DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

[BigRedBuster]

[mrandyk]

If anyone else were president I could look at this as incredibly damning evidence. Trump's ego is so sensitive though, he could be entirely innocent and pull sh#t like this anyways.

[BigRedBuster]

[TGHusker]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-20/mueller-is-said-to-expand-probe-to-trump-business-transactions

 

It is pretty amazing watching the chess match going on behind the scenes. This article expands on the above - Trump could be hiding money laundering, tax evasion, etc. No wonder he didn't reveal his tax returns.

If there was nothing to hide, no need for the lawyers to run interference on his behalf.

[TGHusker]

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/trump-democrats-russia-pardons/2017/07/21/id/802964/

 

Trump considering pardons already for those who may have might be implicated in the Russian investigation - including family and even himself. So when he says there is nothing to see here, you know he is lying through his teeth.

quote

The highest-ranking Democrat on the U.S. Senate intelligence committee said it was "extremely disturbing" if President Donald Trump was contemplating a pardon for aides that could be implicated in a probe on Russian meddling in last year's presidential election.

Sen. Mark Warner was referring to a Washington Post article late Thursday saying that Trump was consulting with advisers "about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself" in connection to the probe led by special counsel and former FBI director Robert Mueller.

 

The possibility that the President is considering pardons at this early stage in these ongoing investigations is extremely disturbing," said Warner, the senior senator from Virginia and vice-chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence.

"Pardoning any individuals who may have been involved would be crossing a fundamental line."

The White House has yet to comment on the Post report.

However in an interview with The New York Times on Wednesday, Trump warned Mueller that some of his family finances should be off-limits to the ex-FBI director's wide-ranging investigation.

Asked if Mueller looking at finances unrelated to Russia would be a red line, Trump responded, "I would say yes."

 

Trump's lawyer denies that pardons are being discussed here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-lawyer-jay-sekulow-denies-pardons-being-discussed/

 

One of President Trump's attorneys is denying a Washington Post report that Mr. Trump's legal team has been "discussing the president's authority to grant pardons" with respect to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Jay Sekulow tells CBS News chief White House correspondent Major Garrett, "Pardons are not being discussed and are not on the table."

The Post says Mr. Trump "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."

The newspaper notes, "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."

Garrett also reported late Thursday that Mr. Trump's legal team has been shuffled.

Marc Kasowitz is out as the president's personal attorney and Kasowitz's spokesman, Mark Corallo, has resigned, Garrett says.

The reasons for the moves were not immediately known.

Kasowitz has represented Mr. Trump since the early 2000s, and led his defense in the Trump University fraud case.

[NM11046]

Come on TG - every President in history has inquired about how to pardon himself, his family and his aids at month six in office.

[RedDenver]

 

Trump can't pardon impeachment. From Wikipedia:

In the United States, the pardon power for federal crimes is granted to the President of the United States under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment". The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites, and amnesties.

But in theory, I think he could pardon himself from any criminal charges. I listened to a podcast where they explained there is nothing that says he couldn't do it, it's just everyone before him has had enough respect for the office not to do it (ie Clinton and Nixon).

 

Do you have a link to that podcast? If the President can't pardon impeachment, then he can't pardon himself from being impeached.

[Danny Bateman]

The thing that struck me was the line in the WaPo story that Trump was particularly rattled when he learned Mueller could access several years worth of tax returns.

 

We all agree his reticence to let any tax returns see the light of day is fishy, right? I mean Maddow got ahold of the one, but I'm of the mind that someone somewhere leaked the rosiest return they could to try to throw people off.

 

The question becomes what is he so freaked out about by the fact Mueller will dig into those? I'm beginning to think it's more than just he ain't as wealthy as he says he is.

[TGHusker]

Come on TG - every President in history has inquired about how to pardon himself, his family and his aids at month six in office.

Yea, I know - a bit of an overreach My goodness - think about this. We just elected a guy and we are already talking about Watergate type issues - while impeachment was a wish list item for many non-Trump voter from day one - the escalation has gone from fantasy to this may become reality. We have coverups, denials, investigations, intrigue etc.

[ZRod]

 

 

Trump can't pardon impeachment. From Wikipedia:

 

In the United States, the pardon power for federal crimes is granted to the President of the United States under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment". The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites, and amnesties.

 

But in theory, I think he could pardon himself from any criminal charges. I listened to a podcast where they explained there is nothing that says he couldn't do it, it's just everyone before him has had enough respect for the office not to do it (ie Clinton and Nixon).

Do you have a link to that podcast? If the President can't pardon impeachment, then he can't pardon himself from being impeached.

Right, he can do nothing about his impeachment. But, impeachment is not a criminal trial, it's only a removal and bar from office. So if Trump were guilty of criminal activity that could go to trial, he could effectively pardon himself of those crimes and still be impeached.

 

The podcast is called "What Trump can teach us about Con Law", episode 3: Pardon Power. It's pretty interesting podcast that delves into the power of the presidency and constitutional limits, using actual cases and histroy.

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

Trump can't pardon impeachment. From Wikipedia:

In the United States, the pardon power for federal crimes is granted to the President of the United States under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment". The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites, and amnesties.

But in theory, I think he could pardon himself from any criminal charges. I listened to a podcast where they explained there is nothing that says he couldn't do it, it's just everyone before him has had enough respect for the office not to do it (ie Clinton and Nixon).

Do you have a link to that podcast? If the President can't pardon impeachment, then he can't pardon himself from being impeached.

Right, he can do nothing about his impeachment. But, impeachment is not a criminal trial, it's only a removal and bar from office. So if Trump where guilty of criminal activity that could go to trial, he could effectively pardon himself of those crimes and still be impeached.

 

The podcast is called "What Trump can teach us about Con Law", episode 3: Pardon Power. It's pretty interesting podcast that delves into the power of the presidency and constitutional limits, using actual cases and histroy.

 

Here's the website if anyone else is interested: https://trumpconlaw.com/

[NM11046]

[Red Five]

[TGHusker]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN1A61T6

 

Mueller trying to turn Manafort against Trump. This could get interesting pretty fast if Mueller offers a deal for Mueller to spill the beans. Manafort could be to Trump what Dean was to Nixon.

 

John Wesley Dean III (born October 14, 1938) is an investment banker, author, columnist, lecturer and former attorney who served as White House Counsel for United States President Richard Nixon from July 1970 until April 1973. In this position, he became deeply involved in events leading up to the Watergate burglaries and the subsequent Watergate scandal cover-up. He was referred to as the "master manipulator of the cover-up" by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).^[1] He pleaded guilty to a single felony count, in exchange for becoming a key witness for the prosecution. This ultimately resulted in a reduced prison sentence, which he served at Fort Holabird outside Baltimore, Maryland.

 

 

Part of the article:

 

U.S. investigators examining money laundering accusations against President Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort hope to push him to cooperate with their probe into possible collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia, two sources with direct knowledge of the investigation said.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team is examining Manafort's financial and real estate records in New York as well as his involvement in Ukrainian politics, the officials said.

Between 2006 and 2013, Manafort bought three New York properties, including one in Trump Tower in Manhattan. He paid for them in full and later took out mortgages against them. A former senior U.S. law enforcement official said that tactic is often used as a means to hide the origin of funds gained illegally. Reuters has no independent evidence that Manafort did this.

The sources also did not say whether Mueller has uncovered any evidence to charge Manafort with money laundering, but they said doing so is seen by investigators as critical in getting his full cooperation in their investigation.

"If Mueller's team can threaten criminal charges against Manafort, they could use that as leverage to convince him to cooperate," said one of the sources.

[TGHusker]

A sitting president can be indicted - as revealed during Ken Star's investigation of Bill Clinton

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Memo-President-Indicted/2017/07/22/id/803211/

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/can-president-be-indicted-kenneth-starr-memo.html

 

WASHINGTON — A newfound memo from Kenneth W. Starr’s independent counsel investigation into President Bill Clinton sheds fresh light on a constitutional puzzle that is taking on mounting significance amid the Trump-Russia inquiry: Can a sitting president be indicted?

The 56-page memo, locked in the National Archives for nearly two decades and obtained by The New York Times under the Freedom of Information Act, amounts to the most thorough government-commissioned analysis rejecting a generally held view that presidents are immune from prosecution while in office.

“It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties,” the Starr office memo concludes. “In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.”

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Mr. Starr assigned Ronald Rotunda, a prominent conservative professor of constitutional law and ethics whom Mr. Starr hired as a consultant on his legal team, to write the memo in spring 1998 after deputies advised him that they had gathered enough evidence to ask a grand jury to indict Mr. Clinton, the memo shows.

In 1974, the Watergate special counsel, Leon Jaworski, had also received a memo from his staff saying he could indict the president, in that instance Richard M. Nixon, while he was in office, and later made that case in a court brief. Those documents, however, explore the topic significantly less extensively than the Starr office memo.

In the end, both Mr. Jaworski and Mr. Starr let congressional impeachment proceedings play out and did not try to indict the presidents while they remained in office. Mr. Starr, who had decided he could indict Mr. Clinton, said in a recent interview that he had concluded the more prudent and appropriate course was simply referring the matter to Congress for potential impeachment.

As Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel in the latest inquiry, investigates the Trump campaign’s dealings with Russia and whether President Trump obstructed justice, the newly unearthed Starr office memo raises the possibility that Mr. Mueller may have more options than most commentators have assumed. Here is an explanation of the debate and what the Starr office memo has to say.

Why do some argue presidents are immune?

Nothing in the Constitution or federal statutes says that sitting presidents are immune from prosecution, and no court has ruled that they have any such shield. But proponents of the theory that Mr. Trump is nevertheless immune for now from indictment cited the Constitution’s “structural principles,” in the words of a memo written in September 1973 by Robert G. Dixon Jr., then the head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

This argument boils down to practicalities of governance: The stigma of being indicted and the burden of a trial would unduly interfere with a president’s ability to carry out his duties, preventing the executive branch “from accomplishing its constitutional functions” in a way that cannot “be justified by an overriding need,” Mr. Dixon wrote.

In October 1973, Mr. Nixon’s solicitor general, Robert H. Bork, submitted a court brief that similarly argued for an “inference” that the Constitution makes sitting presidents immune from indictment and trial. And in 2000, Randolph D. Moss, the head of the Office of Legal Counsel under Mr. Clinton, reviewed the Justice Department’s 1973 opinions and reaffirmed their conclusion.

Go to the NYT link for the rest of the story.