Could Trump be the first US President to do jail time

[radical right]

If Trump wanted to get Flynn off the hook, he could have issued him a pardon like he did Sheriff Arpaio. Instead Trump obstructed justice because he knows a pardon doesn't keep somebody from talking.

At that time, did they know about the felonies? And a pardon allows a person to not worry about talking

Since Trump didn't know all the felonies, or even the timespan of the felonies, issuing a pardon would have been difficult. Nobody has issued a pardon broad enough to cover everything Flynn might be charged with. And even then, it wouldn't cover Flynn for future lies to the FBI or Mueller.

 

[mudwhistle]

So, Flynn’s money laundering from before he met Trump? Stretch much?

Flynn commits crimes.
Trump hires Flynn
Trump tries to protect Flynn
Trump fires Flynn
Trump fires Comey to protect Flynn

Clearly obstruction.

Bullshit.
Trump hires Flynn
Flynn lies to the VP
Trump fires Flynn.

 

[JBond]

As more information comes out about Trump campaign and collusion with Russia on the US election and on Trump obstructing justice there seems to be a real possibility Trump could do jail time.
It is amazing he has not already done jail time for his business practices.

Leftists are bizarre. The more time goes by with no evidence, the more brainwashed that proves him guilty he becomes.

$145 million from Russia to Hillary didn't land her in jail

that's BECAUSE $145 million did NOT go to Hillary.

There was no 145 million from Russia to Clinton ANYTHING.

We've been over this a million times but these shameless bullshit peddlers keep throwing it out there as if it's true.

Ant, why lie about easily proven facts? Not very smart.

Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover

 

[kaz]

20% of american uranium reserves that has to stay in america. Like selling somebody property with a clause that only allows them to sell it back to the original owner.

Liar. Much of it left the United States. You already know that

Yes it went to Canada, which is part of North America (see NAFTA agreement)

And you know none of it went to Russia or Russian interests..

See, you did know step one.

And you know step two also that once it went to Canada, it did leave the country and we don't know where it went

 

[mudwhistle]

If Mueller isn't leaking to the press how come every time he does something the usual press statement is soon to follow. Why do we keep hearing the direction the investigation is going? .

People who testify in front of Muellers grand juries, are free to talk to reporters about what they were asked, and an inference of what Mueller is investigating is then drawn from that.

Shows how little you know about the law. leaking grand jury testimony felony | Bloviating Zeppelin
Leaking Grand Jury testimony is a felony.
That has nothing to do with Mueller's announcements to the press about requests to Trump about his business records. Seems to me most of this is just leaks to the press.

 

[Ridgerunner]

As more information comes out about Trump campaign and collusion with Russia on the US election and on Trump obstructing justice there seems to be a real possibility Trump could do jail time.
It is amazing he has not already done jail time for his business practices.

Hey elmer... hashtag this

 

[radical right]

See, you did know step one.

And you know step two also that once it went to Canada, it did leave the country and we don't know where it went

Why don't you ask Canada, they have the equivilent of our nuclear regulatory commission, which has to approve all exports. Canada isn't a third world nation, they nave laws and regulations, and track all their imports and exports.

O' Canada

 

[hunarcy]

If Trump wanted to get Flynn off the hook, he could have issued him a pardon like he did Sheriff Arpaio. Instead Trump obstructed justice because he knows a pardon doesn't keep somebody from talking.

At that time, did they know about the felonies? And a pardon allows a person to not worry about talking

Since Trump didn't know all the felonies, or even the timespan of the felonies, issuing a pardon would have been difficult. Nobody has issued a pardon broad enough to cover everything Flynn might be charged with. And even then, it wouldn't cover Flynn for future lies to the FBI or Mueller.

Then, if he had no knowledge of Flynn’s crime because it happen before Trump knew Flynn, then there was no obstruction of Justice.

 

[radical right]

Shows how little you know about the law. leaking grand jury testimony felony | Bloviating Zeppelin
Leaking Grand Jury testimony is a felony.
That has nothing to do with Mueller's announcements to the press about requests to Trump about his business records. Seems to me most of this is just leaks to the press.

Leaking is illegal, talking is not.

The Federal Grand Jury: Ten Tips for the Unwary | Solomon L. Wisenberg. | Washington D.C.

Solomon L. Wisenberg is a partner and co-chair of the white collar criminal defense practice group of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Federal grand jurors, grand jury court reporters and the prosecutors running the grand jury are under a strict duty to keep any "matter occurring before the grand jury" a secret. This duty is codified in Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Violations of this rule can result in sanctions or criminal contempt charges against a prosecutor. But the rule of secrecy does not apply to federal grand jury witnesses. If you are a grand jury witness, you have the right to tell the whole world about your grand jury testimony.

 

[radical right]

If Mueller isn't leaking to the press how come every time he does something the usual press statement is soon to follow. Why do we keep hearing the direction the investigation is going? .

People who testify in front of Muellers grand juries, are free to talk to reporters about what they were asked, and an inference of what Mueller is investigating is then drawn from that

Shows how little you know about the law. leaking grand jury testimony felony | Bloviating Zeppelin
Leaking Grand Jury testimony is a felony.

Federal grand jurors, grand jury court reporters and the prosecutors running the grand jury are under a strict duty to keep any "matter occurring before the grand jury" a secret. This duty is codified in Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Violations of this rule can result in sanctions or criminal contempt charges against a prosecutor.

But the rule of secrecy does not apply to federal grand jury witnesses. If you are a grand jury witness, you have the right to tell the whole world about your grand jury testimony.

The Federal Grand Jury: Ten Tips for the Unwary | Solomon L. Wisenberg. | Washington D.C.

 

[AntonToo]

What else would you like me to DIS-prove? Maybe that this Canadian WAS NOT a secret Russian agent conspiring to kill Trump?

You make up total horseshit and then dump the burden on me to dis-prove and top it off with some bullshit about intellectual integrity?

You are saying 145 million come from Russians? Fine, PUT UP THE EVIDENCE or stfu.

Meanwhile, facts are that big money to Clinton Foundation came from a Canadian businessman who had no financial stake in U1 deal security clearance.

We got to the Canadian and you said he had divested all his interest and had no benefit from giving all that money to Hillary. That's me failing to prove MY claim?

you said Russians gave Clinton 145 million - did you not?

Evidence you presented so far - NOTHING



Here is the actual story:

In 2007, [CANADIAN] and the former president created the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, which self-avowedly "has extensive experience in projects that organize market-driven activities to meet the private sector’s requirements for optimization of local supply chains," whatever that means. By 2006, Giustra had donated more than $30 million to the Clintons' charitable endeavors and pledged $100 million more.

The next year, Giustra sold his mining company, UrAsia, to a large Canadian uranium-mining firm called Uranium One

Clinton Uranium 'Scandal' Doesn't Have Much Fuel


Clinton did not become Secretary of State until 2009!


Will you now stop spreading bullshit about Russians giving Clinton 145 million?

You said he gave nothing to the Clinton foundation when he had an interest in the deal, now you're saying he gave $30 million and promised $100 million while he had an interest in the deal. Also, you didn't show that his interest ended when he sold his business to Uranium One.

More flip, flop and fly ...

Read again what you quoted, post something SANE.

There is no way in hell Giustra had any idea about Clinton becoming a DoS head back 2006 when he gave 30 mill and pledged more donations to Clinton Foundation. Nor did Giustra had any financial stake when Russians were buying U1 shares. Nor is there any evidence at all he had any connections to Russians.

Your conspiracy theory about Russians giving money to Clitnon is not adding up. DUH.


I really don't get why you want to keep this up - do you ENJOY peddling bullshit? Do you enjoy looking like a total fool? Whats wrong with you?

That's the lamest crap ever. People paid Hillary BEFORE she gave them what they wanted. That proves it wasn't bribery ...

Oh oh, ok so your theory is that the Canadian gave millions of unconditioned dollars away to Clinton's charity in 2006...because he thought that down the line he could ask for a favor on DoS clearing a deal between a Russians and a company he at that point will have no financial interest in....all while having no idea that Clniton would have ANYTHING to do with DoS.

Brilliant stuff! I mean wow, spectacular.

And be that as it may, you have yet to produce even a single shred of evidence to connect Russians to 145 million dollars you claim they gave to Hillary.

Will you at this point do the right thing and admit that it was bullshit? You spoke of "Intellectual integrity", did you not?

 

[Rambunctious]

I think all Trump haters should go on a hunger strike until Trump goes to jail...or maybe set yourselves on fire on the steps of congress to make your point....or you can wet your finger and stick it into a light switch...or maybe just through yourself into traffic or jump off of the Golden State Bridge....anything to get Trump put into jail....come on libs all together now!!!

 

[Carl in Michigan]

there seems to be a real possibility Trump could do jail time.

Nope. But you can always dream.

 

[mudwhistle]

If Mueller isn't leaking to the press how come every time he does something the usual press statement is soon to follow. Why do we keep hearing the direction the investigation is going? .

People who testify in front of Muellers grand juries, are free to talk to reporters about what they were asked, and an inference of what Mueller is investigating is then drawn from that

Shows how little you know about the law. leaking grand jury testimony felony | Bloviating Zeppelin
Leaking Grand Jury testimony is a felony.

Federal grand jurors, grand jury court reporters and the prosecutors running the grand jury are under a strict duty to keep any "matter occurring before the grand jury" a secret. This duty is codified in Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Violations of this rule can result in sanctions or criminal contempt charges against a prosecutor.

But the rule of secrecy does not apply to federal grand jury witnesses. If you are a grand jury witness, you have the right to tell the whole world about your grand jury testimony.

The Federal Grand Jury: Ten Tips for the Unwary | Solomon L. Wisenberg. | Washington D.C.

No, only after the proceedings have concluded. What we're hearing is being released during the grand jury.





".. A California Court of Appeal in Santa Clara in 2004 upheld a warning given to grand jury witnesses not to disclose their testimony, or anything they learned during their appearance before the grand jury, until the transcript is made public.
... 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case, Butterworth v. Smith, which holds that all grand jury witnesses have a First Amendment right to disclose the contents of their testimony, at least once the grand jury has concluded its activities. But because the court in San Jose Mercury News limited its discussion to the single issue of prior restraint, it expressly declined to analyze the constitutionality of the warning under Butterworth."

Grand jury witnesses | Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

 

[Borillar]

The absolute worst case scenario for Trump (which is, in my opinion, staggeringly unlikely) would be that he resigned, and was then immeditely pardoned by Pence on his way out the door.

A Nixon - Ford redux?

 

[Borillar]

So Trump should go to jail for collusion even though many on both the left and right have pointed out many times collusion is not a crime obstructing justice is equally funny as we have a special prosecutor doing an investigation right now and though Trump has complained a lot about this he has done nothing to hinder the investigation nor has he fired Mueller. So good luck trying to get jail time with something that is not even crime and obstruction of justice while there is an investigation going on into the very thing he is supposed to be trying to obstruct.

Progressives don't need no stinking evidence, they know he must be guilty of something.

Hilarious coming from the "Lock her up!" crowd.

 

[radical right]

".. A California Court of Appeal in Santa Clara in 2004 upheld a warning given to grand jury witnesses not to disclose their testimony, or anything they learned during their appearance before the grand jury, until the transcript is made public.
... 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case, Butterworth v. Smith, which holds that all grand jury witnesses have a First Amendment right to disclose the contents of their testimony, at least once the grand jury has concluded its activities. But because the court in San Jose Mercury News limited its discussion to the single issue of prior restraint, it expressly declined to analyze the constitutionality of the warning under Butterworth."

Grand jury witnesses | Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

From your citation.

One thing is certain: witnesses are completely free to discuss anything they knew prior to testifying before the grand jury.

They can freely tell anybody their answers, but they can't disclose the grand jurys questions.

So YES an inference can be drawn based on the witnesses answers.

 

[mudwhistle]

".. A California Court of Appeal in Santa Clara in 2004 upheld a warning given to grand jury witnesses not to disclose their testimony, or anything they learned during their appearance before the grand jury, until the transcript is made public.
... 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case, Butterworth v. Smith, which holds that all grand jury witnesses have a First Amendment right to disclose the contents of their testimony, at least once the grand jury has concluded its activities. But because the court in San Jose Mercury News limited its discussion to the single issue of prior restraint, it expressly declined to analyze the constitutionality of the warning under Butterworth."

Grand jury witnesses | Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

From your citation.

One thing is certain: witnesses are completely free to discuss anything they knew prior to testifying before the grand jury.

They can freely tell anybody their answers, but they can't disclose the grand jurys questions.

So YES an inference can be drawn based on the witnesses answers.

Still, this is a red herring.
I pointed out that Mueller was releasing every new direction he takes in the investigation......and Mueller isn't a witness..... He is the Prosecutor.

 

[radical right]

From your citation.

One thing is certain: witnesses are completely free to discuss anything they knew prior to testifying before the grand jury.

They can freely tell anybody their answers, but they can't disclose the grand jurys questions.

So YES an inference can be drawn based on the witnesses answers.

Still, this is a red herring.
I pointed out that Mueller was releasing every new direction he takes in the investigation......and Mueller isn't a witness..... He is the Prosecutor.

NOPE, witnesses are releasing what they told Muellers grand jury, and then the press figuring out what Mueller was after.

It's like the old password game with Betty Whites husband.
Password (game show) - Wikipedia

The word to be conveyed (the "password") was given to one player on each team,

the player who was given the password gave a one-word clue from which their partner attempted to guess the password

 

[mudwhistle]

From your citation.

One thing is certain: witnesses are completely free to discuss anything they knew prior to testifying before the grand jury.

They can freely tell anybody their answers, but they can't disclose the grand jurys questions.

So YES an inference can be drawn based on the witnesses answers.

Still, this is a red herring.
I pointed out that Mueller was releasing every new direction he takes in the investigation......and Mueller isn't a witness..... He is the Prosecutor.

NOPE, witnesses are releasing what they told Muellers grand jury, and then the press figuring out what Mueller was after.

It's like the old password game with Betty Whites husband.
Password (game show) - Wikipedia

The word to be conveyed (the "password") was given to one player on each team,

the player who was given the password gave a one-word clue from which their partner attempted to guess the password

Nope. Subpoenas have nothing to do with testimony.