H.hmmmm, wonder if that's not Victoria and Joe DiGenova? They were trying to lobby for pardons for clients?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
DOJ Investigating Potential ‘Bribery-for-Pardon' Scheme: Court Document
- Thread starter Dana7360
- Start date
That is a good theory.H.hmmmm, wonder if that's not Victoria and Joe DiGenova? They were trying to lobby for pardons for clients?
There are obviously lawyers involved in this latest scandal, so I hope Joe and Vicky remember how attorney-client confidentiality protections don't apply to bribery allegations?
DrLove
Diamond Member
Nothing happens under Donald's nose. Betting Rudy was involved too.
Question: Is ANYONE gonna be surprised if it turns out Donald handed out pardons for cash?
Question: Is ANYONE gonna be surprised if it turns out Donald handed out pardons for cash?
DrLove
Diamond Member
The Grift will continue right up to eviction day.
There is NOTHING the Grifter Family won't sell.
And Donald has national secrets.
So we may see him selling those even after eviction day.
Snakes and Trumps crawl at night
Unsealed court ruling discloses bribe-for-pardon probe related to Trump White House
A court ruling made public Tuesday indicates that federal prosecutors have been pursuing an investigation into potential bribery in connection with an effort to secure a pardon from President Donald Trump, although details of the inquiry remain murky.
The opinion issued by Chief U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell in August and released in a heavily redacted form Tuesday shows that Howell granted prosecutors permission to examine emails involving lawyers and an effort to seek a pardon for someone whose name was deleted from the public version of the opinion.
Howell ruled that the inclusion of a non-lawyer and of a lawyer she described as an “attorney-advocate” who did not appear to be providing legal services voided the attorney-client privilege, at least for some of the messages.
“The attorney-client privilege does not protect communications disclosed to third parties,” the judge wrote.
Howell’s ruling said prosecutors are investigating a “bribery-for-pardon scheme” in which someone “would offer a substantial political contribution in exchange for a presidential pardon or reprieve of sentence” for an unidentified person.
Despite the rather direct language in Howell’s ruling, Trump dismissed news reports of a probe into possible corruption of the pardon process.
“Pardon investigation is fake news,” Trump tweeted Tuesday night.
A Justice Department official suggested the focus of the investigation was not on White House officials. “No government official is the subject or target of the investigation referenced in the court opinion,” said the DOJ official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Howell’s opinion provides tantalizing hints about the probe. She says it involved the seizure of more than 50 digital media devices, such as phones, iPads and laptops. In addition, it appears the pardon probe grew out of an earlier investigation.
The judge said prosecutors also said they were investigation whether lobbying efforts for a pardon violated the Lobbying Disclosure Act because those involved didn’t register under the law, but Howell threw cold water on that, noting that the law’s requirements are fairly loose and allow some lobbying for clients without registering.
Prosecutors opposed releasing the memo, even in redacted form, but Howell — an appointee of President Barack Obama — overruled their objections. The judge’s August opinion described the investigation as “sensitive and ongoing.” But her description of why prosecutors wanted the entire opinion kept under wraps simply quoted them as saying it “identifies both individuals and conduct that have not been charged by the grand jury.”
>>>>>>>>>> and this article from the Washington post:
The Justice Department in August investigated a potential “bribery-for-pardon” scheme in which a large political contribution would be offered in exchange for a presidential pardon by the White House, according to court records unsealed Tuesday.
The documents show that U.S. prosecutors were scrutinizing whether two individuals approached senior White House officials as unregistered lobbyists, and a related scheme in which cash would be funneled through intermediaries for a pardon or reprieve of a sentence for a defendant apparently in Federal Bureau of Prisons custody at some point. The status of the investigation is unclear.
The slender record is heavily redacted and does not identify the investigation’s targets or whether anyone has been or will be charged. It also does not indicate what senior White House officials did after allegedly being approached.
AD
“No government official was or is currently a subject or target of the investigation disclosed in this filing,” said a Justice Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.
The records were unsealed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who released an Aug. 28 opinion describing the government’s theory. The opinion granted prosecutors’ request to access search warrant evidence, including confidential emails sent among at least three individuals and their agents that could have been protected by attorney-client privilege.
The White House had no comment. Federal bribery crimes typically must be charged within five years of their commission, a span that mostly covers President Trump’s time in office but includes the latter part of the Obama administration.
A government review of the evidence identified emails “indicat[ing] additional criminal activity” after scouring more than 50 digital media devices, including iPhones, iPads, laptops, thumb drives and computer and external hard drives, Howell wrote.
The ruling offers glimpses of the underlying investigation, stating at one point, for example, that the government alleged at least one person “requested [redacted]’s assistance, ‘as a personal favor,’ to use his political connections [redacted].”
Read the opinion here
It continues, “This political strategy to obtain a presidential pardon was ‘parallel’ to and distinct from [redacted]’s role as an attorney-advocate for [redacted].”
In a footnote, Howell’s opinion added, emails submitted by the government as exhibits “do not show any direct payment to [redacted] by [redacted] or [redacted] and instead indicate that [redacted] expected [redacted] to assist in obtaining clemency for [redacted] due to [redacted]’s past substantial campaign contributions [redacted] and [redacted]’s anticipated future contributions.”The language of the opinion suggests that the potential pardon scheme was not the original subject of the warrants, and it is not clear whether any targets subsequently challenged any grand jury proceedings.
In her largely blacked-out 18-page opinion, the judge granted the government’s request for investigators to access the emails, confront three people and take any further investigative steps.
The opinion was originally sealed. In an update to the court Nov. 25, the Justice Department asked to keep the ruling secret because it “identifies both individuals and conduct that have not been charged by the grand jury.”
Howell found the response insufficient, directing the government to explain line-by-line why a redacted version could not be released that did not name uncharged individuals, prompting the government to submit the now-public document on Monday, she wrote.
Unsealed court ruling discloses bribe-for-pardon probe related to Trump White House
A court ruling made public Tuesday indicates that federal prosecutors have been pursuing an investigation into potential bribery in connection with an effort to secure a pardon from President Donald Trump, although details of the inquiry remain murky.
The opinion issued by Chief U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell in August and released in a heavily redacted form Tuesday shows that Howell granted prosecutors permission to examine emails involving lawyers and an effort to seek a pardon for someone whose name was deleted from the public version of the opinion.
Howell ruled that the inclusion of a non-lawyer and of a lawyer she described as an “attorney-advocate” who did not appear to be providing legal services voided the attorney-client privilege, at least for some of the messages.
“The attorney-client privilege does not protect communications disclosed to third parties,” the judge wrote.
Howell’s ruling said prosecutors are investigating a “bribery-for-pardon scheme” in which someone “would offer a substantial political contribution in exchange for a presidential pardon or reprieve of sentence” for an unidentified person.
Despite the rather direct language in Howell’s ruling, Trump dismissed news reports of a probe into possible corruption of the pardon process.
“Pardon investigation is fake news,” Trump tweeted Tuesday night.
A Justice Department official suggested the focus of the investigation was not on White House officials. “No government official is the subject or target of the investigation referenced in the court opinion,” said the DOJ official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Howell’s opinion provides tantalizing hints about the probe. She says it involved the seizure of more than 50 digital media devices, such as phones, iPads and laptops. In addition, it appears the pardon probe grew out of an earlier investigation.
The judge said prosecutors also said they were investigation whether lobbying efforts for a pardon violated the Lobbying Disclosure Act because those involved didn’t register under the law, but Howell threw cold water on that, noting that the law’s requirements are fairly loose and allow some lobbying for clients without registering.
Prosecutors opposed releasing the memo, even in redacted form, but Howell — an appointee of President Barack Obama — overruled their objections. The judge’s August opinion described the investigation as “sensitive and ongoing.” But her description of why prosecutors wanted the entire opinion kept under wraps simply quoted them as saying it “identifies both individuals and conduct that have not been charged by the grand jury.”
>>>>>>>>>> and this article from the Washington post:
The Justice Department in August investigated a potential “bribery-for-pardon” scheme in which a large political contribution would be offered in exchange for a presidential pardon by the White House, according to court records unsealed Tuesday.
The documents show that U.S. prosecutors were scrutinizing whether two individuals approached senior White House officials as unregistered lobbyists, and a related scheme in which cash would be funneled through intermediaries for a pardon or reprieve of a sentence for a defendant apparently in Federal Bureau of Prisons custody at some point. The status of the investigation is unclear.
The slender record is heavily redacted and does not identify the investigation’s targets or whether anyone has been or will be charged. It also does not indicate what senior White House officials did after allegedly being approached.
AD
“No government official was or is currently a subject or target of the investigation disclosed in this filing,” said a Justice Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.
The records were unsealed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who released an Aug. 28 opinion describing the government’s theory. The opinion granted prosecutors’ request to access search warrant evidence, including confidential emails sent among at least three individuals and their agents that could have been protected by attorney-client privilege.
The White House had no comment. Federal bribery crimes typically must be charged within five years of their commission, a span that mostly covers President Trump’s time in office but includes the latter part of the Obama administration.
A government review of the evidence identified emails “indicat[ing] additional criminal activity” after scouring more than 50 digital media devices, including iPhones, iPads, laptops, thumb drives and computer and external hard drives, Howell wrote.
The ruling offers glimpses of the underlying investigation, stating at one point, for example, that the government alleged at least one person “requested [redacted]’s assistance, ‘as a personal favor,’ to use his political connections [redacted].”
Read the opinion here
It continues, “This political strategy to obtain a presidential pardon was ‘parallel’ to and distinct from [redacted]’s role as an attorney-advocate for [redacted].”
In a footnote, Howell’s opinion added, emails submitted by the government as exhibits “do not show any direct payment to [redacted] by [redacted] or [redacted] and instead indicate that [redacted] expected [redacted] to assist in obtaining clemency for [redacted] due to [redacted]’s past substantial campaign contributions [redacted] and [redacted]’s anticipated future contributions.”The language of the opinion suggests that the potential pardon scheme was not the original subject of the warrants, and it is not clear whether any targets subsequently challenged any grand jury proceedings.
In her largely blacked-out 18-page opinion, the judge granted the government’s request for investigators to access the emails, confront three people and take any further investigative steps.
The opinion was originally sealed. In an update to the court Nov. 25, the Justice Department asked to keep the ruling secret because it “identifies both individuals and conduct that have not been charged by the grand jury.”
Howell found the response insufficient, directing the government to explain line-by-line why a redacted version could not be released that did not name uncharged individuals, prompting the government to submit the now-public document on Monday, she wrote.
No surprise here either His whole life has been under the table deals Look at the 100's of millions the pos suckered his dotards forNothing happens under Donald's nose. Betting Rudy was involved too.
Question: Is ANYONE gonna be surprised if it turns out Donald handed out pardons for cash?
No that wouldn't surprise me in the least.
DrLove
Diamond Member
Snakes and Trumps crawl at night
Unsealed court ruling discloses bribe-for-pardon probe related to Trump White House
A court ruling made public Tuesday indicates that federal prosecutors have been pursuing an investigation into potential bribery in connection with an effort to secure a pardon from President Donald Trump, although details of the inquiry remain murky.
The opinion issued by Chief U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell in August and released in a heavily redacted form Tuesday shows that Howell granted prosecutors permission to examine emails involving lawyers and an effort to seek a pardon for someone whose name was deleted from the public version of the opinion.
Howell ruled that the inclusion of a non-lawyer and of a lawyer she described as an “attorney-advocate” who did not appear to be providing legal services voided the attorney-client privilege, at least for some of the messages.
“The attorney-client privilege does not protect communications disclosed to third parties,” the judge wrote.
Howell’s ruling said prosecutors are investigating a “bribery-for-pardon scheme” in which someone “would offer a substantial political contribution in exchange for a presidential pardon or reprieve of sentence” for an unidentified person.
Despite the rather direct language in Howell’s ruling, Trump dismissed news reports of a probe into possible corruption of the pardon process.
“Pardon investigation is fake news,” Trump tweeted Tuesday night.
A Justice Department official suggested the focus of the investigation was not on White House officials. “No government official is the subject or target of the investigation referenced in the court opinion,” said the DOJ official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Howell’s opinion provides tantalizing hints about the probe. She says it involved the seizure of more than 50 digital media devices, such as phones, iPads and laptops. In addition, it appears the pardon probe grew out of an earlier investigation.
The judge said prosecutors also said they were investigation whether lobbying efforts for a pardon violated the Lobbying Disclosure Act because those involved didn’t register under the law, but Howell threw cold water on that, noting that the law’s requirements are fairly loose and allow some lobbying for clients without registering.
Prosecutors opposed releasing the memo, even in redacted form, but Howell — an appointee of President Barack Obama — overruled their objections. The judge’s August opinion described the investigation as “sensitive and ongoing.” But her description of why prosecutors wanted the entire opinion kept under wraps simply quoted them as saying it “identifies both individuals and conduct that have not been charged by the grand jury.”
>>>>>>>>>> and this article from the Washington post:
The Justice Department in August investigated a potential “bribery-for-pardon” scheme in which a large political contribution would be offered in exchange for a presidential pardon by the White House, according to court records unsealed Tuesday.
The documents show that U.S. prosecutors were scrutinizing whether two individuals approached senior White House officials as unregistered lobbyists, and a related scheme in which cash would be funneled through intermediaries for a pardon or reprieve of a sentence for a defendant apparently in Federal Bureau of Prisons custody at some point. The status of the investigation is unclear.
The slender record is heavily redacted and does not identify the investigation’s targets or whether anyone has been or will be charged. It also does not indicate what senior White House officials did after allegedly being approached.
AD
“No government official was or is currently a subject or target of the investigation disclosed in this filing,” said a Justice Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.
The records were unsealed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who released an Aug. 28 opinion describing the government’s theory. The opinion granted prosecutors’ request to access search warrant evidence, including confidential emails sent among at least three individuals and their agents that could have been protected by attorney-client privilege.
The White House had no comment. Federal bribery crimes typically must be charged within five years of their commission, a span that mostly covers President Trump’s time in office but includes the latter part of the Obama administration.
A government review of the evidence identified emails “indicat[ing] additional criminal activity” after scouring more than 50 digital media devices, including iPhones, iPads, laptops, thumb drives and computer and external hard drives, Howell wrote.
The ruling offers glimpses of the underlying investigation, stating at one point, for example, that the government alleged at least one person “requested [redacted]’s assistance, ‘as a personal favor,’ to use his political connections [redacted].”
Read the opinion here
It continues, “This political strategy to obtain a presidential pardon was ‘parallel’ to and distinct from [redacted]’s role as an attorney-advocate for [redacted].”
In a footnote, Howell’s opinion added, emails submitted by the government as exhibits “do not show any direct payment to [redacted] by [redacted] or [redacted] and instead indicate that [redacted] expected [redacted] to assist in obtaining clemency for [redacted] due to [redacted]’s past substantial campaign contributions [redacted] and [redacted]’s anticipated future contributions.”The language of the opinion suggests that the potential pardon scheme was not the original subject of the warrants, and it is not clear whether any targets subsequently challenged any grand jury proceedings.
In her largely blacked-out 18-page opinion, the judge granted the government’s request for investigators to access the emails, confront three people and take any further investigative steps.
The opinion was originally sealed. In an update to the court Nov. 25, the Justice Department asked to keep the ruling secret because it “identifies both individuals and conduct that have not been charged by the grand jury.”
Howell found the response insufficient, directing the government to explain line-by-line why a redacted version could not be released that did not name uncharged individuals, prompting the government to submit the now-public document on Monday, she wrote.
How much you wanna bet the "attorney-advocate" isn't Rudy?
dudmuck
Diamond Member
Snakes and Trumps crawl at night
Unsealed court ruling discloses bribe-for-pardon probe related to Trump White House
A court ruling made public Tuesday indicates that federal prosecutors have been pursuing an investigation into potential bribery in connection with an effort to secure a pardon from President Donald Trump, although details of the inquiry remain murky.
The opinion issued by Chief U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell in August and released in a heavily redacted form Tuesday shows that Howell granted prosecutors permission to examine emails involving lawyers and an effort to seek a pardon for someone whose name was deleted from the public version of the opinion.
Howell ruled that the inclusion of a non-lawyer and of a lawyer she described as an “attorney-advocate” who did not appear to be providing legal services voided the attorney-client privilege, at least for some of the messages.
“The attorney-client privilege does not protect communications disclosed to third parties,” the judge wrote.
Howell’s ruling said prosecutors are investigating a “bribery-for-pardon scheme” in which someone “would offer a substantial political contribution in exchange for a presidential pardon or reprieve of sentence” for an unidentified person.
Despite the rather direct language in Howell’s ruling, Trump dismissed news reports of a probe into possible corruption of the pardon process.
“Pardon investigation is fake news,” Trump tweeted Tuesday night.
A Justice Department official suggested the focus of the investigation was not on White House officials. “No government official is the subject or target of the investigation referenced in the court opinion,” said the DOJ official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Howell’s opinion provides tantalizing hints about the probe. She says it involved the seizure of more than 50 digital media devices, such as phones, iPads and laptops. In addition, it appears the pardon probe grew out of an earlier investigation.
The judge said prosecutors also said they were investigation whether lobbying efforts for a pardon violated the Lobbying Disclosure Act because those involved didn’t register under the law, but Howell threw cold water on that, noting that the law’s requirements are fairly loose and allow some lobbying for clients without registering.
Prosecutors opposed releasing the memo, even in redacted form, but Howell — an appointee of President Barack Obama — overruled their objections. The judge’s August opinion described the investigation as “sensitive and ongoing.” But her description of why prosecutors wanted the entire opinion kept under wraps simply quoted them as saying it “identifies both individuals and conduct that have not been charged by the grand jury.”
>>>>>>>>>> and this article from the Washington post:
The Justice Department in August investigated a potential “bribery-for-pardon” scheme in which a large political contribution would be offered in exchange for a presidential pardon by the White House, according to court records unsealed Tuesday.
The documents show that U.S. prosecutors were scrutinizing whether two individuals approached senior White House officials as unregistered lobbyists, and a related scheme in which cash would be funneled through intermediaries for a pardon or reprieve of a sentence for a defendant apparently in Federal Bureau of Prisons custody at some point. The status of the investigation is unclear.
The slender record is heavily redacted and does not identify the investigation’s targets or whether anyone has been or will be charged. It also does not indicate what senior White House officials did after allegedly being approached.
AD
“No government official was or is currently a subject or target of the investigation disclosed in this filing,” said a Justice Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.
The records were unsealed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who released an Aug. 28 opinion describing the government’s theory. The opinion granted prosecutors’ request to access search warrant evidence, including confidential emails sent among at least three individuals and their agents that could have been protected by attorney-client privilege.
The White House had no comment. Federal bribery crimes typically must be charged within five years of their commission, a span that mostly covers President Trump’s time in office but includes the latter part of the Obama administration.
A government review of the evidence identified emails “indicat[ing] additional criminal activity” after scouring more than 50 digital media devices, including iPhones, iPads, laptops, thumb drives and computer and external hard drives, Howell wrote.
The ruling offers glimpses of the underlying investigation, stating at one point, for example, that the government alleged at least one person “requested [redacted]’s assistance, ‘as a personal favor,’ to use his political connections [redacted].”
Read the opinion here
It continues, “This political strategy to obtain a presidential pardon was ‘parallel’ to and distinct from [redacted]’s role as an attorney-advocate for [redacted].”
In a footnote, Howell’s opinion added, emails submitted by the government as exhibits “do not show any direct payment to [redacted] by [redacted] or [redacted] and instead indicate that [redacted] expected [redacted] to assist in obtaining clemency for [redacted] due to [redacted]’s past substantial campaign contributions [redacted] and [redacted]’s anticipated future contributions.”The language of the opinion suggests that the potential pardon scheme was not the original subject of the warrants, and it is not clear whether any targets subsequently challenged any grand jury proceedings.
In her largely blacked-out 18-page opinion, the judge granted the government’s request for investigators to access the emails, confront three people and take any further investigative steps.
The opinion was originally sealed. In an update to the court Nov. 25, the Justice Department asked to keep the ruling secret because it “identifies both individuals and conduct that have not been charged by the grand jury.”
Howell found the response insufficient, directing the government to explain line-by-line why a redacted version could not be released that did not name uncharged individuals, prompting the government to submit the now-public document on Monday, she wrote.
Rye Catcher
Platinum Member
- Nov 21, 2019
- 12,780
- 7,607
- 940
- Banned
- #90
self portrait?
Not me! See my signature line, you might, possibly, maybe, learn something.
Maybe you should remove this part: " Learn from the Past "
Maybe you should stop deflecting and respond to my question. Bill Clinton was a lounge lizard, that's apparent. Donald Trump is a lounge lizard, and has been accused of sexual battery by a dozen or more women, and two women - one his first wife - accused him of rape. Biden reduced the annual deficit in this last three years in office, Trump spent like a Drunk Marine. Clinton has been married for decades to the same person, trump is on his third wife.
and accused of setting up a pardon for Marc Rich, for monetary gain.
Which is what this thread is about.
BTW, has Trump been accused of cheating on Melania while in office?
Do you have any proof President Clinton accepted money for his pardon of Marc Rich?
BTW, speaking of bribes:
Cohen Describes Trump’s Involvement in Hush-Money Payments
Michael Cohen said in a television interview that President Trump was “very concerned” about how affair allegations would affect his 2016 campaign and “directed me to become involved” in hush-money payments.
www.wsj.com
" Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former personal attorney, gave his fullest public description of Mr. Trump’s involvement in two hush money deals during the 2016 campaign that the Justice Department has said were federal crimes."
self portrait?
Not me! See my signature line, you might, possibly, maybe, learn something.
Maybe you should remove this part: " Learn from the Past "
Maybe you should stop deflecting and respond to my question. Bill Clinton was a lounge lizard, that's apparent. Donald Trump is a lounge lizard, and has been accused of sexual battery by a dozen or more women, and two women - one his first wife - accused him of rape. Biden reduced the annual deficit in this last three years in office, Trump spent like a Drunk Marine. Clinton has been married for decades to the same person, trump is on his third wife.
and accused of setting up a pardon for Marc Rich, for monetary gain.
Which is what this thread is about.
BTW, has Trump been accused of cheating on Melania while in office?
Do you have any proof President Clinton accepted money for his pardon of Marc Rich?
BTW, speaking of bribes:
Cohen Describes Trump’s Involvement in Hush-Money Payments
Michael Cohen said in a television interview that President Trump was “very concerned” about how affair allegations would affect his 2016 campaign and “directed me to become involved” in hush-money payments.
" Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former personal attorney, gave his fullest public description of Mr. Trump’s involvement in two hush money deals during the 2016 campaign that the Justice Department has said were federal crimes."
Do you have any proof President Clinton accepted money for his pardon of Marc Rich?
The 129 pages from the 2001 investigation are heavily redacted. At the time of the pardon, Rich was an international fugitive who had fled to Switzerland. His ex-wife had donated to the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton Presidential Library and Hillary Clinton's New York Senate campaign, raising suspicion about the pardon. The federal investigation was closed in 2005 without charges, and Rich died in 2013.
FBI Releases Documents On Bill Clinton's Controversial 2001 Pardon Of Marc Rich : NPR
Rye Catcher
Platinum Member
- Nov 21, 2019
- 12,780
- 7,607
- 940
- Banned
- #92
self portrait?
Not me! See my signature line, you might, possibly, maybe, learn something.
Maybe you should remove this part: " Learn from the Past "
Maybe you should stop deflecting and respond to my question. Bill Clinton was a lounge lizard, that's apparent. Donald Trump is a lounge lizard, and has been accused of sexual battery by a dozen or more women, and two women - one his first wife - accused him of rape. Biden reduced the annual deficit in this last three years in office, Trump spent like a Drunk Marine. Clinton has been married for decades to the same person, trump is on his third wife.
and accused of setting up a pardon for Marc Rich, for monetary gain.
Which is what this thread is about.
BTW, has Trump been accused of cheating on Melania while in office?
Do you have any proof President Clinton accepted money for his pardon of Marc Rich?
BTW, speaking of bribes:
Cohen Describes Trump’s Involvement in Hush-Money Payments
Michael Cohen said in a television interview that President Trump was “very concerned” about how affair allegations would affect his 2016 campaign and “directed me to become involved” in hush-money payments.
" Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former personal attorney, gave his fullest public description of Mr. Trump’s involvement in two hush money deals during the 2016 campaign that the Justice Department has said were federal crimes."
Do you have any proof President Clinton accepted money for his pardon of Marc Rich?
The 129 pages from the 2001 investigation are heavily redacted. At the time of the pardon, Rich was an international fugitive who had fled to Switzerland. His ex-wife had donated to the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton Presidential Library and Hillary Clinton's New York Senate campaign, raising suspicion about the pardon. The federal investigation was closed in 2005 without charges, and Rich died in 2013.
FBI Releases Documents On Bill Clinton's Controversial 2001 Pardon Of Marc Rich : NPR
This is not proof, you claim the two volumes of the Mueller Report were not proof, and yet you claim these 129 pages which never led to an indictment are proof! Grow up, bozo, you are out of touch with reality.
self portrait?
Not me! See my signature line, you might, possibly, maybe, learn something.
Maybe you should remove this part: " Learn from the Past "
Maybe you should stop deflecting and respond to my question. Bill Clinton was a lounge lizard, that's apparent. Donald Trump is a lounge lizard, and has been accused of sexual battery by a dozen or more women, and two women - one his first wife - accused him of rape. Biden reduced the annual deficit in this last three years in office, Trump spent like a Drunk Marine. Clinton has been married for decades to the same person, trump is on his third wife.
and accused of setting up a pardon for Marc Rich, for monetary gain.
Which is what this thread is about.
BTW, has Trump been accused of cheating on Melania while in office?
Do you have any proof President Clinton accepted money for his pardon of Marc Rich?
BTW, speaking of bribes:
Cohen Describes Trump’s Involvement in Hush-Money Payments
Michael Cohen said in a television interview that President Trump was “very concerned” about how affair allegations would affect his 2016 campaign and “directed me to become involved” in hush-money payments.
" Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former personal attorney, gave his fullest public description of Mr. Trump’s involvement in two hush money deals during the 2016 campaign that the Justice Department has said were federal crimes."
Do you have any proof President Clinton accepted money for his pardon of Marc Rich?
The 129 pages from the 2001 investigation are heavily redacted. At the time of the pardon, Rich was an international fugitive who had fled to Switzerland. His ex-wife had donated to the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton Presidential Library and Hillary Clinton's New York Senate campaign, raising suspicion about the pardon. The federal investigation was closed in 2005 without charges, and Rich died in 2013.
FBI Releases Documents On Bill Clinton's Controversial 2001 Pardon Of Marc Rich : NPR
This is not proof, you claim the two volumes of the Mueller Report were not proof, and yet you claim these 129 pages which never led to an indictment are proof! Grow up, bozo, you are out of touch with reality.
This is not proof,
Correct. He and Hillary benefitted from donations but there is no proof
that the donations bought the pardon.
you claim the two volumes of the Mueller Report were not proof
You claim the report was proof of what, specifically?
Speaking of the Trump crooks
Release of PPP loan recipients' data reveals troubling patterns
The Trump Organization and Kushner Companies are major beneficiaries of PPP loans.
Original intent
The PPP programs’ original stated intent by officials was to help with payroll for small businesses struggling under the effects of coronavirus lockdown measures. The loans aimed to provide a bridge through the summer for what was hoped to be an improved economic and health climate in the fall.
Sweeping data released by the Small Business Administration on who benefited from pandemic relief programs raises questions about the equitability and distribution of loans intended for small businesses, an initial analysis by NBC News shows.
The analysis found that properties owned by the Trump Organization as well as the Kushner Companies, owned by the family of Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, profited from the program.
After months of litigation, the SBA released the dataset Tuesday night on every small business that received a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) or Economic Injury Disaster (EIDL) loan.
The data reveals the most complete accounting to date of the more than $700 billion in forgivable loans Congress and the Trump administration introduced in the spring for allowable expenses, including payroll, rent, utilities and mortgage interest payments.
The analysis by NBC News, one of 11 newsrooms that sued for the release of data, also shows:
The findings immediately raised concerns with government accountability groups.
“Many months and broken promises later, the court-ordered release of this crucial data while the Trump administration is one foot out the door is a shameful dereliction of duty and flagrant mismanagement of a program that millions of workers and small businesses needed to get through this pandemic,” Kyle Herrig, president of Accountable.US, an accountability watchdog, said in a statement.
Release of PPP loan recipients' data reveals troubling patterns
The Trump Organization and Kushner Companies are major beneficiaries of PPP loans.
Original intent
The PPP programs’ original stated intent by officials was to help with payroll for small businesses struggling under the effects of coronavirus lockdown measures. The loans aimed to provide a bridge through the summer for what was hoped to be an improved economic and health climate in the fall.
Sweeping data released by the Small Business Administration on who benefited from pandemic relief programs raises questions about the equitability and distribution of loans intended for small businesses, an initial analysis by NBC News shows.
The analysis found that properties owned by the Trump Organization as well as the Kushner Companies, owned by the family of Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, profited from the program.
After months of litigation, the SBA released the dataset Tuesday night on every small business that received a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) or Economic Injury Disaster (EIDL) loan.
The data reveals the most complete accounting to date of the more than $700 billion in forgivable loans Congress and the Trump administration introduced in the spring for allowable expenses, including payroll, rent, utilities and mortgage interest payments.
The analysis by NBC News, one of 11 newsrooms that sued for the release of data, also shows:
- Over 25 PPP loans worth more than $3.65 million were given to businesses with addresses at Trump and Kushner real estate properties, paying rent to those owners. Fifteen of the properties self-reported that they only kept one job, zero jobs or did not report a number at all.
- The loans to Trump and Kushner properties included a $2,164,543 loan to the Triomphe Restaurant Corp., at the Trump International Hotel & Tower in New York City. The company reported the money didn’t go to keeping any jobs. It later closed.
- A company called LB City Inc, which is at Kushner’s Bungalow Hotel in Long Branch, New Jersey, received a loan for $505,552.50 that it used to keep 155 jobs.
- Two tenants at 725 5th Avenue, Trump Tower, received more than $100,000 and kept only three jobs.
- Four tenants at the Kushner-owned 666 5th Avenue combined received more than $204,000, and retained only six jobs.
The findings immediately raised concerns with government accountability groups.
“Many months and broken promises later, the court-ordered release of this crucial data while the Trump administration is one foot out the door is a shameful dereliction of duty and flagrant mismanagement of a program that millions of workers and small businesses needed to get through this pandemic,” Kyle Herrig, president of Accountable.US, an accountability watchdog, said in a statement.
DrLove
Diamond Member
self portrait?
Not me! See my signature line, you might, possibly, maybe, learn something.
Maybe you should remove this part: " Learn from the Past "
Maybe you should stop deflecting and respond to my question. Bill Clinton was a lounge lizard, that's apparent. Donald Trump is a lounge lizard, and has been accused of sexual battery by a dozen or more women, and two women - one his first wife - accused him of rape. Biden reduced the annual deficit in this last three years in office, Trump spent like a Drunk Marine. Clinton has been married for decades to the same person, trump is on his third wife.
and accused of setting up a pardon for Marc Rich, for monetary gain.
Which is what this thread is about.
BTW, has Trump been accused of cheating on Melania while in office?
Do you have any proof President Clinton accepted money for his pardon of Marc Rich?
BTW, speaking of bribes:
Cohen Describes Trump’s Involvement in Hush-Money Payments
Michael Cohen said in a television interview that President Trump was “very concerned” about how affair allegations would affect his 2016 campaign and “directed me to become involved” in hush-money payments.
" Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former personal attorney, gave his fullest public description of Mr. Trump’s involvement in two hush money deals during the 2016 campaign that the Justice Department has said were federal crimes."
Do you have any proof President Clinton accepted money for his pardon of Marc Rich?
The 129 pages from the 2001 investigation are heavily redacted. At the time of the pardon, Rich was an international fugitive who had fled to Switzerland. His ex-wife had donated to the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton Presidential Library and Hillary Clinton's New York Senate campaign, raising suspicion about the pardon. The federal investigation was closed in 2005 without charges, and Rich died in 2013.
FBI Releases Documents On Bill Clinton's Controversial 2001 Pardon Of Marc Rich : NPR
This is not proof, you claim the two volumes of the Mueller Report were not proof, and yet you claim these 129 pages which never led to an indictment are proof! Grow up, bozo, you are out of touch with reality.
This is not proof,
Correct. He and Hillary benefitted from donations but there is no proof
that the donations bought the pardon.
you claim the two volumes of the Mueller Report were not proof
You claim the report was proof of what, specifically?
Bubba's pardon of Marc Rich was sleazy, but not illegal. If Rump is selling pardons for personal financial gain - THAT is illegal.
self portrait?
Not me! See my signature line, you might, possibly, maybe, learn something.
Maybe you should remove this part: " Learn from the Past "
Maybe you should stop deflecting and respond to my question. Bill Clinton was a lounge lizard, that's apparent. Donald Trump is a lounge lizard, and has been accused of sexual battery by a dozen or more women, and two women - one his first wife - accused him of rape. Biden reduced the annual deficit in this last three years in office, Trump spent like a Drunk Marine. Clinton has been married for decades to the same person, trump is on his third wife.
and accused of setting up a pardon for Marc Rich, for monetary gain.
Which is what this thread is about.
BTW, has Trump been accused of cheating on Melania while in office?
Do you have any proof President Clinton accepted money for his pardon of Marc Rich?
BTW, speaking of bribes:
Cohen Describes Trump’s Involvement in Hush-Money Payments
Michael Cohen said in a television interview that President Trump was “very concerned” about how affair allegations would affect his 2016 campaign and “directed me to become involved” in hush-money payments.
" Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former personal attorney, gave his fullest public description of Mr. Trump’s involvement in two hush money deals during the 2016 campaign that the Justice Department has said were federal crimes."
Do you have any proof President Clinton accepted money for his pardon of Marc Rich?
The 129 pages from the 2001 investigation are heavily redacted. At the time of the pardon, Rich was an international fugitive who had fled to Switzerland. His ex-wife had donated to the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton Presidential Library and Hillary Clinton's New York Senate campaign, raising suspicion about the pardon. The federal investigation was closed in 2005 without charges, and Rich died in 2013.
FBI Releases Documents On Bill Clinton's Controversial 2001 Pardon Of Marc Rich : NPR
This is not proof, you claim the two volumes of the Mueller Report were not proof, and yet you claim these 129 pages which never led to an indictment are proof! Grow up, bozo, you are out of touch with reality.
This is not proof,
Correct. He and Hillary benefitted from donations but there is no proof
that the donations bought the pardon.
you claim the two volumes of the Mueller Report were not proof
You claim the report was proof of what, specifically?
Bubba's pardon of Marc Rich was sleazy, but not illegal. If Rump is selling pardons for personal financial gain - THAT is illegal.
If Rump is selling pardons for personal financial gain - THAT is illegal.
What if he sells them for contributions to the Republican National Committee, the Trump Presidential Library and Lara Trump's North Carolina Senate campaign?
DrLove
Diamond Member
self portrait?
Not me! See my signature line, you might, possibly, maybe, learn something.
Maybe you should remove this part: " Learn from the Past "
Maybe you should stop deflecting and respond to my question. Bill Clinton was a lounge lizard, that's apparent. Donald Trump is a lounge lizard, and has been accused of sexual battery by a dozen or more women, and two women - one his first wife - accused him of rape. Biden reduced the annual deficit in this last three years in office, Trump spent like a Drunk Marine. Clinton has been married for decades to the same person, trump is on his third wife.
and accused of setting up a pardon for Marc Rich, for monetary gain.
Which is what this thread is about.
BTW, has Trump been accused of cheating on Melania while in office?
Do you have any proof President Clinton accepted money for his pardon of Marc Rich?
BTW, speaking of bribes:
Cohen Describes Trump’s Involvement in Hush-Money Payments
Michael Cohen said in a television interview that President Trump was “very concerned” about how affair allegations would affect his 2016 campaign and “directed me to become involved” in hush-money payments.
" Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former personal attorney, gave his fullest public description of Mr. Trump’s involvement in two hush money deals during the 2016 campaign that the Justice Department has said were federal crimes."
Do you have any proof President Clinton accepted money for his pardon of Marc Rich?
The 129 pages from the 2001 investigation are heavily redacted. At the time of the pardon, Rich was an international fugitive who had fled to Switzerland. His ex-wife had donated to the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton Presidential Library and Hillary Clinton's New York Senate campaign, raising suspicion about the pardon. The federal investigation was closed in 2005 without charges, and Rich died in 2013.
FBI Releases Documents On Bill Clinton's Controversial 2001 Pardon Of Marc Rich : NPR
This is not proof, you claim the two volumes of the Mueller Report were not proof, and yet you claim these 129 pages which never led to an indictment are proof! Grow up, bozo, you are out of touch with reality.
This is not proof,
Correct. He and Hillary benefitted from donations but there is no proof
that the donations bought the pardon.
you claim the two volumes of the Mueller Report were not proof
You claim the report was proof of what, specifically?
Bubba's pardon of Marc Rich was sleazy, but not illegal. If Rump is selling pardons for personal financial gain - THAT is illegal.
If Rump is selling pardons for personal financial gain - THAT is illegal.
What if he sells them for contributions to the Republican National Committee, the Trump Presidential Library and Lara Trump's North Carolina Senate campaign?
The Rump Library? LoL!!
DrLove
Diamond Member
Good luck to Rump attracting money for something a QUARTER as nice!
Good luck to Rump attracting money for something a QUARTER as nice!
No kidding, Marc Rich is dead.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 83
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 131
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 65
- Views
- 2K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 44
- Replies
- 192
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 248
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 509
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 37
- Views
- 204
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8069
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-