Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
When you take a pardon, you admit that you were guilty. Therefore the right to not self incriminate is voided."unless Manafort has a "smoking Gun" type of evidence holding out for a pardon seems his best bet."
Yes and if he has a smoking Gun type of evidence and they think he has and if The Donald Pardons him then he forfeits the Fifth Amendment and then they can force him to answer questions and testify against The Donald. If I was advising Trump I would advise him NOT to Pardon Manafort as it ONLY refer to Federal and not State so eg. if they get Manafort in a State situation then he will be FORCED to answer questions and testify he CANNOT say no and do the Fifth Amendment anymore.
Forfeit the 5th Amendment? I don't think so, can anybody tell me under what circumstances my 5th amendment rights could be gone?
That said (asked), it sounds like Manafort was guilty and therefore ought not to be pardoned. JMO.
And where does it say that? First of all, being pardoned doesn't mean you admitted anything, you were already found guilty in a court of law and is therefore assumed you were guilty of that for which you were convicted. BUT - that does not mean you lose your 5th Amendment rights when it comes to any other charge that might be brought against you. Show me where it says that being pardoned means your 5th Amendment rights are forfeited. Manafort could be subpoenaed to testify in a trial against somebody else, but he cannot be forced to incriminate himself in any new charges that might be brought against him.
Read the links I have just provided, it all is in them especially in the first but it's longer than the second link.
I read 'em. Your 1st link deals with double jeopardy, I don't see anything in there that says someone's rights against self-incrimination are forfeited. Maybe you can find that passage. Certainly, Manafort or anyone else could be brought up on State charges somewhere for basically the same thing, a presidential pardon doesn't shield him from that. The second one is a Vanity Fair article, which is most likely biased; so far as I can tell, there is no circumstance whatsoever that compels me to testify against myself in any US court of law. I'm gonna keep looking though, cuz I think this is interesting; I cannot believe that I could be forced to incriminate myself, not buying it.
Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg granted immunity for helping prosecutors in Cohen probe
This looks to be a big blow for Trump.I would imagine this chap knows a lot.
Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg granted immunity for helping prosecutors in Cohen probe
This looks to be a big blow for Trump.I would imagine this chap knows a lot.
The Trump organisation is pursued after in New York NOT by Mueller, so was Cohen by the way. The reason that Manafort was tried by Mueller because it was clearly federal and even international. It could very well be that both investigations overlap. As I said business dealings by multinationals don't stay in a single jurisdiction. Mueller though is pretty circumspect in what crimes he pursues and what is left to other prosecutor teams. Doesn't it at all raise questions to you, that people are pleading guilty, get convicted and get immunity all around the Presidents orbit? It hardly seems like it was all above board to me.The mandate had a clear second paragraph.(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.I have to say it is hugely entertaining and a credit to the US that it is taking place. Not many countries would allow this and if you are looking for an example of greatness in a nation then look no further.
Obviously we dont know what Mueller knows and so we dont know what the end results would be. But lets get ur pipes out and sketch in what migh thappen.
Scenario 1.
Democrats dream. Trump found to have colluded with Russia. Cash trail from Moscow to Mar e Lago, money owed to zillionaires linked to Putin and many,many tapes that Donny would prefer Melania not to see.
What would happen here ?
Scenario 2
Republicans dream. Trump completely vindicated. There is nothing to see here.
What would happen here ?
Scenario 3
Bit of a mixed bag. Trump shown as naive and some associates as dishonest. Doesnt look good but not enough to convict.
What would happen here ?
Is it possible to charge and convict a President ?
If 1 or 3 was the outcome could Trump continue as President ?
What is going to happen ?
How is it great that a man empowered to specifically investigate Russian interference and were there any Americans involved and determines no on both counts then goes off on a tangent targeting anyone and everyone involved with the U.S> President? I fail to see any greatness here. It is a blatant abuse of power.
I agree this Investigation has now gone OUTSIDE of the mandate it was given, it was supposed to be about ONLY the stupid Russian thing now it is a full spectrum Fishing Expedition that is targeting ANYONE associated with The Donald and also even going back to BEFORE he became American President, in effect the ENTIRE Investigation is now out of control and SOMEONE needs to pull it back in to being STRICTLY about the stupid Russian thing and ZERO other topics.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
This is clearly what happened. It's also pretty understandable how it happened. If you want to figure out if Russia coordinated with the Trump campaign, a natural place to start is look at the financial history of a former lobbyist for a Ukranian president, who was ousted from is country and is now literally a Putin confidant. So if that financial history contains clear misconduct why wouldn't he pursue it? You are of the opinion a federal prosecutor should simply ignore crimes worth decades in prison?
The Trump Organisation business fits in this Russia thing how? Investigating the ENTIRE Trump Organisation was NOT in the original mandate, expanding the mandate to INCLUDE the Trump Organisation is an abuse of the original mandate and so is investigating relationships that Trump had 10, 15, 20, 25 years ago BEFORE the 2016 Election, BEFORE he became President.
RE. Ukraine, the Obama Administration was behind the orchestrated overthrow of the democratically elected President . Hello Victoria Nuland?
I would think it would be an important part of what hold,if any, the Russians have over Trump. He does a lot of business with the Russians. Its one of the first places I would look.Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg granted immunity for helping prosecutors in Cohen probe
This looks to be a big blow for Trump.I would imagine this chap knows a lot.
Investigating the Trump Organisation is OUTSIDE the original mandate which is to investigate the Russia thing and the 2016 Election situation. The Investigation now out of control and the original mandate is being abused.
Sorry to tell you but when a trial starts the first thing that happens is that the judge asks how you plead. Only if you plead not guilty does it progress further. At any time during a trial you have the opportunity to change your plea. Manafort didn't do this, so that means that to this day he insists that he is NOT guilty.When you take a pardon, you admit that you were guilty. Therefore the right to not self incriminate is voided.You have to ask what deal Manafort can take? He's in his sixties, any deal he takes that doesn't include him beating the rap completely might very well mean he would die in prison. At the moment the way I see it, unless Manafort has a "smoking Gun" type of evidence holding out for a pardon seems his best bet.
"unless Manafort has a "smoking Gun" type of evidence holding out for a pardon seems his best bet."
Yes and if he has a smoking Gun type of evidence and they think he has and if The Donald Pardons him then he forfeits the Fifth Amendment and then they can force him to answer questions and testify against The Donald. If I was advising Trump I would advise him NOT to Pardon Manafort as it ONLY refer to Federal and not State so eg. if they get Manafort in a State situation then he will be FORCED to answer questions and testify he CANNOT say no and do the Fifth Amendment anymore.
Forfeit the 5th Amendment? I don't think so, can anybody tell me under what circumstances my 5th amendment rights could be gone?
That said (asked), it sounds like Manafort was guilty and therefore ought not to be pardoned. JMO.
And where does it say that? First of all, being pardoned doesn't mean you adminted anything, you were already found guilty in a court of law and is therefore assumed you were guilty of that for which you were convicted. BUT - that does not mean you lose your 5th Amendment rights when it comes to any other charge that might be brought against you. Show me where it says that being pardoned means your 5th Amendment rights are forfeited. Manafort could be subpoenaed to testify in a trial against somebody else, but he cannot be forced to incriminate himself in any new charges that might be brought against him.
A pardon is supposed to be an act of mercy on a guilty person. Not for nothing, if Manafort or Trump want to use a presidential prerogative for what it was clearly not intended, I won't shed a tear over the legal ramifications of that act.
No I said that Manafort plead NOT guilty in his trial, that he didn't change his plea during the trial, and as such holds on to the claim of not being guilty. Taking a pardon though is admitting guilt. When you admit guilt you lose the right to not self incriminate for reasons I already stated. Sorry if it wasn't clear.Sorry to tell you but when a trial starts the first thing that happens is that the judge asks how you plead. Only if you plead not guilty does it progress further. At any time during a trial you have the opportunity to change your plea. Manafort didn't do this, so that means that to this day he insists that he is NOT guilty.When you take a pardon, you admit that you were guilty. Therefore the right to not self incriminate is voided."unless Manafort has a "smoking Gun" type of evidence holding out for a pardon seems his best bet."
Yes and if he has a smoking Gun type of evidence and they think he has and if The Donald Pardons him then he forfeits the Fifth Amendment and then they can force him to answer questions and testify against The Donald. If I was advising Trump I would advise him NOT to Pardon Manafort as it ONLY refer to Federal and not State so eg. if they get Manafort in a State situation then he will be FORCED to answer questions and testify he CANNOT say no and do the Fifth Amendment anymore.
Forfeit the 5th Amendment? I don't think so, can anybody tell me under what circumstances my 5th amendment rights could be gone?
That said (asked), it sounds like Manafort was guilty and therefore ought not to be pardoned. JMO.
And where does it say that? First of all, being pardoned doesn't mean you adminted anything, you were already found guilty in a court of law and is therefore assumed you were guilty of that for which you were convicted. BUT - that does not mean you lose your 5th Amendment rights when it comes to any other charge that might be brought against you. Show me where it says that being pardoned means your 5th Amendment rights are forfeited. Manafort could be subpoenaed to testify in a trial against somebody else, but he cannot be forced to incriminate himself in any new charges that might be brought against him.
A pardon is supposed to be an act of mercy on a guilty person. Not for nothing, if Manafort or Trump want to use a presidential prerogative for what it was clearly not intended, I won't shed a tear over the legal ramifications of that act.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. You are saying that Manafort is going to be forced to testify in a trial against Trump, and the judge is going to ask Manafort how he pleads? I don't know where you're coming from, but Manafort has already been found guilty of a number of charges, with another trail to come. In that 2nd trial, even though he has already been found guilty in the 1st one, I maintain that he still has his 5th Amendment Rights against self-incrimination. AND, should he be subpoenaed to a trial against Trump (which won't happen until he's out of office BTW), he STILL has the right to invoke that Right.
And yes Manafort could then be forced to testify against Trump and during that trial he can't refuse to answer questions on the basis of taking the Fifth.Sorry to tell you but when a trial starts the first thing that happens is that the judge asks how you plead. Only if you plead not guilty does it progress further. At any time during a trial you have the opportunity to change your plea. Manafort didn't do this, so that means that to this day he insists that he is NOT guilty.When you take a pardon, you admit that you were guilty. Therefore the right to not self incriminate is voided."unless Manafort has a "smoking Gun" type of evidence holding out for a pardon seems his best bet."
Yes and if he has a smoking Gun type of evidence and they think he has and if The Donald Pardons him then he forfeits the Fifth Amendment and then they can force him to answer questions and testify against The Donald. If I was advising Trump I would advise him NOT to Pardon Manafort as it ONLY refer to Federal and not State so eg. if they get Manafort in a State situation then he will be FORCED to answer questions and testify he CANNOT say no and do the Fifth Amendment anymore.
Forfeit the 5th Amendment? I don't think so, can anybody tell me under what circumstances my 5th amendment rights could be gone?
That said (asked), it sounds like Manafort was guilty and therefore ought not to be pardoned. JMO.
And where does it say that? First of all, being pardoned doesn't mean you adminted anything, you were already found guilty in a court of law and is therefore assumed you were guilty of that for which you were convicted. BUT - that does not mean you lose your 5th Amendment rights when it comes to any other charge that might be brought against you. Show me where it says that being pardoned means your 5th Amendment rights are forfeited. Manafort could be subpoenaed to testify in a trial against somebody else, but he cannot be forced to incriminate himself in any new charges that might be brought against him.
A pardon is supposed to be an act of mercy on a guilty person. Not for nothing, if Manafort or Trump want to use a presidential prerogative for what it was clearly not intended, I won't shed a tear over the legal ramifications of that act.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. You are saying that Manafort is going to be forced to testify in a trial against Trump, and the judge is going to ask Manafort how he pleads? I don't know where you're coming from, but Manafort has already been found guilty of a number of charges, with another trail to come. In that 2nd trial, even though he has already been found guilty in the 1st one, I maintain that he still has his 5th Amendment Rights against self-incrimination. AND, should he be subpoenaed to a trial against Trump (which won't happen until he's out of office BTW), he STILL has the right to invoke that Right.
I would think it would be an important part of what hold,if any, the Russians have over Trump. He does a lot of business with the Russians. Its one of the first places I would look.Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg granted immunity for helping prosecutors in Cohen probe
This looks to be a big blow for Trump.I would imagine this chap knows a lot.
Investigating the Trump Organisation is OUTSIDE the original mandate which is to investigate the Russia thing and the 2016 Election situation. The Investigation now out of control and the original mandate is being abused.
And yes Manafort could then be forced to testify against Trump and during that trial he can't refuse to answer questions on the basis of taking the Fifth.Sorry to tell you but when a trial starts the first thing that happens is that the judge asks how you plead. Only if you plead not guilty does it progress further. At any time during a trial you have the opportunity to change your plea. Manafort didn't do this, so that means that to this day he insists that he is NOT guilty.When you take a pardon, you admit that you were guilty. Therefore the right to not self incriminate is voided.Forfeit the 5th Amendment? I don't think so, can anybody tell me under what circumstances my 5th amendment rights could be gone?
That said (asked), it sounds like Manafort was guilty and therefore ought not to be pardoned. JMO.
And where does it say that? First of all, being pardoned doesn't mean you adminted anything, you were already found guilty in a court of law and is therefore assumed you were guilty of that for which you were convicted. BUT - that does not mean you lose your 5th Amendment rights when it comes to any other charge that might be brought against you. Show me where it says that being pardoned means your 5th Amendment rights are forfeited. Manafort could be subpoenaed to testify in a trial against somebody else, but he cannot be forced to incriminate himself in any new charges that might be brought against him.
A pardon is supposed to be an act of mercy on a guilty person. Not for nothing, if Manafort or Trump want to use a presidential prerogative for what it was clearly not intended, I won't shed a tear over the legal ramifications of that act.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. You are saying that Manafort is going to be forced to testify in a trial against Trump, and the judge is going to ask Manafort how he pleads? I don't know where you're coming from, but Manafort has already been found guilty of a number of charges, with another trail to come. In that 2nd trial, even though he has already been found guilty in the 1st one, I maintain that he still has his 5th Amendment Rights against self-incrimination. AND, should he be subpoenaed to a trial against Trump (which won't happen until he's out of office BTW), he STILL has the right to invoke that Right.
You might be right. So as a matter of legality Trump could pardon him and Manafort could still take the fifth when talking about Trump. About as fucked up a thing that a person could do be there it is. Guess both of us have learned something.And yes Manafort could then be forced to testify against Trump and during that trial he can't refuse to answer questions on the basis of taking the Fifth.Sorry to tell you but when a trial starts the first thing that happens is that the judge asks how you plead. Only if you plead not guilty does it progress further. At any time during a trial you have the opportunity to change your plea. Manafort didn't do this, so that means that to this day he insists that he is NOT guilty.When you take a pardon, you admit that you were guilty. Therefore the right to not self incriminate is voided.
And where does it say that? First of all, being pardoned doesn't mean you adminted anything, you were already found guilty in a court of law and is therefore assumed you were guilty of that for which you were convicted. BUT - that does not mean you lose your 5th Amendment rights when it comes to any other charge that might be brought against you. Show me where it says that being pardoned means your 5th Amendment rights are forfeited. Manafort could be subpoenaed to testify in a trial against somebody else, but he cannot be forced to incriminate himself in any new charges that might be brought against him.
A pardon is supposed to be an act of mercy on a guilty person. Not for nothing, if Manafort or Trump want to use a presidential prerogative for what it was clearly not intended, I won't shed a tear over the legal ramifications of that act.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. You are saying that Manafort is going to be forced to testify in a trial against Trump, and the judge is going to ask Manafort how he pleads? I don't know where you're coming from, but Manafort has already been found guilty of a number of charges, with another trail to come. In that 2nd trial, even though he has already been found guilty in the 1st one, I maintain that he still has his 5th Amendment Rights against self-incrimination. AND, should he be subpoenaed to a trial against Trump (which won't happen until he's out of office BTW), he STILL has the right to invoke that Right.
"And yes Manafort could then be forced to testify against Trump and during that trial he can't refuse to answer questions on the basis of taking the Fifth."
NOT TRUE.
You might be right. So as a matter of legality Trump could pardon him and Manafort could still take the fifth when talking about Trump. About as fucked up a thing that a person could do be there it is. Guess both of us have learned something.And yes Manafort could then be forced to testify against Trump and during that trial he can't refuse to answer questions on the basis of taking the Fifth.Sorry to tell you but when a trial starts the first thing that happens is that the judge asks how you plead. Only if you plead not guilty does it progress further. At any time during a trial you have the opportunity to change your plea. Manafort didn't do this, so that means that to this day he insists that he is NOT guilty.And where does it say that? First of all, being pardoned doesn't mean you adminted anything, you were already found guilty in a court of law and is therefore assumed you were guilty of that for which you were convicted. BUT - that does not mean you lose your 5th Amendment rights when it comes to any other charge that might be brought against you. Show me where it says that being pardoned means your 5th Amendment rights are forfeited. Manafort could be subpoenaed to testify in a trial against somebody else, but he cannot be forced to incriminate himself in any new charges that might be brought against him.
A pardon is supposed to be an act of mercy on a guilty person. Not for nothing, if Manafort or Trump want to use a presidential prerogative for what it was clearly not intended, I won't shed a tear over the legal ramifications of that act.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. You are saying that Manafort is going to be forced to testify in a trial against Trump, and the judge is going to ask Manafort how he pleads? I don't know where you're coming from, but Manafort has already been found guilty of a number of charges, with another trail to come. In that 2nd trial, even though he has already been found guilty in the 1st one, I maintain that he still has his 5th Amendment Rights against self-incrimination. AND, should he be subpoenaed to a trial against Trump (which won't happen until he's out of office BTW), he STILL has the right to invoke that Right.
"And yes Manafort could then be forced to testify against Trump and during that trial he can't refuse to answer questions on the basis of taking the Fifth."
NOT TRUE.
-At your first paragraph, I can only say that an innocent person has nothing to fear. The fact that we are discussing the legality of pleading the fifth when asked about Trump tells me that both of us kind of realize that Trump isn't an innocent person. Depending which side your on these days that means that you find that a problem ... or not, which in itself kind of speaks volumes of the state of the country. Before you say it, know that I choose the idea of justice when it was Clinton in the hot seat.You might be right. So as a matter of legality Trump could pardon him and Manafort could still take the fifth when talking about Trump. About as fucked up a thing that a person could do be there it is. Guess both of us have learned something.And yes Manafort could then be forced to testify against Trump and during that trial he can't refuse to answer questions on the basis of taking the Fifth.Sorry to tell you but when a trial starts the first thing that happens is that the judge asks how you plead. Only if you plead not guilty does it progress further. At any time during a trial you have the opportunity to change your plea. Manafort didn't do this, so that means that to this day he insists that he is NOT guilty.
A pardon is supposed to be an act of mercy on a guilty person. Not for nothing, if Manafort or Trump want to use a presidential prerogative for what it was clearly not intended, I won't shed a tear over the legal ramifications of that act.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. You are saying that Manafort is going to be forced to testify in a trial against Trump, and the judge is going to ask Manafort how he pleads? I don't know where you're coming from, but Manafort has already been found guilty of a number of charges, with another trail to come. In that 2nd trial, even though he has already been found guilty in the 1st one, I maintain that he still has his 5th Amendment Rights against self-incrimination. AND, should he be subpoenaed to a trial against Trump (which won't happen until he's out of office BTW), he STILL has the right to invoke that Right.
"And yes Manafort could then be forced to testify against Trump and during that trial he can't refuse to answer questions on the basis of taking the Fifth."
NOT TRUE.
That is my understanding at this point. However, I am not a lawyer and would not presume to be an expert in any of this. It'll be interesting to follow the developments with both Manafort and Cohen to see where it leads. It seems clear to me that all these proceedings so far are designed for one and only one purpose: to squeeze these guys and see what comes out vis-a-vis Trump. Does Manafort know of any interaction between Trump himself and the Russians that indicates any collusion? I kinda doubt that. Does he know anything about these payments to Daniels and whatsherface, the other woman? I dunno.
As far as Cohen is concerned, what are the details concerning those payments? Were they made by Trump personally or by the campaign? And if it was through the campaign, did he in fact reimburse the campaign for those expenditures? He can make whatever donations he wants to for his own campaign, but he's gotta report those donations. Did he? If those payments were from the campaign and Trump didn't reimburse the campaign, then I would say he's got a problem. If he did reimburse the campaign but didn't report it, then it's still a problem but a much smaller one, BFD.
Re the Right to Silence, you just can't be forced to testify against yourself if by doing to so you might be incriminating yourself. Not for anything you've been pardoned for, but anything else, and that includes your liability in a State court. Which to me means Manafort and Cohen could assert their Right to Silence (take the 5th) if it's possible they could be charged with obstruction or anything else. And that is true even if Trump pardons them for the convictions they have already. Can't imagine how Trump could justify that.
So far as I know, at this moment Donald Trump is not guilty of committing a crime. I have seen no evidence that indicates otherwise. Allegations yes, but evidence? No. Unsavory words and deeds, not a lot of doubt about that, but something illegal? Not yet, and in this country we are all presumed innocent until proven guilty.
I find Donald Trump to be lacking in personality and character. This is not a person I would want anything to do with, personally. But, the fact is that he was elected according to the laws of the land, and I've seen nothing whatsoever that indicates that election was fraudulent. If he did indeed break the law to get elected then he oughta be impeached and booted out. But so far, nothing has been presented that leads me to believe he committed an illegal act regarding that election. Doesn't matter what the popular vote was or how many votes he won by in those 4 critical states. It's over. Done. Get over it.
It's true that there are people that will go along with most anything he does. I wouldn't agree that ANYTHING goes, it depends on what he really did. So far, there is nothing that arises anywhere near "high crimes and misdemeanors" IMHO, but do not assume he has carte blanche to do whatever he pleases, legal or not. I think that there are many within the GOP, including Paul Ryan, who aren't going to blindly follow along. And BTW, there are many on the other side of the fence who are just as committed to Hillary and Obama, the ends justify the means, so it works both ways. Well not in my book, and I think not in yours either. I am so sick and tired of party politics, and I don't care which party the accused belongs to.
Obstruction of justice is a crime, you see evidence of that all the time. It is possible that one could possibly construe it as venting, not deliberate, without criminal intent or whatever one chooses, the thing is I just the president of the United States give a ringing endorsement to someone on trial last week. Commenting on an ongoing trial is something that no president would do because it could easily be construed as jury tampering. I saw him say in an interview he wants to fire the attorney general because he isn't protecting him from the Russia investigation yesterday. I saw him give an interview explicitly saying he fired the FBI director over the Russia investigation,etc,etc. There is daily evidence. What is saving him at the moment is the office he holds. Those are not mere allegations this is something that would not be accepted by anyone who isn't holding that office.So far as I know, at this moment Donald Trump is not guilty of committing a crime. I have seen no evidence that indicates otherwise. Allegations yes, but evidence?
So you don't think somebody pleading guilty to federal crimes, implicating the President and corroborated apparently by both another co conspirator named and the CFO to the Trump organisation is enough to lead you to believe he committed an illegal act? I believe in not guilty until proven otherwise. Having said that the courts only require REASONABLE doubt. This seems a lot like you require absolute certainty.But so far, nothing has been presented that leads me to believe he committed an illegal act regarding that election.
High crimes and misdemeanors is a purposefully vague term the founders put in because they didn't want the bar for impeachment so high it required crimes to oust a president. They recognized that there was stuff that might come up that wasn't necessarily criminal but at the same time would disqualify the person from the office. Something that was used as an argument in the Clinton impeachment trials, so what more do you want if you acknowledge Trump is a horrible person.It's true that there are people that will go along with most anything he does. I wouldn't agree that ANYTHING goes, it depends on what he really did. So far, there is nothing that arises anywhere near "high crimes and misdemeanors" IMHO
Oh and just to be clear, yes I'm clearly partisan in my viewpoints. I do pride myself as being a fair minded individual. My dislike of Trump goes past partisanship. If he would be a Democrat and my other choice would be Pence I would vote Pence. I used to think the President of the United States should be someone who should represent the best in us. Then my bar got lowered to someone who could fake it decently. Under Trump I had to lower it again to someone who isn't abhorrent.So far as I know, at this moment Donald Trump is not guilty of committing a crime. I have seen no evidence that indicates otherwise. Allegations yes, but evidence? No. Unsavory words and deeds, not a lot of doubt about that, but something illegal? Not yet, and in this country we are all presumed innocent until proven guilty.
I find Donald Trump to be lacking in personality and character. This is not a person I would want anything to do with, personally. But, the fact is that he was elected according to the laws of the land, and I've seen nothing whatsoever that indicates that election was fraudulent. If he did indeed break the law to get elected then he oughta be impeached and booted out. But so far, nothing has been presented that leads me to believe he committed an illegal act regarding that election. Doesn't matter what the popular vote was or how many votes he won by in those 4 critical states. It's over. Done. Get over it.
It's true that there are people that will go along with most anything he does. I wouldn't agree that ANYTHING goes, it depends on what he really did. So far, there is nothing that arises anywhere near "high crimes and misdemeanors" IMHO, but do not assume he has carte blanche to do whatever he pleases, legal or not. I think that there are many within the GOP, including Paul Ryan, who aren't going to blindly follow along. And BTW, there are many on the other side of the fence who are just as committed to Hillary and Obama, the ends justify the means, so it works both ways. Well not in my book, and I think not in yours either. I am so sick and tired of party politics, and I don't care which party the accused belongs to.
So far as I know, at this moment Donald Trump is not guilty of committing a crime. I have seen no evidence that indicates otherwise. Allegations yes, but evidence? No. Unsavory words and deeds, not a lot of doubt about that, but something illegal? Not yet, and in this country we are all presumed innocent until proven guilty.
I find Donald Trump to be lacking in personality and character. This is not a person I would want anything to do with, personally. But, the fact is that he was elected according to the laws of the land, and I've seen nothing whatsoever that indicates that election was fraudulent. If he did indeed break the law to get elected then he oughta be impeached and booted out. But so far, nothing has been presented that leads me to believe he committed an illegal act regarding that election. Doesn't matter what the popular vote was or how many votes he won by in those 4 critical states. It's over. Done. Get over it.
It's true that there are people that will go along with most anything he does. I wouldn't agree that ANYTHING goes, it depends on what he really did. So far, there is nothing that arises anywhere near "high crimes and misdemeanors" IMHO, but do not assume he has carte blanche to do whatever he pleases, legal or not. I think that there are many within the GOP, including Paul Ryan, who aren't going to blindly follow along. And BTW, there are many on the other side of the fence who are just as committed to Hillary and Obama, the ends justify the means, so it works both ways. Well not in my book, and I think not in yours either. I am so sick and tired of party politics, and I don't care which party the accused belongs to.
