Below is my column in the Hill on claims by former Deputy Special Counsel Andrew Weissmann that the recent pardons by President Donald Trump reinforce a possible obstruction of justice case against him. We have previously discussed how Weissmann has proven critics correct in their description of his animosity and bias toward Trump. For my part, his book and recent statements reinforce the view of an abusive prosecutor, particularly in his untethered view of obstruction. Indeed, Weissmann seems intent on making the best case for Trump to grant himself a self-pardon. He is calling for prosecutors to use grand juries to pursue Trump and others in an unrelenting campaign based on unfounded legal theories.
Here is the column:
In the debate over pardons, some Democrats seem to be making the case for Donald Trump and against themselves. Consider Andrew Weissmann. After the recent pardons, he declared that Trump effectively proved the case for an obstruction charge against himself and called on prosecutors to summon those who were pardoned into grand juries with the threat of later perjury charges. It was unfounded and dubious. It was also vintage Weissmann, who made the case against himself as someone who shows bias against Trump that overwhelms all other considerations.
If Trump wants a rationale to pardon himself, he can look no further than Weissmann, who was appointed as a top aide to special counsel Robert Mueller. Trump and numerous Republicans denounced him as a donor to Barack Obama, and he was said to have attended the election night party for Hilliary Clinton in 2016. My objection was not to his affiliations but to his history, which included extreme interpretations that were ultimately rejected by courts. Weissmann was responsible for the overextension of an obstruction provision in a jury instruction that led the Supreme Court to reverse the conviction in the Arthur Andersen case in 2005.
Weissmann is now a MSNBC analyst who teaches at a New York University. After he left the office of the special counsel, he fulfilled every account of someone with uncontrolled bias against Trump, including his book that attacks prosecutors for refusing to take on his extreme views. Weissmann called on prosecutors to refuse to assist John Durham in his investigation and, after the pardon of Roger Stone, called for Stone in a grand jury.
Even staunch critics of Trump like former prosecutor Randall Eliason described Weissmann’s book as a “betrayal of Mueller” that “trashed” his colleagues and threw them “under a bus for not agreeing with him.” He added that Weissmann’s “dishing may sell a lot of books” but he “himself violated the norms about how prosecutors should behave.”
After leaving the Special Counsel’s office, Weissmann seemed intent on proving critics correct in saying that he was a uniquely poor choice by Mueller to serve as his deputy. Now, Weissmann is openly voicing the extreme interpretations that have led many of us to criticize his tenure at the Justice DepartmentNow Weissmann voices the kind of extreme interpretations that led many of us to criticize his tenure with the Justice Department. His most recent column is illustrative. Many of us called out the recent pardons by Trump, ranging from corrupt former members of Congress to the father of Jared Kushner. However, Weissmann insists that the pardon of figures tied to the special counsel investigation is evidence of obstruction.
But these individuals were not pardoned to stop them from testifying or, with the case of Michael Flynn, from working with prosecutors, nor were they pardoned before they were tried and convicted. Former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, for instance, served time in prison before he was released due concerns of the coronavirus. Former campaign aide George Papadopoulos and attorney Alex Van Der Zwaan served sentences. Flynn was convicted and should have been sentenced years earlier if not for a series of bizarre actions by the federal judge who heard his case.
Trump did not pardon his lawyer, Michael Cohen, when Cohen angled for his pardon. Instead, Cohen worked with Mueller, testified against Trump, and was sent to prison. That is a curious pattern for obstruction. Wait until everyone testifies and most are sent to prison before they are pardoned. It did not seem to have been obstruction that Bill Clinton notably pardoned his own friend and business partner in the Whitewater scandal.
Weissmann insists that, when Trump is out of office, there is no barrier to indict him for obstruction and have all these figures appear before grand juries. The problem is the same one Weissmann faced for his disastrous role in the prosecution of Andersen. Weissmann simply misunderstands criminal obstruction. Indeed, he may have the longest learning curve in legal history on this issue. Indeed, he may have the longest learning curve in legal history on this question. Not even an unanimous rejection of his views by the Supreme Court for the case of Andersen seems to register with him, particularly when the law stands in the way of pursuing Trump.
I testified in the impeachment hearing on the flaws with this obstruction theory. Mueller himself did not find a case for an obstruction charge. He listed the alleged acts of obstruction discussed in the media but did not find the critical element of intent to support the charge. That was also the point that former Attorney General William Barr tried to make in his press conference on the summary of the special counsel investigation. Despite different ideas of obstruction, there was no doubt that it would take intent to prosecute. Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — who appointed Mueller and was widely praised by Democrats for his independence — also said under oath last year that there was no evidence of obstruction.
None of this matters to Weissmann, who comes across as a legal Captain Ahab, so blinded by rage that he would lay waste to the criminal code to nab his white whale. This same kind of rage could be cited by Trump for a controversial pardon of himself. I believe a president can pardon himself but should not do so. Even if someone had standing to challenge that, the Constitution is silent on any such limitation on the pardon power. That is the same reason I believe a president can be indicted in office. Yet, while constitutional, I still view self-pardons as a misuse of the power.
There are solid arguments on both sides of this debate, which has gone on for decades. From my view, the main obstacle is political rather than constitutional, but Weissmann and others are now working to remove that barrier. These critics demand prosecutions of Trump and his associates with the same blind fury as Captain Ahab, who said, “From heart of hell I stab at thee. For the sake of hate I spit my last breath at thee. Ye damned whale.” Their long-standing rage could be the long-sought rationale for the president.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.
Turley: “It was also vintage Weissmann, who made the case against himself as someone who shows bias against Trump that overwhelms all other considerations.”
Really? And you know this how? Have you questioned Weissmann whether his bias against Trump “overwhelms all other considerations?” Or is that just one man’s biased opinion? Namely yours.
As a prosecutor, is Weissmann not supposed to be biased against chronic and habitual liars such as Trump? Have you ever heard a defendant say to a judge in his defense, “Your Honor, the prosecutor is biased against me; I want a new trial!” Prosecutors should be biased. Judges and juries are supposed to be impartial even though they too are biased, but they- like prosecutors- take an oath to rise above their biases in performing their lawful duties. People are inherently biased which is why they take an oath! For you, Turley, to accuse Weissmann of abusing his oath of office without substantive proof is utterly contemptible. In making such an unfounded accusation, I question your bona fides.
Prosecutors should be biased. Judges and juries are supposed to be impartial even though they too are biased, but they- like prosecutors- take an oath to rise above their biases in performing their lawful duties.
LOL! Well done. In two short sentences, you’ve made the assertion prosecutors should be biased and if they’re honoring their oath, rise above their biases. Of course every defendant is afforded the presumption of innocence, right? Even if the prosecutor believes the accused is Satan himself, they are still required to present evidence to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Weissmann has a history of not honoring those bedrock principles. Of course Weissmann was the perfect choice to be on the Mueller team. If you’re going to unseat a duly elected president using Russian disinformation, foreign spies, fake dossiers, altered emails, rogue FBI agents and a complicit media, then you’ll need an unethical prosecutor willing to dishonor our judicial process to bring it home.
“I question your bona fides”
That is hysterical coming from you, Jeffrey.
White man. Dumb. Went in dumb, come out dumb too.
Hey Turleyfrogs:. Off topic:. What killed more Americans in 2020: tobacco or the crown virus?
Huh? You ask? As you smoke.
409,000 died of tobacco. Self inflicted.
Hazard to your health. That mean anything to you? So delegalize tobacco. Ask Bob Marley
Guns are quicker.
Shoot yourselves.
More intelligent analysis topped off with moral confusion. If Weissman et al intend to pursue Trump in the way he speaks of – which I have no doubt will happen – why on earth wouldn’t Trump be justified in pardoning himself? Why should he not do so when faced with these animals? Of course Trump shoud pardon himself as a prophylactic against these maniacs. They will do anything and say anything. My only objection to Turley’s analysis is that the Left and the likes of Weisman were deranged long before Trump.
Weissmann is a complete scumbag who belongs in prison himself! And it’s extremely laughable that he still thinks there is a case against Trump for any aspect of the Russian Hoax. I mean, this stuff is too funny!
Actually there is a case against trump. The mueller report still applies to trump. The southern district of New York also has multiple cases against him.
Trump is in a heap of trouble after he leaves office.
The Mueller report doesn’t “apply” to anything.
Trump Pardon’s Primarily Limited To Inner Circle
Mr. Trump used the power of his office last week to grant clemency to dozens of people, among them his daughter’s father-in-law, his former campaign manager and a longtime friend. He bestowed mercy on three Republican congressmen, one of whom pleaded guilty to stealing campaign funds for personal use, a second convicted of securities fraud, and a third serving a 10-year sentence after being convicted of fraud and money laundering. Others pardoned included two allies who were convicted of lying to the F.B.I. during the Russia investigation.
He also pardoned four Blackwater private security contractors convicted in connection with a massacre in Baghdad. Erik Prince, the former head of Blackwater and a Trump ally, is the brother of Betsy DeVos, the education secretary.
A vast majority of the people to whom he granted pardons or commutations had either a personal or political connection to the White House, and it appears that only seven were recommended by the government’s pardon attorney, according to a Harvard University professor who is tracking the process.
Although the regulation can be waived, the government normally requires a person applying for clemency to wait a period of at least five years after conviction or release from confinement, a rule that was not applied for a number of Mr. Trump’s cohorts.
More than 14,000 people with federal convictions are awaiting word on their applications for clemency.
Edited from: “Outside Trump’s Inner Circle, Odds Are Long For Getting Clemency”
Today’s New York Times
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The article notes that many petitioners for clemency are doing long stretches for marijuana convictions. With so many states legalizing pot, one has to ask why ‘anyone’ is still serving marijuana-related sentences.
Weissman means White man. Look at google translate.
Weiss in German means White.
White guy wants a pardon.
One of Turley’s all time best columns. Brava, Jonathan!
Brava?
Jonathan: You appear to be one of the few legal scholars who claim Trump has the power to pardon himself–although you would advise Trump against a self-pardon because that would be a “misuse of the power”. Such “misuse” of the power of the presidency has never stopped Trump from committing crimes in office or granting pardons and clemency to his friends and loyal political supporters–not even pardons for the Blackwater personnel found guilty of war crimes in Iraq. Trump believes he is above the law and anything he does cannot be a “misuse” of power. He is the decider. You almost invite Trump to do the unthinkable by arguing that Andrew Weissman is “intent on making the best case for Trump to grant himself a self-pardon”. I suppose such a flawed rationale applies to anyone who argues against self-pardons. What apparently galls you the most about Weissman’s views is that he suggests those already pardoned could be hauled before a grand jury and forced to testify without benefit of the 5th Amendment. Good Gods! That argument could also be used if Trump gives himself a pardon. No doubt Trump’s lawyers have warned him against a self-pardon because of the unintended consequences. Besides a pardon implies guilt and Trump has never admitted to any mistakes–never, ever!
Now Weissman is not the only one arguing against presidential self-pardons. J. Michael Luttig, former Assistant Attorney General in the office of Legal Counsel at the DOJ, takes a similar position (Washington Post, 12/7/20). Luttig argues that when the framers inserted Article 11, Section 2, Clause 1 in the Constitution they were in the process of rejecting monarchy in favor of a democratic republic. It’s non-sensical they would bestow on the new president a right they rejected in the British monarchy–to escape liability for crimes committed while in office. Luttig further argues that the word “grant” in Clause 1 clearly connotes “a gift, the bestowal, conferred or transfer by one person to another–not to himself”. Luttig concludes: “a power to the president to pardon himself for any and all crimes against the United States he committed would grievously offend the animating constitutional principle that no man, not even the president, is above and beyond the law”.
The White Whale in “Moby Dick” is a modern day metaphor for the leviathan Trump who claims he is above the law and can overturn the constitutional “ship” of state. Trump wants to emulate Julius Caesar who overthrew the democratic Roman and established himself as a “dictator perpetius”. Trump justifies his inherent power of self-pardon by claiming he is supported by “numerous legal scholars”. No doubt you are one of those “legal scholars” who is enabling Trump to believe he is still the white whale who rules the waves.
+10
Elvis Bug
Luttig concludes: “a power to the president to pardon himself for any and all crimes against the United States he committed would grievously offend the animating constitutional principle that no man, not even the president, is above and beyond the law”.
The President is not above the law. He can be impeached. The interesting specific here, President Trump was impeached. Yet not a single crime was cited. Why? Because there are no crimes to cite.
Impeachment is a political consequence and isn’t what people have in mind when they talk about someone being above the law. The articles of impeachment described two crimes, bribery and obstruction of Congress.
The articles of impeachment described two crimes, bribery and obstruction of Congress.
Wrong. Cite the two articles of impeachment.
https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres755/BILLS-116hres755enr.pdf
For elaboration of why the first article can be interpreted as criminal bribery, read Section 4 of the House report addressing President Trump’s Abuse of Power Encompassed Impeachable “Bribery” and Violations of Federal Criminal Law, https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20191216/CRPT-116hrpt346.pdf
iowan2, Trump and the Republicans never contested the quid pro quo charge regarding the Ukraine call. They simply said it ‘rise to the level of impeachment’. But is was obvious that Trump was shaking-down Ukraine’s Zelensky. Trump was trying to bully Zelensky into admitting Putin’s lies that Ukraine had really been the culprit in the 2016 hacks. Zelensky had no interest on earth in accepting those lies.
But is was obvious that Trump was shaking-down Ukraine’s Zelensky
That is what you, a licensed certified mind reader, says. In the US, we require evidence. The President of the United States paused the aid to assure, that Ukraine had in place the needed procedures to prevent rampant corruption. That is something required by laws passed by congress and controlled the aide in question.
iowan2, you weren’t even following the impeachment if that was your take. Obviously there wouldn’t have been any impeachment if Trump was merely following normal procedures.
You’re out of your mind. There were at least a dozen instances during Trump’s four years in which left-wing lunatics like Weissmann called for Trump’s impeachment for following normal procedures.
… he says, without giving any examples.
They didn’t have to, silly. Why? Because no money was ever involved. Zelensky didn’t even know that the aid was being paused. And besides, Ukraine still received the aid by the original deadline. By contrast, Biden flat-out threatened the Ukraine in his actual quid pro quo. And please spare me the BS about that being the official policy of the U.S. and Europe. Because if that was the case, Biden or Odumbo could’ve just handled it on the phone. But Biden went there personally because it was personal to him! (Keeping Hunter and possibly himself out of prison). Only a complete idiot would believe that he wanted that prosecutor sacked because the guy was too soft on corruption when he just happened to be investigating Burisma. Lmfao!!
“Trump was trying to bully Zelensky into admitting Putin’s lies that Ukraine had really been the culprit in the 2016 hacks”
You’re lying again.
Trump asked for Zelensky’s help providing evidence of the Biden’s nefarious relationship with Burisma. That relationship is now under investigation.
Are you the best they can come up with here? You’re a rank amateur.
Rhodes, get the facts straight. Trump cared about an announcement of an investigation, not an actual investigation according to his ambassador:
In his public testimony, Sondland addressed this point in the context of a meeting in Washington desired by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
“You understood that in order to get that White House meeting that you wanted President Zelensky to have and that President Zelensky desperately wanted to have,” Daniel Goldman, a lawyer for the House Democrats, said to Sondland in November, “that Ukraine would have to initiate these two investigations. Is that right?”
….former acting ambassador to Ukraine William B. Taylor Jr.’s testimony that he was told, by Sondland, that Trump wanted to get Zelensky in a “public box” on the issue, that it was necessary that Zelensky announce the investigations publicly. “It was not sufficient to do this in private,” Taylor said he understood that phrase to mean, “that this needed to be a very public statement.”…”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/23/assessing-key-impeachment-argument-trumps-desired-investigations-were-only-his-own-benefit/
As to promoting a Putin conspiracy story that the Ukraine was who interfered in the 2016 election, Trump asked Zelensky to look into “Crowdstrike”, the keyword for this theory.
Rhodes, you’re the onr either lying or a rank and ignorant amateur.
Hello pathetic DNC nutter.
Trump has the power to pardon. The Constitution does not limit his power to others. Other than in your stupid imagination, quote the words of the law that prohibit Trump from pardoning himself.
Obviously Dennis did not read Moby Dick. Normally if one was going to slander Trump with reference to the characters, one would chose Ahab for the comparison. To compare him to Moby Dick would be to ascribe to Trump more power than he has.
Then again, Brittanica says of the novel:
“The whale itself is perhaps the most striking symbol in Moby Dick, and interpretations of its meaning range from the Judeo-Christian God to atheism and everything in between. Between the passages of carefully detailed cetology, the epigraphs, and the shift from a hero’s quest narrative to a tragedy, Melville set the stage for purposeful ambiguity. The novel’s ability to produce numerous interpretations is, perhaps, the main reason it is considered one of the greatest American novels.”
Then there is the flawed reference to Julius Caesar. Rome was a Republic and not even close to a democracy, not in our sense nor even in the Athenian sense. Trump is also not comparable to Caeser in his current office. Nonetheless, Caeser broke the low crossing the Rubicon with his legion. Trump has broken no law which is comparable. But perhaps he could. If he could command the armed forces to support him in overstaying in office, in January. Only then would you say, he crossed the Rubicon. Right now “tweeting” is hardly comparable. That is a hysterical comparison.
We all know that will not happen. so you can relax Dennis. Trump is no Caesar. If he was the last 3 years would have looked very, very different.
You are going to be very bored with Biden once Trump is not here for a daily rhetorical beating from yous guys
Saloth Sar
All legal experts agree that he has the power to pardon himself. It just looks bad to do so, but if you’re opponents are promising to convict you for crimes you didn’t commit, then you gotta do what you gotta do.
LMAO that you just ignore the many legal experts who don’t agree that he has the power to pardon himself.
They’re not legal experts. They’re liars.
That you disagree with them doesn’t make them liars or diminish their expertise.
No, the fact that they are left-wing liars in reality makes them liars for purposes of this discussion.
You seem to be a fan of circular reasoning.
You seem to be a moron. Saying that someone is a liar is not circular reasoning.
You actually need to present evidence that they lied, not simply proclaim it over and over.
Failing to present evidence is bot “engaging in circular reasoning”.
Claiming that they’re liars because they’re liars (“the fact that they are left-wing liars in reality makes them liars”) is circular reasoning.
You actually need to present evidence that they lied, not simply proclaim it over and over.
You actually need to present evidence of your allegation he committed crimes while in office.
You can start with the evidence about Trump’s obstruction of justice. That evidence is in the Mueller Report.
Trump did not commit any crimes in office, and you have to be a brainwashed monkey to think he did.
He committed crimes in office, and he also committed crimes prior to taking office, the prosecution for which have been in hold.
“Trump wants to emulate Julius Caesar who overthrew the democratic Roman and established himself as a “dictator perpetius”.”
Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon and overthrew the Roman Republic (not democracy) and declared himself Emperor of the Roman Empire.
The people behind the transparent election fraud that occurred the week of November 3rd are the ones that crossed the Rubicon. They are the ones who will meet the same fate as Julius Caesar.
All of which is why Weissman is trying to divert attention away from that reality ahead of Durham. Weissman is quite aware that Barr left him and his cronies in a pit with a swinging and descending pendulum.
Once AGAIN, most of these responses have absolutely nothing to do with the topic that Prof.Turley has selected for HIS blog. To all you left wing idiots, address the subject at hand, start your own blog, which no one will access, OR SHUT UP!!
I gather Correct-the-Record has told their contacts to flood the zone with irrelevant matter today.
I gather that you take directions from some rightwing organization, and that’s the reason you can’t imagine anyone acting without taking orders.
Whereas you only take directions from a Communist Dictator who looks just like Winnie the Pooh.
Looks like you can’t imagine anyone acting without taking orders either.
Tabby, The N Y Post is telling Trump to “give it up”. That sounds like the end to any astute observer.
You obviously describe the MSM, who literally take talking points from the DNC. Who was the reporter who sent his article to the DNC for approval before publishing?
Estovir, The New York Post was the first major newspaper to endorse Trump. If you think they take cues from the DNC, you are infinitely stupider than we thought.
You have to wonder if Turley keeps this in mind when writing on his blog. “All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to” Because Turley is acting as a political operative for Trump, and that’s fine if he wants his name attached with a amoral man-child who has no ethics or humanity for anything or anybody. Turley’s pursuit to cater to the campaign that Trump is above the law will be judged by lawyers and history for years to come. But the quote is spot-on to he is addressing too.
NEW YORK POST TELLS TRUMP TO ‘GIVE IT UP’
Mr. President, it’s time to end this dark charade.
We’re one week away from an enormously important moment for the next four years of our country.
On Jan. 5, two runoff races in Georgia will determine which party will control the Senate — whether Joe Biden will have a rubber stamp or a much-needed check on his agenda.
Unfortunately, you’re obsessed with the next day, Jan. 6, when Congress will, in a pro forma action, certify the Electoral College vote. You have tweeted that, as long as Republicans have “courage,” they can overturn the results and give you four more years in office.
In other words, you’re cheering for an undemocratic coup.
You had every right to investigate the election. But let’s be clear: Those efforts have found nothing. To take just two examples: Your campaign paid $3 million for a recount in two Wisconsin counties, and you lost by 87 more votes. Georgia did two recounts of the state, each time affirming Biden’s win. These ballots were counted by hand, which alone debunks the claims of a Venezuelan vote-manipulating Kraken conspiracy.
Sidney Powell is a crazy person. Michael Flynn suggesting martial law is tantamount to treason. It is shameful.
We understand, Mr. President, that you’re angry that you lost. But to continue down this road is ruinous. We offer this as a newspaper that endorsed you, that supported you: If you want to cement your influence, even set the stage for a future return, you must channel your fury into something more productive.
Edited from: “The Post Says: Give It Up, Mr. President – For Your Sake And The Nation’s”
The New York Post, 12/27/20
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The New York Post is the same paper that broke the Hunter Biden lost-laptop story in October. They were the first major paper to endorse Trump’s original campaign. The Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News. Therefore The Post is widely recognized as a ‘Trump-friendly source’.
Yet Here The Post refers to Trump’s election claims as a ‘dark charade’. Trump is cheering an “undemocratic coup”, they say. “These ballots were counted by hand, which alone debunks the claims of a Venezuelan vote-manipulating Kraken conspiracy”. And finally the paper notes that Trump Attorney Sidney Powell is a “crazy person”.
These are hard-hitting words from a friendly source. The editorial goes to note that control of the Senate is currently at stake in Georgia. But the paper notes that Trump is too “obsessed” with his election claims to be helpful in Georgia. This reveals The Post’s real concern: ‘Congress Could Be Lost Because Of Trump’s Claims’.
+10
In other words, you’re cheering for an undemocratic coup.
The ELECTED representatives of the people exercising their constitutional duties is the most democratic thing I can imagine.
iowan2, they did their duties and Trump lost. History will portray Trump as the most desperate loser of all-time.
The part that gets me about this is Weissman and Democrats in general keep blabbing on and on about how these pardons are somehow obstruction and a cover up. They have this weird notion that those that have been pardoned must be called to testify against Trump for some mysterious unheard charge that they can’t quite articulate and allege Trump has committed and that they have knowledge of. They claim these people no longer have any fifth amendment right against self incrimination.
Somehow they have completely missed the memo that not one of these people were convicted, plead guilty to, or even had been charged with colluding/conspiring with Russia in the 2016 campaign or election. Weissman should know this because he and Mueller didn’t find eveidence of the magical collusion. Roger Stone was tried and convict of several counts but all of his crimes were committed by him, after the election and campiagn, and the investigation had no evidence that showed Trump ordered him to commit these crimes at all. Michael Flynn had to cooperate with the Mueller team in order to get his plea deal. While he never ended up convicted of the lying to the FBI charge, and was pardoned before his case was over, he indeed, cooperated with the Mueller team, they recommended zero jail time for Flynn, and the accusations agianst him came with absolutely no indication that Trump was involved or even committed a crime. Papadopolous was blown off by the Trump campaign who for the mist part wanted nothing to do with any communication he may have had with “Russians.” in fact, the “e-mails” weren’t even a concern of Papadopoulos. His e-mails with both the suspected “Russians,” was almost entirely about him tryingv to set up a public meeting between Trump and Putin which the campaign rebuffed. No one at the time had any ideas what “e-mails” anyone might have had because there were the missing e-mails from Hillary’s server, and later we would find out DNC, and Hillary campaign e-mails. Finally Manafort’s crimes were all about his work in Ukraine prior to joining the Trump campaign. The supposed contact between Manafort and a “Russian” and Manafort tipping campaign info to said “Russian,’ can easily be explained by the Trump campaign wanting to find out what a peace deal in Ukraine would look like. The supposed “spy” Manafort spoke to also had a history of providing information to the Obama State Department through the Ukrainian embassy and his “ties” to Russian intel seem to only include the fact that he served in Intel in the USSR, when serving his compulsory service (meaning he had to serve in the USSR miliatry like all adult males did).
What is being suggested is that you don’t need Trump to have actually committed a crime. That a grand jury should be assembled to make everyone of the pardoned people testify and use the grand jury to actually search for a crime to charge Trump with.
It also seems to make a blanket statement about pardons and the idea of no longer being afforded Fifth Amendment protections. Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Papadopolous, etc. were not charged with, plead guilty to, or were even accused of violating and tax laws for the Trump Organization. They were not charged with campaign finance violations. So what charges will they testify against Trump on, and how are they not able to take the Fifth when these would be new crimes that they would be testifying and basically admitting to being a part of? Collusion? Since no one was convicted pf collusion or conspiracy in the 2016 or eledction they would all have fifth amendment rights there too.
Michael Cohen could have information on tax crimes, maybe, but he plead guilty to lying to Congress, then lied to Congress again when he said he never sought a pardon, and that he never sought a position in the Admin. He plead guilty to a campaign finance charge just to try and get on the good side of prosecutors, and the information he gave authorities must not have been as reliable and great as many in media or Democrats think because it didn’t get Cohen a plea deal, or immunity. It’s all just madness…
Obstruction of justice doesn’t require that someone have committed some other underlying crime.
Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby went to jail for that. Trump can too.
Trump could also face time for other crimes, including campaign finance and tax fraud crimes linked to the hush money payments that Cohen went to jail for.
Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby went to jail for that. Trump can too.
Martha Stewart was accused of insider trading and Scooter Libby was accused of perjury. The charge against Libby was almost certainly humbug.
He was ‘obstructing’ Weismann’s obstruction investigation by supplying reams of documentation on request.
Stewart wasn’t convicted of insider trading. She went to jail for obstruction despite not having been convicted of any underlying crime.
Libby’s perjury wasn’t the underlying crime for his obstruction. The underlying crime would have been leaking Valerie Plame’s identity. Unsurprisingly, Trump pardoned Libby too.
Trump obstructed the investigation in multiple ways that are spelled out in the Mueller Report.
Plames name was never leaked. Her covert days were behind her, and her old status public knowledge.
A special counsel was appointed, and he stated that Plame was “a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years.” I’ll trust his description over that of some rando commenter.
counsel was appointed, and he stated that Plame was “a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal
Robert Novak started the whole thing. He contacted the CIA about him using Plames name, and was that OK with the CIA? They responded, they were indifferent. Documents support this.
Its a crime to expose an undercover agent. No criminal charge was ever filed. Because??? She was no longer undercover, AND the CIA took no action to protect her identity, when they had a chance.
As I said, I’ll trust the SC’s description over that of some rando commenter. Insisting that “Documents support this” without quoting them does nothing to convince me.
I think the complaint was that her cover employer was exposed and had to be shut down, and that this blew the cover of a bunch of other agents. Not sure if that is true or not.
No. The Mueller report does not spell out ANYTHING in that regard. It doe not spell out any obstruction in the non-legal sense (i.e., Trump did nothing to cover up a crime or even to hinder the investigation) or in the legal sense (i.e., it does not suggest that any conduct violated any federal criminal statute).
Of course it suggests that he engaged in conduct that violated federal criminal statutes. Here’s one discussion –
https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-report-heat-map
No, it does not do that. You’re stupid, or you’re lying. There is no effort to connect any action to any criminal statute.
She discussed 18 U.S.C. § 1512. You seem to be describing yourself rather than me.
Robert Mueller is not a “she”.
Quinta Jurecic, who wrote the article I referred you to, is a woman.
For the record, Mueller also linked multiple actions to criminal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. 1503, 1505, 1512(b)(3), and 1512(c)(2). Did you bother to read the report?
I’m talking about Mueller, you doofus. He did not try to connect any action to any criminal statute.
That’s not true. He linked multiple actions to criminal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. 1503, 1505, 1512(b)(3), and 1512(c)(2). Should I call you a liar, given how quick you are to assert it about others?
You’re lying, Anonymous. He did not attempt to connect any action with any criminal statute. I just went through the whole report again, and he never tried to tie any action to any statute.
I just went through the whole report again, and he never tried to tie any action to any statute.
Had there actually been an action Mueller could tie to the code, the House would have included that in their articles of impeachment.
Are you blind? The report devotes pages to discussing the applicability of those statutes, focusing especially on 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). The discussion was so extensive that it was identified in the Table of Contents.
Just a few relevant excerpts –
“we concluded that several statutes could apply here. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, 1512(b)(3), 1512(c)(2). … The obstruction-of-justice statute most readily applicable to our investigation is 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). … On its face, therefore, Section 1512(c)(2) applies to all corrupt means of obstructing a proceeding, pending or contemplated—including by improper exercises of official power. … In sum, in light of the breadth of Section 1512(c)(2) and the other obstruction statutes, an argument that the conduct at issue in this investigation falls outside the scope of the obstruction laws lacks merit. … no established principle of interpretation would exclude the presidential conduct we have investigated from statutes such as Sections 1503, 1505, 1512(b), and 1512(c)(2).”
Trump doesn’t need a pardon, he’s about to begin his second term.
You can’t stop what’s coming…the Atomic Sledgehammer of Truth & Justice is falling…time is running out for the election thieves.
Tick-tock-tick-tock…
You’re deluded.
REGARDING ABOVE:
Trump finally signed the stimulus bill because Republicans had totally lost patience. That doesn’t bode well for a ‘second term’.
Well, he could serve two terms, one in Federal Prison, the other in State Prison.
lol.
Elvis Bug
BWAHAHAHA!!!! As conservatives used to me fond of saying back in 2016. “Suck it up buttercup, you lost”. Trump will be escorted out of the White House in a couple of weeks.
Svelaz, you forgot………”Fu*k your feelings”
That is especially relevant today. They ARE feeling a bit defensive lately. After four years of gloating and pride in his behavior and now having to face the reality of being part of the worst America has to offer, yes, “Fu@ck your feelings” is entirely appropriate.
And Mike Nifong, North Carolina DA, went to jail for “malicious prosecution.”
How in the world did Obergruppenfuhrer Weissmann stay out?
Nifong didn’t go to jail. He only lost his bar license. Should have gone to jail, though.
“HE WAS ORDERED TO SERVE ONE DAY IN JAIL.”
“In the Duke case in 2006, when Nifong was the chief district attorney in Durham, a woman told police that she had been raped at a house party held by the men’s lacrosse team. DNA samples were taken from three suspects picked out of a team poster by the woman. None of the men were matches, but Nifong declined to disclose that to the men’s lawyers, instead supplying thousands of pages of raw DNA data. He soon stepped down from the case and the state attorney general cleared the players of all charges. Nifong was disbarred in June 2007 and found guilty of contempt of court in September 2007. He was ordered to serve one day in jail.”
– Washington Post
What for? Why play games with thin air? The proven formula is One Judge Pence and Trump sit around a table. Trump resigns, Judge signs, Pence is sworn in, Judge signs, Pence signs a valid pardon, judge signs, Pence then nominates a VP blocking Pelosi, judge signs, Depending on Jan 5th then resigns, judge signs, About five minutes used up. While he’s at it the Judge signs blocking the inauguration of the two socialists as unsuitable for overtly speaking against every requirement of the Oath of Office This sort of thing is not rocket science. In the end President Trump and Vice-President Pence if he so chooses shake hands and begin laughing. Trump looks at the media pool camera and ‘cocks a snoot.” At that point Both are hired for bit parts in a new remake of The Untouchables.
The rest is bullshevikist/
By the way ‘avoid shutting down the government?” What kind of idiot nonsense is that? The Government has never shut down, cannot shutdown and will never shut down. At best it’s a bad joke where 30 percent at most get a day or so off with pay later. A better deal than Pelosi is given the Citizens of the USA. All military, Security, Judicial, and IRS functions remain intact.
Don’t cry for me Grandma she’s safer than those who voted to see their children sitting at an empty table and LOL most of them stil pretending to be Democrats instead of members of the socialist fascist party
As for the military pay getting delayed? They could have upheld their oath of office and then there is that 70billion cut coming up. and of course the inevitable next version of what we used to call the Obama wars. Why pay someone who has refused to up hold their oath of office their most primary reason to exist? Or was it an effort to change berets to yellow?
All those wars …. for nothing. Think about it. The new salute is hanging your head in shame.
A veteran of 23 years infantry wrote this. i am not ashamed but then in our days we upheld our Oath of Office.
Welcome to the USAA As for our Constitutional Republic? Got less than three weeks to the end. And some of us will still uphold or oath of office and hold NO allegiance to the socialists
You’re right, it’s not rocket science, but you should learn more civics, because no single judge can prevent Biden’s inauguration, and a VP-nominee to replace a vacancy has to be approved by Congress.
Why do you assume that Pence wants to pardon Trump?