CDZ Mueller investigation. How will it pan out ?

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Tommy Tainant, Aug 20, 2018.

  1. task0778
    Offline

    task0778 Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    3,311
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Texas hill country
    Ratings:
    +3,130
    The 5th Amendment is a protection against self-incrimination. You can’t be forced to give evidence (not verbal evidence anyway) that can be used against you at trial. However, if there is no possibility of prosecuting you based on your testimony, then there is nothing for the Fifth Amendment to protect and therefore it cannot be invoked. If you received an immunity deal from the prosecutor in return for testimony, if you have already been convicted or acquitted of the crime about which you are testifying, or if you have been pardoned for either a specific crime for which you have been tried, or for any crime relating to a series of events in question, then you cannot be prosecuted, and therefore you cannot avoid testifying.

    So, the only situation in which you still have Fifth Amendment protections after a pardon is when the pardon is for a specific crime, and you know that your testimony could produce evidence against you that could lead to a prosecutor charging you with a different crime. In addition, the different crime cannot be an escalation of any crime for which you have been tried; double jeopardy prohibitions prevent charging you again with murder if you’ve already been tried for manslaughter in the death of the same person.

    So, for instance, let’s say you found yourself facing obstruction of justice charges for misleading a Federal investigation. You then received a pardon for said charges. You could, theoretically, still take the Fifth to avoid testifying as to the events that you had originally been obstructing, because if you were never charged with a crime for those events, you still can be, and your testimony could be used as evidence to further those charges. The pardon you would have to receive would have to be wider in scope, absolving you of any culpability for any crime regarding the actions being investigated.


    https://www.quora.com/If-a-person-r...till-have-to-testify-within-the-5th-amendment

    Remember the Perjury charge that Lucy's Vanity Fair link referred to? Or if he thinks he could be brought up on Obstruction charges or anything else, let alone what he could face in a State Court, where Trump's pardon will do him no good at all. I do not believe that Manafort's Right to Silence has been forfeited, that only applies to the charges for which he was found guilty: bank fraud, tax fraud and failure to report a foreign bank account. Yeah sure, Manafort's Right to Silence is gone for these charges, but so what? That ain't what they're going to be going after Trump for, now is it? If Trump and/or Manafort is also guilty or even possibly guilty of Obstruction and whatever else Mueller can dig up, then Manafort certainly has every right to plead the 5th. Why? Because his testimony could produce evidence against himself that could lead to a prosecutor charging him with a different crime.

    A Trump pardon does not change that fact.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. task0778
    Offline

    task0778 Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    3,311
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Texas hill country
    Ratings:
    +3,130
    "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.
     
  3. forkup
    Offline

    forkup Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,217
    Thanks Received:
    407
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,455
    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.
     
  4. task0778
    Offline

    task0778 Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    3,311
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Texas hill country
    Ratings:
    +3,130
    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.
     
  5. forkup
    Offline

    forkup Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,217
    Thanks Received:
    407
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,455
    -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.
    - Second paragraph is the same. I find it a problem that a candidate for the highest office in the land, first of is in a position to have to pay of porn stars, something I find unsavory (not necessarily disqualifying). What I find disqualifying is breaking the law to get elected. He was elected by 70000 votes spread over 4 states. Another sex scandal on the back of the Billy Bush tape would probably have tanked him.
    -Third paragraph. You posed a good question. 'How can Trump justify it". The answer you see on this board every day. He doesn't need to. A big portion of the country is willing to go along with anything Trump does. If it's a winning legal strategy I don't know but the fact is that his office insulates him to a large extent from any accountability. And he figures as long as he has the Republican party by the shorthairs any legal problems will die in impeachment hearings. This all should worry honest people.
     
  6. task0778
    Offline

    task0778 Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    3,311
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Texas hill country
    Ratings:
    +3,130
    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.
     
  7. forkup
    Offline

    forkup Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,217
    Thanks Received:
    407
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,455
    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 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.

    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2018
  8. forkup
    Offline

    forkup Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,217
    Thanks Received:
    407
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,455
    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.
     
  9. Lucy Hamilton
    Offline

    Lucy Hamilton Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2015
    Messages:
    30,582
    Thanks Received:
    7,457
    Trophy Points:
    1,240
    Ratings:
    +44,471
    There is NO Russia Collusion if there was they would have brought charges already or brought SOMETHING already. Also to illustrate they have NOTHING on the Russian Collusion they now widen this to investigate EVERYONE who has ANY business connection to The Donald AND to investigate the ENTIRE Trump Organisation business, this is a basic Witch Hunt the aim as from day ONE is to TOTALLY personally destroy The Donald AND his family, the aim is to RUIN ALL of them to make the Trump Organisation come crashing down ANY way they can, to take EVERYTHING off them and to have them ALL on Food Stamps.

    IF The Donald does NOT do SOMETHING, they are going to bleed him dry, they could also behind the scenes make him an offer he can't refuse this would be RESIGN and they will NOT take EVERYTHING off him and his family OR don't resign and they will RUIN them and have them on Food Stamps by March 2019.

    Now The Donald only cares essentially at final analysis about TWO things his money/Trump Organisation and his family, children, grandchildren and they probably know this, that he wants to keep what he has so when he dies his children and then his grandchildren are both provided for and also continue the Trump Organisation.

    It does not matter even IF The Donald fires Jeff Sessions AND Rod Rosenputz, this thing is now out of the Federal and into the State New York State, I just read the Manhattan District Attorney now opening a new case INTO the Trump Organisation, this is out of Federal hands then and I could be not correct but I think ONLY the American Supreme Court could intervene to stop it or not as I say I could not be correct about that.

    I have morally supported The Donald from day one from as SOON as he announced he was running for American President, I STILL morally support him but I have to make these comments to be in reality, this does NOT look good for him now OR his family OR the Trump Organisation.

    Okay if ANYONE on the Right feel they want to attack me for stating what I feel I have to comment to be IN reality and NOT IN everything is okay/nobody cares/what about Hillary/or whatever then okay attack me but EVERYTHING is NOT okay and IMHO peoples HAVE to THINK about this and the ramifications and not have heads in the sand now or it's 50D Chess or whatever because it's NOT 50D Chess.

    Also ZERO of this would be happening IF Jeff Sessions - who IMHO is compromised, they HAVE something on Sessions and are blackmailing him perhaps - had NOT Recused himself when there was NO reason FOR him to Recuse himself to begin with.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2018
  10. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    163,092
    Thanks Received:
    25,194
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Ratings:
    +78,534
    Scenario 1
    Watergate on steroids. Mueller will line up the counts and even Republicans can’t provide cover.
    Trump will be offered a chance to resign, Pence will pardon

    Scenario 2
    Republicans will strut, within two weeks the thing will be old news

    Scenario 3
    Trump will look like Reagan after Iran Conra. Inept, out of the loop
    Voters will handle it in 2020
     

Share This Page