CDZ Mueller investigation. How will it pan out ?

[Lucy Hamilton]

"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.

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 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.

I only know this because a few days ago I was emailing with an American friend in Texas who is a lawyer and also he voted for Trump and supports Trump and I say that The Donald could Pardon Manafort and he say he would not recommend that The Donald did that and I ask why and he told me because then Manafort would forfeit his right to the Fifth Amendment.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

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.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

Oh yes, any day now, any day now.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

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.

 

[forkup]

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.

The mandate had a clear second paragraph.(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.
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?

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.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

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.

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.

 

[task0778]

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.

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.

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.

 

[forkup]

"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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[forkup]

"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.

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.

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.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

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.

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.

Many do business with Russians and also Chinese, so are all those to also be investigated or not? Look at the Dianne Feinstein woman her ASSISTANT was a Chinese spy for TWENTY YEARS, she of course says she did not know, she was or still is on the Senate Committee that is charged with Top Secret Information, the Chinese for decades since at least Bill Clinton have been stealing Top Secret American Information, Feinstein said she did not know her assistant was a Chinese spy for twenty years, where is that Investigation? They have no Investigation.

What HOLD do the Chinese have on x amount of Democrats? What about The Clinton Foundation? Why no Investigation? If you have an Investigation why not Investigate ALL of them, how many American Senators are on some payroll or being blackmailed by Chinese, Russians, Saudi's, Israel etc

Who has OWNED the American Government and it's politicians for DECADES? Not Russia I tell you.

 

[task0778]

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.

 

[task0778]

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.

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.

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.

"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.

 

[forkup]

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.

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.

"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.

 

[task0778]

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.

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.

"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.

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.

 

[forkup]

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.

"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.

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.

-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.

 

[task0778]

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.

 

[forkup]

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?

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.

But so far, nothing has been presented that leads me to believe he committed an illegal act regarding that election.

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.

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

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.

 

[forkup]

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.

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.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

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.

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.

 

[rightwinger]

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