Jump to content
Check your account email address ×

obstruction of justice, exhibit C


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

or is it D?

trumpy offering up pardons to manafort and Flynn last year while Mueller was building cases against them. obviously so they wouldn't cooperate with Mueller.

:news:

 

:lies: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DriftBusta said:

Oh great.  Slingers a lawyer and judge now.  I guess Clintons pardons never happened for straight up criminals like Marc Rich and others.  Thats ok, but this is...... what again?

:lol:

whoooosh.......

what's the difference between manafort and Flynn vs "marc rich and others"

:news:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Snoslinger said:

:lol:

whoooosh.......

what's the difference between manafort and Flynn vs "marc rich and others"

:news:

 

You tell me,  and be sure and list what both were accused and convicted of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Snoslinger said:

or is it D?

trumpy offering up pardons to manafort and Flynn last year while Mueller was building cases against them. obviously so they wouldn't cooperate with Mueller.

:news:

 

Dowd floated that idea past Trump, Trump did not offer up pardons to Manafort and Flynn.

BTW, you have to convicted of crime to be pardoned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold Member
2 minutes ago, oleroule said:

slinger insinuates trump can't pardon because it's a crime.

He was insinuating Trump was offering pardons to keep Manafort and Flynn from rolling on Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mileage Psycho said:

Dowd floated that idea past Trump, Trump did not offer up pardons to Manafort and Flynn.

BTW, you have to convicted of crime to be pardoned.

Prosecutor/Judge/Turnkey Slinger has them all convicted, sentenced and doing time. :lol2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
24 minutes ago, Mileage Psycho said:

Dowd floated that idea past Trump, Trump did not offer up pardons to Manafort and Flynn.

BTW, you have to convicted of crime to be pardoned.

Actually the POTUS can issue preemptive pardons.  You seem to forget about Casper Weinburger.  

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/05/opinion/l-constitution-allows-pardons-before-conviction-590688.html

Before he could be tried on the original charges, Weinberger received a pardon from President Bush, who was Reagan's Vice President during the scandal, on December 24, 1992

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Actually the POTUS can issue preemptive pardons.  You seem to forget about Casper Weinburger.  

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/05/opinion/l-constitution-allows-pardons-before-conviction-590688.html

Before he could be tried on the original charges, Weinberger received a pardon from President Bush, who was Reagan's Vice President during the scandal, on December 24, 1992

 

I wasn't aware of that, but how do you pardon someone if you don't know what the crime will be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mileage Psycho said:

I wasn't aware of that, but how do you pardon someone if you don't know what the crime will be?

The president doesnt have to be specific about an exact crime to offer a pardon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
11 minutes ago, ATOMIC PUNK said:

don't need to be charged with a crime cause its TRUMP. Different rules apply to him now..

Couldn't be more wrong.   All POTUS' shared this power.   From the NYT's link.

In Murphy v. Ford (1975), a Federal District Court in Michigan rejected a suit for a declaratory judgment that President Ford's unconditional pardon of Richard M. Nixon was unconstitutional. The court found that the President had the constitutional power to grant a pre-indictment pardon, citing Ex parte Garland in its support.

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Highmark said:

Couldn't be more wrong.   All POTUS' shared this power.   From the NYT's link.

In Murphy v. Ford (1975), a Federal District Court in Michigan rejected a suit for a declaratory judgment that President Ford's unconditional pardon of Richard M. Nixon was unconstitutional. The court found that the President had the constitutional power to grant a pre-indictment pardon, citing Ex parte Garland in its support.

I was being sarcastic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DriftBusta said:

You tell me,  and be sure and list what both were accused and convicted of.

why do you need spoon fed all the damn time? the damn answer is obvious. manafort and Flynn are indicted and if they don't work with Mueller, they're both looking at some serious jail time. so trump floated the idea of giving them pardons earlier, so they wouldn't give Mueller jack shit. now, was this the same situation as "marc rich and others"? hell no. completely different circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol



×
×
  • Create New...