Will Trump pardon himself?

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by Asherah, Nov 26, 2020.

?

Will Trump pardon himself?

Poll closed Dec 17, 2020.
  1. Trump will pardon himself

    8 vote(s)
    47.1%
  2. Trump will resign, and Pence will pardon him

    5 vote(s)
    29.4%
  3. There will be no pardon of Trump

    4 vote(s)
    23.5%
  1. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,141
    Likes Received:
    787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agreed: I did not make the legal case that Trump committed the crime of Obstruction. Do you want me to? I don't really want to simply copy and paste the Mueller report for you, but I can't point you to the relevant pages, if you like.

    Your "knowledge" includes your subjective interpretation of the Mueller report, if you read it. Did you ?

    As I said, this obstruction seems the biggest threat. Yes, it's my subjective interpretation, and that of 1027 former federal prosecutors. You are rejecting if based on your own subjective interpretation (if you actually read the report), or perhaps just out of faith. Seriously, given the assessment by these former prosecutors, it should be clear that active prosecutors might make the same judgment and indict him. It is THEIR subjective interpretation that identifies the THREAT to Trump.

    You mean for obstruction? My guess is because the House felt the Republican Senate wouldn't convict him. Good that they didn't try, because this would have created a sort of "double jeopardy" for Trump, acquitting him in the Senate trial and then trying him again for this crime in a courtroom. In a courtroom, he'd have an unbiased jury.
     
    cd8ed likes this.
  2. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    17,523
    Likes Received:
    6,480
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I hope Trump does pardon himself!
    Investigating or Prosecuting Trump would be a media diversion
    from Biden failures.

    The basis is witnessed with Snowden & Assange.
    Trump should pardon himself plus Snowden & Assange
    for any activity before the inauguration of Biden.
    A clean slate for all 3 to be free of predatory government persecution via never ending investigations, etc.


    Moi
    :oldman:



    STOP :flagcanada:
     
  3. Gentle- Giant

    Gentle- Giant Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2020
    Messages:
    551
    Likes Received:
    504
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    It's a moot point. He can't pardon himself from state crimes and we New Yorkers are licking our chops for Hanuary 21 to come around.
     
  4. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    24,102
    Likes Received:
    9,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'll give you this, Asherah -- you're much more honest about your own subjectivity in assessing the conclusions of the 'Mueller Report' than others on the Left who have hated Trump. Fortunately for us in the United States, our jurisprudential methodologies do not stand on loosely-assembled accumulations of "woulda, coulda, shoulda"....

    I read enough of the report to understand that after an agonizingly long, extravagantly expensive 'investigation' into Trump's campaign in 2016, Mueller declined to identify one (ONE) thing that was a "crime".

    Parenthetically, had Mueller declared 'this', 'that', or something else Trump did was, indeed, a crime, I would not have hesitated to recommend Trump's impeachment and removal from office -- period! Most of us on the Conservative Right are "law-and-order" kinds of citizens, who don't want a law-breaking president in the Oval Office any more than you Leftist Democrats do....
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2020
  5. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,141
    Likes Received:
    787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK, but take into account the fact that Mueller indicated he would not declare a crime even if there was one, but that he would have declared Trump exonerated had the evidence pointed that way (as he did regarding conspiring with Russians). This implies that at minimum, there is a real possibility that Trump could be indicted on this material. Trump should be worried about this (also factor in his paranoia about the "deep state"). Even if he believes he would win the case in court, it makes sense that he would want to avoid the time and expense of mounting a defense. That's why I think he will pardon himself before leaving office (or resign so that Pence can do this). I'm willing to bet $5 on this. Care to take me up on it?
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2020
  6. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    24,102
    Likes Received:
    9,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Again, I see a considerable amount of 'woulda, coulda, shoulda' in your observations. I see implications and speculations, but none of the black-and-white conclusions that would have sufficed to impeach and remove a sitting president.

    It's harder than you may think for me to defend a number of things about Trump and his polices (especially his 'stock-markets-über-Alles' mania regarding the economy). But you can't convict a man based on subjective interpretations of 'circumstantial' evidence -- especially not by a political faction which bought and promoted the "Steele Dossier" and used it to leverage the whole "Trump/Russia collusion fantasy" in the first place!

    Afterthought: Could a Republican-led faction at some future point put together an 'investigation' alleging that Joe Biden, et al, abused the powers of his office as vice-president, using coercive, manipulative blackmail in Ukraine (the "Burisma" affair)... for personal benefit, or the benefit of immediate family members? Is there a 'Statute-of-Limitations' on such things...?

    No, I'm not trying to change subjects on you, but it is worth remembering tht Democrats should have remembered the old admonition about some moron throwing stones inside a glass house. Now? Everything is FAIR GAME... and will remain so for a long time to come.... And, ironically, the Chinese and Russians are the ONLY ones who will enjoy any real benefit because of it!
     
  7. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,141
    Likes Received:
    787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You seem to be explaining why I haven't convinced you Trump is guilty of obstruction. I'm not trying to do that. I'm primarily explaining why I think Trump will pardon himself. It's also true that I make the subjective judgment that he's guilty of obstruction, but that's secondary. You've given me no reason to change my mind. Here's an example:

    All interpretations of circumstantial evidence are "subjective", so I think you're overplaying this. Mueller cites the law regarding obstruction of justice. There are 3 elements to a charge: 1) an obstructive act; 2) a nexus, or connection, to an official proceeding; 3) a corrupt intent. (Mueller: "The word "corruptly" provides the intent element for obstruction of justice and means acting "knowingly and dishonestly " or "with an improper motive. "

    Mueller establishes #1 and #2 for several obstruction charges. Those are clear cut. There's no doubt that Trump committed certain acts, and that these impeded the investigation. The only questionable element is the corrupt intent, and this is the element dependent on circumstantial evidence. Here's what Mueller says about that:

    The issue of criminal intent is often inferred from circumstantial evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Croteau, 819 F.3d 1293, 1305 (I Ith Cir. 2016) ("[G]uilty knowledge can rarely be established by direct evidence .... Therefore, mens rea elements such as knowledge or intent may be proved by circumstantial evidence.") (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Robinson, 702 F.3d 22, 36 (2d Cir. 2012) ("The government's case rested on circumstantial evidence, but the mens rea elements of knowledge and intent can often be proved through circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. ") (internal quotation marks omitted). The principle that intent can be inferred from circumstantial evidence is a necessity in criminal cases, given the right of a subject to assert his privilege against compelled self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment and therefore decline to testify. Accordingly, determinations on intent are frequently reached without the opportunity to interview an investigatory subject.

    A prosecutor would have to show that the most reasonable inference from circumstantial evidence is that Trump's intent was corrupt. This would be the critical element in the trial, and it's what Trump's defense would need to focus on. I'm not forecasting success for the prosecution, because we can only guess how Trump would defend his actions. Maybe he could present a credible motivation, but he'd have to do better than his written answers to Mueller's questions; these responses were (per Mueller) insufficient in several respects:

    "We received the President's written responses in late November 2018. In December 2018, we informed counsel of the insufficiency of those responses in several respects. We noted, among
    other things , that the President stated on more than 30 occasions that he "does not 'recall ' or ' remember ' or have an ' independent recollection"' of information called for by the questions. Other answers were "incomplete or imprecise." The written responses , we informed counsel, "demonstrate the inadequacy of the written format , as we have had no opportunity to ask followup questions that would ensure complete answers and potentially refresh your client 's recollection or clarify the extent or nature of his lack of recollection."
     
  8. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    24,102
    Likes Received:
    9,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    All the political ploys and legal maneuvering associated with the 'Trump/Russia Collusion' and the 'Mueller Investigation' will be subjects for legal scholars in the decades to come. Very honestly, I would soon be out of my depth in such 'coffee table' discussions, but as a point of clarification, I will correct my focus here and tell you very forthrightly that if Donald Trump were to 'pardon himself', no one would be as outraged as me!

    Consider: if Trump were to 'pardon himself', he'd be giving truth to the LIES, DISTORTIONS, and numerous manipulations that his wanna-be political assassins paid for, promoted, and propagandized for years -- aided by their sycophant stooges in the hyperliberal 'news' media. So -- NO -- at all costs, he must not (NOT) 'pardon himself'.

    They say you should always choose your battles carefully, but this was a war that radical Democrats launched on Trump, beginning immediately after Hillary lost the 2016 election. For better or worse, this was 'the hill' that Trump had to fight, and if necessary, to 'die on'.

    So... now it's back to what we know. What we know is that everything else notwithstanding, the Mueller Investigation yielded nothing that was actionable against Donald Trump -- period. We know that later, radical Democrats mounted an impeachment against Trump based on two Articles of Impeachment which did not even list one "crime". And, after impeachment, the whole thing was thrown out by the Senate.

    Trump will leave office at noon, January 20, 2021. After that, he will continue to be hounded by various legal actions brought, probably, in New York, and, if so, those are matters that Trump will have to contend with as a private American citizen. But, as it stands today, PRESIDENT Trump has never done anything to be 'pardoned' for....
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2020
  9. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,141
    Likes Received:
    787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I believe you're specifically referring to the allegation of conspiring with Russians. I agree nothing actionable came from this. However, Trump's obstructive behavior during the investigation may very well be actionable.

    For perspective, consider Bill Clinton's BJ perjury that led to his impeachment. He was in position to commit perjury because of the Whitewater that never showed Clinton had done anything illegal. Nothing "actionable" came of the Whitewater investigation, but he still committed the crime of perjury and deserved to suffer consequences for it.

    That's factually inaccurate. Crossfire Hurricane was launched before the election, on July 2016, and Trump himself was not a subject of the investigation. Inspector General Horowitz investigated and did not find political bias in the initiation of the FBI investigation; he found errors in the FISA warrants. Perhaps Durham will reach a different conclusion, but it's premature to assume that. Trump himself only became a subject of investigation after he fired Comey. That is what precipitated appointment of Mueller by (Republican) Rod Rosenstein. If Trump was innocent, he should have had nothing to fear from an investigation, so he should have refrained from interfering. The fact that the Russian investigation cleared him of conspiracy is strong evidence that the Mueller investigation was honest.

    Setting aside whether or not he is vulnerable to being prosecuted for it, do you think it's perfectly fine for Trump to offer pardons to people to keep them from talking to Mueller? You stated that if Trump pardoned himself, you'd regard that as evidence he committed a crime. Why doesn't the fact that he induced people to keep quite influence you to think he may be hiding something? It's an odd thing for an innocent person to do. Of course (and Mueller says this), perhaps he was just trying to hide some things that were embarrassing (personally, or politically). But as Mueller also says, this would still entail a corrupt intent.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2020
  10. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    24,102
    Likes Received:
    9,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think the big difference for Bill Clinton was that he testified under oath things that were not, strictly speaking, true. So, they 'fish-hooked' him on a technicality. I laughed at the whole thing, as most Americans did, but I predicted at the time that Democrats would eventually get revenge on a Republican president for something -- even if it didn't amount to more than 'a hill of beans'... kinda like a BJ. :lol: . If they were gonna 'get' Bill for anything, it should have been the negligent (and perhaps criminal) way that he enriched Chinese technology, but I don't want to stray off of the central issue of Trump, and thus be guilty of 'deflection'.

    By the time the Democrats were 'playing for blood', Trump was learning in detail about the 'mutated' collusion between the Hillary Campaign, the concoction of the 'Steele Dossier', the FBI, the FISA kangaroo-court(s), and so on. If Trump was telling his people not to do anything to help the very conspirators who were trying through sabotage to destroy his administration, who could blame him -- especially after what those contemptible dirt-bags pulled on poor, gullible Michael Flynn?!

    In retrospect, I can't help but find it ironic that the Democrat faction would want to go after Trump 'hammer-and-tongs' about "intent" when Hillary's stooge, Comey, let her off the hook because he was sure that she didn't INTEND to break the nation's laws regarding the handling of classified information (an area which I actually DO know quite a bit about, having had two TS security clearances myself).

    I'm a frustrated idealist, Asherah... I want a government made up on honest, truthful American citizens who do not engage in criminal activity of any kind, and who mean what they say when they take an oath of office that demands obedience to, and protection for the Constitution of the United States above all things. In all my long life, I have never experienced that, purely, in our government, no matter who was 'running things', Republican or Democrat. I know I never will. And, no, I have never been comfortable with the idea of any president, of any party or faction, having the power to grant 'pardons'.

    Civilized human beings have been trying to codify acceptable standards for behavior since Hammurabi, and, The Decalogue, at least. It will never be perfect. At best, our lot will always be that of the 'lesser of two evils'.... :lonely:

    As the Terminator famously mused in the second series movie, "Judgment Day",

    [​IMG] "It's in your nature to destroy yourselves."
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2020
  11. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,141
    Likes Received:
    787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lying under oath is a crime, but so is obstructing justice. Of course, Clinton's perjury has been established through adjudication, but this difference goes away as soon as it IS adjudicated.

    In both cases, it's fair to say the opposing party was the most eager to get the guy, but in neither case was the investigation performed by the political party. The investigations were done by independent entities.

    Impeachment may be deemed "going after", but neither Mueller's investigation nor a possible prosecution for obstruction is such. If prosecuted, there will be partisan cheerleaders on both sides, but that doesn't make the actual legal process a partisan one. What we should objectively wish for is that justice be served, not revenge (even if the winning side DOES delight in the outcome).

    Linda Tripp was a staunch Republican who led Monica Lewinsky on. She was surely out to get Clinton, but that doesn't alter the fact that Clinton was guilty. Having opposing parties out to get each other isn't bad, if it motivates them to find actual crimes. The other side of this coin is that ones own party rarely is motivated to see crimes that are actually there.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2020
  12. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    24,102
    Likes Received:
    9,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh, Asherah, I do believe that all such intrigues are thoroughly steeped and saturated in PARTY politics! This phenomenon has grown more and more apparent, and viciously destructive, ever since Vietnam 'Era', actually. But I'll spare you any of my histrionics about that, or any more of my musings about being disappointed in American government. Except for 'swamp' creatures, who WOULDN'T be...?

    Nevertheless, you may be sure that the nascent Sino-Russian alliance will resolve our seemingly insoluble internecine disputes for us... and probably take no more than about another twenty years to do so. In the meantime, we, the 'little people', should find what amusement we can in our continuing 'joyride to the bottom'....

    [​IMG]. "Oh, I mean, like, this is just so COOL!" . :lol: - "Yeah...and the best is, like, yet to come."
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2020
  13. Spooky

    Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    31,815
    Likes Received:
    13,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure he can.
     
  14. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    103,430
    Likes Received:
    36,902
    Trophy Points:
    113
    if he loses in court before jan 20th, not sure when it would make it to the SC to be challenged
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  15. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    65,960
    Likes Received:
    49,447
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    With ANY luck he will do it the same way he has “pardoned” Flynn - by tweet with no specifics and limits. If he does that he is TOAST
     
  16. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    65,960
    Likes Received:
    49,447
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    No

    He WAS mentioned though as “Individual one”
     
  17. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,141
    Likes Received:
    787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What's wrong with that? It would be wrong if people were prosecuted for things they didn't do, but it seems that only the opposing party ever looks for crimes, since the person's own party tends to make excuses.
     
    Pollycy likes this.
  18. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    24,102
    Likes Received:
    9,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not exactly a show-stopper, really.

    Recently, information surfaced in emails clearly indicating that Joe Biden was in for 10% of the graft and bribery money from China -- referred to as "the big guy". Democrats swept THAT under the rug so fast it was breathtaking. So... what have we got?

    Trump is "Individual one"... Joe Biden is "the big guy", and in about another two weeks absolutely NOBODY will be able to remember anything about either one of these little 'dramas'....

    [​IMG]. "Well... it sort of lacks the, uh, 'complexity' of one of our crime stories...." :spin:
     
  19. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    97,282
    Likes Received:
    27,219
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Seeing how vicious and vindictive democrats are for suffering butt hurt over an election he should pardon himself.
     
  20. Spooky

    Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    31,815
    Likes Received:
    13,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, still means you were wrong.
     
  21. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,141
    Likes Received:
    787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The "individual one" designation was a reference to Trump by federal prosecutors in a criminal case, for an actual crime.

    Provide a similar context for Joe Biden commiting a crime. What crime? What evidence is there that Joe Biden committed this crime? What is the source of the allegation?
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2020
    cd8ed likes this.
  22. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    103,430
    Likes Received:
    36,902
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yet to be seen, like I said, depends how long it takes to get to the SC, it's a risky move, as I said
     
  23. Spooky

    Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    31,815
    Likes Received:
    13,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As I said there is nothing in the constitution and the founders intent was that the pardon was a totally unrestricted event.

    Whether it's regarding Trump or not I see absolutely nothing that would cause them to say it's unconstitutional.
     
  24. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    103,430
    Likes Received:
    36,902
    Trophy Points:
    113
    no man can be their own judge and jury
     
  25. Spooky

    Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    31,815
    Likes Received:
    13,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's what a pardon does.

    Innocent people do not get pardoned.

    It is putting people above the law and that is what the founders wanted.

    I never did study their reasoning behind it though.
     

Share This Page