in a major, multi million dollar way, with no benefit to the US for it.

Either one would be tough to explain or justify. I think you'd see a lot of people distance themselves from him on that. Its a little too real.
Click to expand...

I dont think that part even matters.

And impeachment..good luck with that. How many sitting Presidents have been impeached? Where their "crimes" committed during their tenure in office or prior to office? You aren't going to like what you find.
 
#571
#571
lawgator1 said:
No, no. He has the power and the authority to do it. But, if he did it in order to obstruct the investigation, that would be a crime.

You have the power and authority to drive. It doesn't mean you can drive the get away car in a robbery and get away with it by showing your license.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
#573
#573
FLVOL_79 said:
I dont think that part even matters.

And impeachment..good luck with that. How many sitting Presidents have been impeached? Where their "crimes" committed during their tenure in office or prior to office? You aren't going to like what you find.
Click to expand...

1) Obstruction would be while in office. So your argument is defeated.

2) If he has been paying his side of the quid pro quo to the Russians in the form of weakening or otherwise helping them dodge meaningful sanctions, then the fact of collusion in the form of conspiracy would be while in office, again defeating your argument.

Grand Vol said:
Wait, you mean he IS your President and is allowed to do such things?
Click to expand...

I am sure that you intend to make a clever point by that, but I am not certain what it might be.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top