The last one looks a bit deflectional.
4 Likes
Manafort was even money. Weren’t we promised INDICTMENTS? Rick Gates? Chump change. WE WANT MORE! WE WANT MORE!
1 Like
Webster is going to be so disappointed…
6 Likes
So in Canada we have a policy of not admitting foreigners convicted of serious crimes into the country (like many countries do). One of the requirements, though, is that the serious crime has to be an equally serious crime in Canada. So if you went to prison for 10 years for homosexuality in some country, Canada would not bar your entry because we don’t think that’s criminal.
So when I read that it’s not treason but conspiracy against the United States, I imagine the following conversation between a border official and their superior:
“We shouldn’t allow this guy into the country because he was convicted of a serious crime.”
“What crime did he commit?”
“He was convicted of 'conspiracy against the United States.”
“Does Canada have a similar crime?”
“Yes, Treason.”
The short version: He may not be charged with the crime of “Treason” in the US, but if someone wants to call what he did “treason” I think they’re on pretty good footing.
Nixon received a pre-emptive pardon from Ford. Someone correct me, but he was never actually charged with crimes committed during his presidency before Ford pardoned him, was he?
10 Likes
Thanks. I stand corrected.
2 Likes
Mueller: “Cut a deal, and you won’t go to jail”.
Putin: “Cut a deal, and jail will be the least of your problems”.
Manafort: “Decisions, decisions…”
15 Likes
I guess Trump accidentally hired some bad hombres. Oops.
4 Likes
Scooter Manafort?
A reading of the indictment, skip ahead a few minutes to bypass technical stream set up issues
https://youtu.be/seQ__ZyFpf4
Colloquially sure. But saying that’s the “proper charge” isn’t neccisarily on sure footing. The strict reading of the treason statutes makes it really limited. And it wouldn’t apply here.
And apparently the conspiracy statute is pretty broad. It can cover things that are treasonish, or would be treasonous in other countries. But also things with no relationship to foreign powers. Like fraud or corruption.
1 Like
There is no preemptive pardon. he can only pardon convicts. He cannot direct anyone to stop investigating a crime.
he may be a King Baby, but he is not King.
1 Like
What happened with Ford and Nixon? I was under the impression that before Nixon was charged with anything Ford gave him a blanket pardon for everything he might have done in the white house before he was charged.
From Joe Arpaio we have a very recent ruling that you can still be convicted of a crime despite being pardoned, the president can’t stop that. But I do think people would tend to give up on investigations if the person had already been pardoned, since resources are limited.
3 Likes
Nixon resigned.
“After Ford left the White House in 1977, he privately justified his pardon of Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of Burdick v. United States, a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court decision that suggested that a pardon carried an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carried a confession of guilt.”
and you know what, we needed to heal, which is why Trump will get to walk away after resigning, too.
2 Likes
Would like to point out this “King” rhetoric dates back to the Obama era. Trump is just as deserving of it today as Obama was back then, whatever you want to make of that. (i.e. both use Executive orders to get around congressional roadblocks)
No, to the Revolutionary era. King George. The ENGLISH ONE we revolted against. The MONARCH of ENGLAND.
Stop trying to redefine my statements, it’s rude and doesn’t change the subject away from Manafort and Trump.
This has nothing to do with Obama, put the mudpie down.
3 Likes
Can you share the source for this? It’s powerful and should be spread far/wide.
But it is an example of a person being pardoned for crimes without having been charged with anything, let alone convicted, is it not? That’s what I meant be pre-emptive pardon (if it was read to mean pardon for something that hasn’t yet happened, I know that’s not possible).
3 Likes
I try to point out to people from both sides that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If you’re not making a complaint about Trump’s use/abuse of power (which is shared with Obama), then fine, I apologize for getting you wrong.
I’m not.
I am not trying to hijack this thread because I’m some crazed anti-Obama nut (I’m not).
If you’re still drinking coffee this morning, it might be time to switch to decaf.
I am bad at Kremlinology.
But.
Manafort was allowed to turn himself in to authorities.
He wasn’t handcuffed and perp walked by FBI agents in full public scrutiny replete with paparazzi and live-streaming media.
This suggests to me that Manafort and the FBI may have an understanding of sorts.
I can’t imagine Manafort picturing himself doing time in federal prison. The only way I can see him preferring jailtime is if facing his Russian debtors is somehow far far worse. People suddenly die in jail all the time.
IANAL but if 45 pardons him, I am guessing Manafort could still face civil charges (Joe Arpaio took the presidential pardon as well, and accepting pardon = affirming guilt, IIRC). What/any plausible civil charges could be slapped on Manafort post-pardon is beyond my limited ability to comprehend of what is left of our functioning U.S. legal system.
I can barely wrap my mind around how there wasn’t a 100% conviction of all defendants in the wildlife refuge armed takeover and find minimal reassurance in the cogs of the U.S. justice system grinding slow but exceedlingly fine, as the old saw goes.
Perhaps if its staggeringly huge piles of Manafort’s money (not very relatable to the Trump base, “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” be damned) instead of big caches of Bundy’s guns and ammo (more relatable?), then perhaps some better version of justice is possible?
ETA: Looks like Rick Wilson over at The Daily Beast is saying similar on his Twitter feed.
3 Likes
