Trump's pardons, what it means for them

DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Bear420 said:
Yeppers !!

I ask how far is this going to go, we have until the 14th of this month, I don't trust these republican's at all even though they certified the results it really don't mean shit until those cast their electoral votes.

I am telling you this isn't over until he's out of that White House and it may not happen.

All we can do is trust that those who cast the electoral votes have more integrity than Trump does.

82 million people have faith, One person has power. what is going to happen ?

There is no federal law or constitutional provision requiring electors to vote for the party that nominated them, and over the years a number of electors have voted against the instructions of the voters. In 2004, a Minnesota elector nominated by the Democratic Party cast a ballot for John Edwards, the vice presidential running mate of John Kerry--thought to be an accident. Electors generally are selected by the political party for their party loyalty, and many are party leaders, and thus not likely to vote other than for their party's candidate.
In 2016, there were seven faithless electors, the most since 1972—three Democratic electors from Washington state cast their votes for Republican Colin Powell, instead of Democrat Hillary Clinton; one Democratic elector from Washington state cast his vote for Faith Spotted Eagle, a woman who is a member of the Yankton Sioux Nation; one Democratic elector from Hawaii cast his vote for Bernie Sanders, instead of Hillary Clinton; one Republican elector from Texas cast his vote for John Kasich, instead of Donald Trump; and one Republican elector from Texas cast his vote for Libertarian Ron Paul. The last time an elector crossed party lines was in 1972, when an elector nominated by the Republican Party cast his ballot for the Libertarian ticket.

Some states have passed laws that require their electors to vote as pledged. These laws may either impose a fine on an elector who fails to vote according to the statewide or district popular vote, or may disqualify an elector who violates his or her pledge and provide a replacement elector. In July 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional for states to enact this type of law. The states with laws that attempt to bind the votes of presidential electors are below:
States With Laws That Attempt to Bind the Votes of Presidential Electors
Alabama (Ala. Code §17-14-31)Mississippi (Miss. Code Ann. §208.46)
Alaska (Alaska Stat. §15.30.090)Montana (Mont. Code Ann. §13-25-307)
Arizona (Ariz. Rev. Stat. §16-212)Nebraska (Neb. Rev. Stat. §32-714)
California (Cal. Elec. Code §6906)Nevada (Nev. Rev. Stat. §298.075)
Colorado (Colo. Rev. Stat. §1-4-304)New Mexico (N.M. Stat. Ann. §1-15-9)
Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-176)North Carolina (N.C. Gen. Stat. §163-212)
Delaware (Del. Code Ann. tit. 15, §4303(b))Oklahoma (Okla. Stat. tit.26 §10-102)
District of Columbia (D.C. Code §1-1001.08)Ohio (Ohio Rev. Code §3505.40)
Florida (Fla. Stat. §103.021)Oregon (Or. Rev. Stat. §248.355)
Hawaii (Haw. Rev. Stat. §14-28)South Carolina (S.C. Code Ann. §7-19-80)
Indiana (Ind. Code §3-10-4-1.7)Tennessee (Tenn. Code Ann. §2-15-104)
Iowa (Iowa Code §54.8)
Maine (Me. Stat. tit.21-A, §805)Vermont (Vt. Stat. Ann. §2732)
Maryland (Md. Code Ann. §8-505)Virginia (Va. Code Ann. §24.2-203)
Massachusetts (Mass Gen. Laws ch.53, §8)Washington (Wash. Rev. Code §29A.56.090)
Michigan (Mich. Comp. Laws §168.47)Wisconsin (Wis. Stat. §7.75)
Minnesota (Minn. Stat. §208.46)Wyoming (Wyo. Stat. Ann. §22-19-108)
Most of the laws cited above require electors to vote for the candidate of the party that nominated the elector, or require the elector to sign a pledge to do so. Some go further: Oklahoma imposes a civil penalty of $1,000; in North Carolina, the fine is $500, the faithless elector is deemed to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed. In South Carolina, an elector who violates his or her pledge is subject to criminal penalties, and in New Mexico a violation is a fourth degree felony. In Michigan, a candidate who fails to vote as required is considered to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed.
Click to expand...
I can assure you, Trump will be out of the WH on Jan 20th or there will be civil war in America and it will not end well for them. Joe Biden is the most powerful man in America right now, he could burn the country down with a word, something Trump tried repeatedly. If they broke the constitution and disenfranchised the voters of the country, no matter how "legal" it might appear, if it came to violence, it would be the end of all involved. Once the constitution is broken Joe will take power and the military will back him, Christ knows what the aftermath of that would be. Any SCOTUS justice who went along with it would be removed, how? They broke the constitution is how and tried to commit national suicide, they said it themselves, the constitution is not a suicide pact and if a cult leader grabs power after losing a certified election that's what it would be.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
These are the legal probes facing Trump when he leaves office

CNN correspondent Randi Kaye looks into the legal probes President Donald Trump faces after he leaves the White House.
 
CunningCanuk

CunningCanuk

Well-Known Member
Bear420 said:
Yeppers !!

I ask how far is this going to go, we have until the 14th of this month, I don't trust these republican's at all even though they certified the results it really don't mean shit until those cast their electoral votes.

I am telling you this isn't over until he's out of that White House and it may not happen.

All we can do is trust that those who cast the electoral votes have more integrity than Trump does.

82 million people have faith, One person has power. what is going to happen ?

There is no federal law or constitutional provision requiring electors to vote for the party that nominated them, and over the years a number of electors have voted against the instructions of the voters. In 2004, a Minnesota elector nominated by the Democratic Party cast a ballot for John Edwards, the vice presidential running mate of John Kerry--thought to be an accident. Electors generally are selected by the political party for their party loyalty, and many are party leaders, and thus not likely to vote other than for their party's candidate.
In 2016, there were seven faithless electors, the most since 1972—three Democratic electors from Washington state cast their votes for Republican Colin Powell, instead of Democrat Hillary Clinton; one Democratic elector from Washington state cast his vote for Faith Spotted Eagle, a woman who is a member of the Yankton Sioux Nation; one Democratic elector from Hawaii cast his vote for Bernie Sanders, instead of Hillary Clinton; one Republican elector from Texas cast his vote for John Kasich, instead of Donald Trump; and one Republican elector from Texas cast his vote for Libertarian Ron Paul. The last time an elector crossed party lines was in 1972, when an elector nominated by the Republican Party cast his ballot for the Libertarian ticket.

Some states have passed laws that require their electors to vote as pledged. These laws may either impose a fine on an elector who fails to vote according to the statewide or district popular vote, or may disqualify an elector who violates his or her pledge and provide a replacement elector. In July 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional for states to enact this type of law. The states with laws that attempt to bind the votes of presidential electors are below:
States With Laws That Attempt to Bind the Votes of Presidential Electors
Alabama (Ala. Code §17-14-31)Mississippi (Miss. Code Ann. §208.46)
Alaska (Alaska Stat. §15.30.090)Montana (Mont. Code Ann. §13-25-307)
Arizona (Ariz. Rev. Stat. §16-212)Nebraska (Neb. Rev. Stat. §32-714)
California (Cal. Elec. Code §6906)Nevada (Nev. Rev. Stat. §298.075)
Colorado (Colo. Rev. Stat. §1-4-304)New Mexico (N.M. Stat. Ann. §1-15-9)
Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-176)North Carolina (N.C. Gen. Stat. §163-212)
Delaware (Del. Code Ann. tit. 15, §4303(b))Oklahoma (Okla. Stat. tit.26 §10-102)
District of Columbia (D.C. Code §1-1001.08)Ohio (Ohio Rev. Code §3505.40)
Florida (Fla. Stat. §103.021)Oregon (Or. Rev. Stat. §248.355)
Hawaii (Haw. Rev. Stat. §14-28)South Carolina (S.C. Code Ann. §7-19-80)
Indiana (Ind. Code §3-10-4-1.7)Tennessee (Tenn. Code Ann. §2-15-104)
Iowa (Iowa Code §54.8)
Maine (Me. Stat. tit.21-A, §805)Vermont (Vt. Stat. Ann. §2732)
Maryland (Md. Code Ann. §8-505)Virginia (Va. Code Ann. §24.2-203)
Massachusetts (Mass Gen. Laws ch.53, §8)Washington (Wash. Rev. Code §29A.56.090)
Michigan (Mich. Comp. Laws §168.47)Wisconsin (Wis. Stat. §7.75)
Minnesota (Minn. Stat. §208.46)Wyoming (Wyo. Stat. Ann. §22-19-108)
Most of the laws cited above require electors to vote for the candidate of the party that nominated the elector, or require the elector to sign a pledge to do so. Some go further: Oklahoma imposes a civil penalty of $1,000; in North Carolina, the fine is $500, the faithless elector is deemed to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed. In South Carolina, an elector who violates his or her pledge is subject to criminal penalties, and in New Mexico a violation is a fourth degree felony. In Michigan, a candidate who fails to vote as required is considered to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed.
Click to expand...
The EC system needs to go. It’s purpose was to subvert the will of the people in case they got it wrong. The founding fathers had little confidence in the average voter.

The irony is in the fact that it’s design was to prevent what happened in 2016, not 2020.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Trump Lashes Out at Bill Barr for Disloyalty. Does Barr Already Have his "Pocket Pardon"?

Donald Trump has been lashing out at Bill Barr for, among other things, announcing there was no election fraud undermining Joe Biden's win and now for Barr "failing" to disclose publicly prior to the election that Hunter Biden's taxes were under investigation. Barr's decision to break from Trump on these issues raises the question of whether Barr might already have a pardon from Trump (what I would refer to as a "pocket pardon"). Importantly, there is no requirement that a pardon be made public by either the president or the pardon recipient. That is, unless the person pardoned is charged criminally and needs to disclose the pardon to avoid prosecution. Moreover, the Supreme Court decided in 1866 in a case called Ex parte Garland that the court has the authority to decide legal issues regarding the scope of presidential pardons. Here's how things might play out on the pardon front.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Another pardon and a good one to challenge, a pardon for conspiracy to commit sedition with Trump would be an excellent one for the SCOTUS to question. His seditious court case being the payment for such a pardon, it also allowed Trump to grift his suckers for 10's of millions of more dollars, another potential payment for a pardon.

The FBI was busting down his door as he was filing the case for his pardon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FBI Serves Subpoena In Corruption Probe Of Leader Of Trump SCOTUS Election Ploy | Rachel Maddow

Rachel Maddow shares reporting from the Austin American-Statesman that federal agents served at least one subpoena on the office of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in an investigation of whether he abused his office for a campaign donor - an investigation a pardon from Donald Trump would interrupt.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Guess who is compelled to testify now? No state laws to hide behind either and there might even be questions about his relationship with the president and any conversations he had with other Trump officials or members of congress... Don't lie Mikey, you'll be testifying after Donald leaves office and they will have you on the stand over everything they can for years to come.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judges may reinstate foreign agent case against Flynn partner - POLITICO

Judges may reinstate foreign agent case against Flynn partner
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Friday on the government’s bid to revive a pair of guilty verdicts a federal court jury returned last year against Bijan Rafiekian.

A federal appeals court panel is signaling that it may reinstate criminal charges against a business partner of Michael Flynn over a consulting project Flynn’s firm did for Turkish interests, despite Flynn’s receipt last month of a pardon from President Donald Trump that absolves the former national security adviser of criminal liability in the matter.
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Friday on the government’s bid to revive a pair of guilty verdicts a federal court jury returned last year against Bijan Rafiekian, co-founder of Flynn’s short-lived Virginia-based firm, Flynn Intel Group.

After a weeklong trial, a jury in Alexandria, Va., took just three hours to convict Rafiekian on charges of acting as an unregistered foreign agent in the U.S. and conspiring to submit false information to the Justice Department about the Flynn firm’s work strategizing against a prominent Turkish dissident who lives in Pennsylvania, Fethullah Gulen.

However, Rafiekian’s fortunes did a U-turn three months later when U.S. District Court Judge Anthony Trenga overturned the verdicts and ordered Rafiekian’s acquittal, ruling that the admissible evidence in the case was not sufficient to sustain the jury’s apparent conclusion that the project was conducted at the behest of the Turkish government.
Trenga said the evidence of a tie to Turkish officials was too conjectural to eliminate reasonable doubt in the case.
However, all three appeals judges seemed to believe that the government had a decent circumstantial case against Rafiekian. One judge, James Wynn Jr., opined that direct evidence of foreign government control would almost always be hard to come by in a case alleging that work for a foreign government was made to look like routine lobbying on behalf of a foreign business.

“If you’re going to do a case like this, I’m thinking, these are not easy cases to prove,” said Wynn, an appointee of President Barack Obama. “You’ve got to rely upon reasonable inferences. Very seldom are you going to get the agent to come up and testify, the country has told me to do something and therefore I’m working with them. If you’re going to do it, it’s going to happen in this way.”

Wynn and other judges noted that the work the Flynn company claimed it was doing for a Dutch company was virtually identical to a proposal Flynn’s team and a Turkish national, Ekim Alptekin, prepared for Turkish officials just before purportedly embarking on the contract for Alptekin’s company.
“That’s a pretty strong thing because that looks pretty bad,” Wynn added. “It’s the same guy and you’re doing the same stuff. ... I don’t see how you can say the jury couldn’t connect the two.”
...
 
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
Guess who is compelled to testify now? No state laws to hide behind either and there might even be questions about his relationship with the president and any conversations he had with other Trump officials or members of congress... Don't lie Mikey, you'll be testifying after Donald leaves office and they will have you on the stand over everything they can for years to come.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judges may reinstate foreign agent case against Flynn partner - POLITICO

Judges may reinstate foreign agent case against Flynn partner
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Friday on the government’s bid to revive a pair of guilty verdicts a federal court jury returned last year against Bijan Rafiekian.

A federal appeals court panel is signaling that it may reinstate criminal charges against a business partner of Michael Flynn over a consulting project Flynn’s firm did for Turkish interests, despite Flynn’s receipt last month of a pardon from President Donald Trump that absolves the former national security adviser of criminal liability in the matter.
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Friday on the government’s bid to revive a pair of guilty verdicts a federal court jury returned last year against Bijan Rafiekian, co-founder of Flynn’s short-lived Virginia-based firm, Flynn Intel Group.

After a weeklong trial, a jury in Alexandria, Va., took just three hours to convict Rafiekian on charges of acting as an unregistered foreign agent in the U.S. and conspiring to submit false information to the Justice Department about the Flynn firm’s work strategizing against a prominent Turkish dissident who lives in Pennsylvania, Fethullah Gulen.

However, Rafiekian’s fortunes did a U-turn three months later when U.S. District Court Judge Anthony Trenga overturned the verdicts and ordered Rafiekian’s acquittal, ruling that the admissible evidence in the case was not sufficient to sustain the jury’s apparent conclusion that the project was conducted at the behest of the Turkish government.
Trenga said the evidence of a tie to Turkish officials was too conjectural to eliminate reasonable doubt in the case.
However, all three appeals judges seemed to believe that the government had a decent circumstantial case against Rafiekian. One judge, James Wynn Jr., opined that direct evidence of foreign government control would almost always be hard to come by in a case alleging that work for a foreign government was made to look like routine lobbying on behalf of a foreign business.

“If you’re going to do a case like this, I’m thinking, these are not easy cases to prove,” said Wynn, an appointee of President Barack Obama. “You’ve got to rely upon reasonable inferences. Very seldom are you going to get the agent to come up and testify, the country has told me to do something and therefore I’m working with them. If you’re going to do it, it’s going to happen in this way.”

Wynn and other judges noted that the work the Flynn company claimed it was doing for a Dutch company was virtually identical to a proposal Flynn’s team and a Turkish national, Ekim Alptekin, prepared for Turkish officials just before purportedly embarking on the contract for Alptekin’s company.
“That’s a pretty strong thing because that looks pretty bad,” Wynn added. “It’s the same guy and you’re doing the same stuff. ... I don’t see how you can say the jury couldn’t connect the two.”
...
Click to expand...
He better hopes they can't catch him in a lie, because Trump won't be around to pardon him for lying while under oath.

Flynn is going to have to sing.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
hanimmal said:
He better hopes they can't catch him in a lie, because Trump won't be around to pardon him for lying while under oath.

Flynn is going to have to sing.
Click to expand...
Maybe the Turks will assassinate him or offer asylum and an open window... Jared was talking to some pretty dangerous types in the middle east too, his pardon might put a target on his back as well. Any body in a conspiracy with the Trump family will want those potential witnesses dead, unless they plead the 5th over state crimes, but why take the chance?
 
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
Maybe the Turks will assassinate him or offer asylum and an open window... Jared was talking to some pretty dangerous types in the middle east too, his pardon might put a target on his back as well. Any body in a conspiracy with the Trump family will want those potential witnesses dead, unless they plead the 5th over state crimes, but why take the chance?
Click to expand...
Because prison sucks ass?
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
NY State AG James & DA Vance Moving Toward Possible Trump Charges. But US AG Must Tackle Fed Charges

Donald Trump and members of his administrations have violated any number of federal laws. It certainly is important that state authorities hold Trump and company accountable for any and all criminal and civil violations in New York and elsewhere. However, state Attorneys General and State District Attorneys are powerless to prosecute Trump and company for violations of federal law.

Here is a prescription for justice for Joe Biden's Attorney General that is easy as 1-2-3, a prescription I followed countless times myself as a former career federal prosecutor.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Pence won't pardon him, he would have to live with him and so would the republicans and that would mean they would be his slaves. If Pence pardoned him it would be the end of them all, he would lead them to disaster and the country to violence and then their destruction.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm Nance: Joe knows.

Russia and cyber terrorism expert, Malcolm Nance, talks about Biden’s nominations for his Cabinet so far. Read Malcolm's book, "The Plot to Hack America" http://amzn.to/2tlnHqo
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Trump Won't Pardon His Family Because They May Testify Against Him, Says Ex-lawyer (newsweek.com)

Trump Won't Pardon His Family Because They May Testify Against Him, Says Ex-lawyer

President Donald Trump will not pardon his family members or close allies because of the legal risks it might pose for himself, his former lawyer and fixer has said.

In deciding how to exercise his clemency powers in the final weeks of his presidency, Michael Cohen told Vanity Fair that the president would not be dictated by sentiment, rather "the first thing that Donald Trump is evaluating... is 'what's in it for me?'"

Trump has already granted clemency to Roger Stone and his former national security advisor Michael Flynn. The New York Times reported that Trump has asked advisers about "preemptively" pardoning his three eldest children. There is further speculation over whether Trump might use his pardon powers to protect himself and his associates.

But Cohen, who was jailed in 2018 for arranging payments to silence women who claimed to have affairs with Trump, said he doubted that the president would use his clemency powers to help his nearest and dearest.

"Will Donald Trump pardon Rudy Giuliani? Will he pardon Steve Bannon? Will he pardon Don Jr, Eric, Ivanka, Jared? Here's my answer: No," Cohen told the Inside The Hive podcast.

"Donald Trump cares for no one or for anything except for himself... that includes his own children. Donald Trump will only do what benefits Donald Trump."

Cohen said that if Trump pre-pardoned his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who has not been charged with any crime, Kushner would lose his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

"That means that Jared could be compelled to testify in a court of law or even have to appear before a hearing before Congress," he said, adding that the questions asked of him would be "against Donald Trump."

"So Donald is now thinking in his head, 'if I give this guy the pass to keep his ass out of prison, he may be putting mine in,'" Cohen said, "so the question again becomes, 'if I give somebody a pardon, how can it hurt me more than help me?'"

His view chimes with a conclusion of a paper by University of Missouri legal professor Frank O. Bowman III published last month, which said that a pardon "erases the Fifth Amendment privilege."

This actually "might make it easier for criminal and civil investigative authorities and Congress to compel testimony from the person pardoned," the paper said.

Legal experts disagree on whether pardons by Trump, including a pre-emptive one for himself, would be considered an admission of guilt in court.

Pardons would not provide cover for state-level court cases and Cohen referred to some of the legal challenges that Trump faces when he leaves office. These include an investigation by the New York attorney general into allegations that the president and associates inflated assets to get tax benefits.

Cohen, who worked with the president from 2006 to 2018, is suing the Trump Organization for nearly $2 million in legal bills during his cooperation into probes by special counsel Robert Mueller and congressional committees, The New York Post reported. Cohen claims Trump's company agreed to indemnify him for the legal costs.

By the end of last month, Trump had granted 44 pardons, which actually was the lowest number of any president since at least William McKinley, according to Pew Research.

Newsweek has contacted the White House for comment.
 
Last edited:
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Why a Trump Self-Pardon MUST be challenged & Why Trump is Now Calling Pompeo the "Fake News Media"

A Trump self-pardon MUST be challenged or it will become a kind of "atmospheric" precedent. People will forever argue that because Trump pardoned himself and it was never challenged in court, it is lawful and constitutional and, therefore, all future presidents can also self-pardon. It will become ingrained in our national psyche and it will elevate a president to the status of an untouchable king, seriously damaging our republic.

Also, Pompeo announces to the American people that Russia is responsible for the massive cyber attack on the US, only to have Trump follow up by saying the Russia claim is "fake news" and suggesting it "might be China." So we are now at a place where the president of the United States is accusing his own Secretary of State as being part of the "fake news media."
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Can Trump Pardon Himself? Yes — and It’s Complicated

Even pulling a ‘full Nixon’ wouldn’t erase Trump’s criminal jeopardy.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Trump screws up Covid-19. Again. But, emerging: how to PROSECUTE him for it

With Trump lost in an all-encompassing delusional, waking, coma about the election, he's managed to screw up Covid-19 yet again.

The new "British variant" is 70 percent more easily and thus more quickly transmissible from human to human. No, it won't make you sicker. No, it won't be resistant to the vaccines. But with emergency rooms and ICUs across the country already at the breaking point, Trump's medical minions are ignoring the fact that a FASTER MOVING version of Covid-19 will do the opposite of flattening the curve. The already out-of-control freight train will now pick up still more speed.

On the other hand, quietly, almost secretively, a structure has just begun to emerge to PROSECUTE Trump and those politicians like Paul Alexander and Peter Navarro and Mike Pence, and those quacks like Scott Atlas, for their negligence in this nation's incredibly disastrous - and in some cases intentionally disastrous - response to the pandemic. A house subcommittee is already firing off subpoenas.

And more importantly, legal experts are examining whether a unit at the Department of Justice that usually focuses on War Crimes by Americans in other countries or against Americans here, could put the two parts together and prosecute Trump Administration figures for crimes against AMERICAN humanity.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top