Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Alternate take
on the idea of a pardon:
Why Dangling a Pardon Could Be an Obstruction of Justice—Even if the Pardon Power is Absolute
Some experts have argued that the pardon power is absolute and that the President’s motives in issuing a pardon thus could not be questioned, while others contend that it could be a crime to issue a pardon for corrupt purposes (such as in exchange for cash). But the debate over the absolute nature of the pardon power is actually not relevant to the alleged incidents involving Trump’s lawyer. Indeed, that entire debate can be set aside for the moment. Why? Because there’s been no pardon. Instead, a pardon has only been dangled before Flynn and Manafort, and the analysis of whether that action could become part of an obstruction case against Trump raises entirely different considerations.
If Trump actually pardoned Flynn and Manafort, he would have to do so publicly and accept the political consequences of this profound act. As Jack Goldsmith suggests in the New York Times story, for those who believe that the pardon power is absolute and cannot be scrutinized by courts, the remedy for a corrupt pardon is in the political arena: elections or impeachment. What’s more, if Trump actually pardoned Flynn and Manafort, then the two men could no longer assert their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination because their pardons would erase their federal criminal liability, and therefore Mueller could call both to testify in the Grand Jury and in any subsequent trial. If they continued to assert their Fifth Amendment privilege on the basis of state criminal exposure, Mueller could obtain an order granting them so-called “use immunity” which would ensure that their testimony could not be used against them in any way in state court either. Manafort and Flynn would then be compelled to testify, or risk jail for contempt of court.
The pardon dangle works completely differently—and in important respects has the opposite effects. First, this kind of dangle is not a public act. Therefore, as long as it remained secret, it could be done without incurring any of the political downstream consequences that come with actually pardoning someone. It hides the President from scrutiny rather than exposes him to it as a potential check on the use of the power. Second, the objective of the dangle appears to have been to foreclose the prospect of Flynn and Manfort’s cooperating or testifying. Once again, this is the opposite effect of an actual exercise of the pardon. The message of the dangle was sufficiently clear: hang in there and keep fighting (do not cut a deal with the special counsel) because you will be pardoned before you spend a day in jail. The President and his lawyer’s hope would have been that with the threat of jail eliminated, neither former aid would feel compelled to plead guilty and cooperate with Mueller to reduce his sentence. But, since they were not actually pardoned or not yet anyway, they still kept their Fifth Amendment privileges, and so Mueller could not simply demand they testify before the Grand Jury. In this way, the dangle could operate to stop any cooperation from Flynn and Manafort, who could then be pardoned later if and when they were indicted or even after their cases went through pretrial, trial and appeal. Indeed, you also have to put yourself back at the time these events all took place: before Manafort was indicted and Flynn pleaded guilty. That’s when the dangle could work its magic.
Because a pardon dangle is secret and seeks to discourage cooperation with an ongoing investigation without public scrutiny or consequences, it should be analyzed differently than a pardon when it comes to an obstruction case. Because of the way a pardon dangle operates, it should acquire none of the deference that might be afforded an actual pardon, and if the dangle is found to be orchestrated with a corrupt motive, it should qualify as a potential act of obstruction of justice.
Dowd now vociferously denies that there was any dangle at all, but if one occurred it will be fairly easy to prove. Dowd also has every reason to try to deny it. Not only does it look bad in the court of public opinion. It is bad in the court of law. The fact that Dowd made the offer—as Trump’s personal lawyer—means presumptively this was also no official act. As Marty Lederman has noted, Dowd himself may be prosecutable for involvement in what amounts to criminal activity here. At bottom, a key to understanding this issue is not to be distracted by debates about the scope or absolute nature of the pardon power. The dangling pardon is a different creature, necessitating a very different analytic inquiry.
So even if they were pardoned, it wouldn't be the end of the world, as they loose their right to fifth Amendment Privilege, meaning that Mueller could literally just Subpoena them to testify. And the idea was discussed as a way to stop him from cutting a deal, it could just as easily qualify for Obstruction.
edited 28th Mar '18 8:52:53 PM by megaeliz
@ironballs16: Actually, if you look closely into the image, you can see all the letters there, his initials K and R, and also her ones, the A and the M. She should stay in jail for a long time.
Anyway, this new VA secretary might have good qualifications, but Trump undoubtely hired him not based on experience, but because he praised the president's good health to no end many times.
Life is unfair...Line item veto was briefly in place in the 90s and quickly struck down by the Supreme Court. Trump isn't getting his grubby little hands on it.
My initial Gut Feeling is to say this sounds like either rumor mongering at best, or active BS at worst. (Ala the Republican woman who claimed a black Obama supporter carved up her face in 2008 after seeing her McCain bumper sticker and admitted a few days later that she did it
)
Not saying it's impossible, people certainly keep lowering my already low expectations for them, but this just doesn't feel kosher.
edited 29th Mar '18 7:14:15 AM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |One of the sources I found. Site is seeming right, but it cited a local news station.
Edit- scratch that, photos are from a gofundme to support the student's medical bills.
This news site
claims he messaged another student and accused him of using the walkout to skip school, after which they argued heatedly and the offender then attacked him at school.
edited 29th Mar '18 7:39:23 AM by carbon-mantis
Trump is being told by his external "advisors" (re: friends and old contacts with zero political chops) that he doesn't need a Communications Director or a Chief of Staff in the traditional sense.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/29/politics/trump-staffing/index.html
If those positions are left empty, then the previous year and a bit will look orderly compared to what comes next.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Is that a saying? I thought it was from The Truth.
![]()
I'm reasonably sure that Mark Twain came up with that saying.
Nix that - Twain was a case of Beam Me Up, Scotty!, and the saying (or at least the sentiment) is far older than the 1900s
.
edited 29th Mar '18 8:06:04 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"

Hopefully they don't give it back this time.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.