Trump Thread

[Husar]

Won't Trump just pardon Manafort (and Cohen) and won't that take away all the "pressure to cooperate with Robert Müller"?

[rory_20_uk]

Won't Trump just pardon Manafort (and Cohen) and won't that take away all the "pressure to cooperate with Robert Müller"?

He's nothing if not self centred. Doing this might even force Congress to do something - and they're pretty much the only ones who could. It is in essence an admission they have something to share.

So better to continue to call everyone else a liar and give Congress the room to obfuscate.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Won't Trump just pardon Manafort (and Cohen) and won't that take away all the "pressure to cooperate with Robert Müller"?

Legally possible, but given current public information that would REALLY look like using the pardon to obstruct justice (because, however 'legal,' that's what it would be). That COULD get him impeached. Impeachment does not require that Trump will have committed a crime, only that he have been involved in some "misdemeanor" that clearly represents an abuse of power. Nixon was never indicted for anything.


It will be interesting to see just how direct the 'at the direction" link between Cohen's campaign illegalities and POTUS are. Obviously, there is now a publicly visible reason for further inquiry.

[Husar]

Legally possible, but given current public information that would REALLY look like using the pardon to obstruct justice (because, however 'legal,' that's what it would be). That COULD get him impeached. Impeachment does not require that Trump will have committed a crime, only that he have been involved in some "misdemeanor" that clearly represents an abuse of power. Nixon was never indicted for anything.

I'm not sure about his voters or the Republican part of congress (since these two groups just manage to turn everything around for themselves by putting "deep state", "socialism" or whatever into a sentence), but I guess if congress turns democrat during the midterms, you have a very good point.

Also appreciate the other answers, and yes, the Umlaut is there on purpose.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'm not sure about his voters or the Republican part of congress (since these two groups just manage to turn everything around for themselves by putting "deep state", "socialism" or whatever into a sentence), but I guess if congress turns democrat during the midterms, you have a very good point.

Also appreciate the other answers, and yes, the Umlaut is there on purpose.

The current mix in the HoR and Senate are not all Trump fans by any means. To date, Trump has held a significant wedge of the GOP electorate. If that erodes, or if the public opinion in the rest of society ramps up strongly against Trump, then those who are less than happy with his leadership of the party get a lot of political cover to act against him.

So far, Trump's core group has proven impervious to criticism of Trump. That may change now that there is actual evidence that cannot reasonably be spun as partisan attack.

[Husar]

So far, Trump's core group has proven impervious to criticism of Trump. That may change now that there is actual evidence that cannot reasonably be spun as partisan attack.

Well, that's assuming all the spin so far was actually reasonable...

[spmetla]

The current mix in the HoR and Senate are not all Trump fans by any means. To date, Trump has held a significant wedge of the GOP electorate. If that erodes, or if the public opinion in the rest of society ramps up strongly against Trump, then those who are less than happy with his leadership of the party get a lot of political cover to act against him.

So far, Trump's core group has proven impervious to criticism of Trump. That may change now that there is actual evidence that cannot reasonably be spun as partisan attack.

What worries me is that his significant wedge will not budge in their opinion. I'm sure you've also talked to die hard Trump supporters that don't care what the president does legally or illegally so long as he pushes MAGA, harsh immigration rules, and appears to support US manufacturing. All that don't support Trump are RINOs or 'Never Trumpers' and therefore party of the "deep state" they oppose. The tribalism of US politics at the moment certainly has made this wing of the Republicans see anyone that doesn't support their man as the lib-tard enemy.

Sadly it will take the mid-term elections to change things and as its been pointed out it is unlikely that the Democrats will take over and begin to check the President's excesses or start impeachment proceedings.

1. Accepting a pardon is tantamount to admission of guilt, and the pardoned individual may thereupon be subpoenaed to provide testimony under oath, where refusal would subject them to further criminal liability unless they can make a good case that the testimony would put the pardonee at risk of self-incrimination of crimes beyond those pardoned (5th Amendment).

It would be interesting to see that happen. In the case of Manafort I don't see how they would force him to make a testimony, he's weaseled out of admitting anything and in the case of a pardon would probably be re-hired by Trump so they can try and put him and his testimony under the blanket of executive privilege or an NDA (like in the Omarosa getting offered that re-election campaign position).

[Montmorency]

It would be interesting to see that happen. In the case of Manafort I don't see how they would force him to make a testimony, he's weaseled out of admitting anything and in the case of a pardon would probably be re-hired by Trump so they can try and put him and his testimony under the blanket of executive privilege or an NDA (like in the Omarosa getting offered that re-election campaign position).

It would very likely be an obvious contrived abusive privilege claim, and its strength would then depend on the willingness of a judge to call the admin's bluff. Not necessarily difficult, hopefully less so as time goes on.

Reporting I've seen, not bothering to look up an example, said that Trump universally uses terrible legal documentation in his private business (Exhibit A: Stormy Daniels & David Dennison) and his NDAs are all copy-pasted or something. Worst attorneys.

You can't use NDAs to shield criminal activity, certainly not to shield past crimes in the furtherance of continuing crimes. Max-tier corruption, and it just wouldn't hold up under a second's scrutiny.

More particularly - and I'm surprised you didn't know this as a public servant government mooch - NDAs are largely unconstitutional and illegal in federal government work. Classified information is a separate system, content-based and non person-based. Like many of the EULAs you see floating around: unenforceable.

[Montmorency]

It's unspeakably funny how malignant and incompetent this administration is.

Facing down a formidable enemy feels valorous. Everything related to Trump is squalid.

[Montmorency]

Won't Trump just pardon Manafort (and Cohen) and won't that take away all the "pressure to cooperate with Robert Müller"?

Not really.

1. Accepting a pardon is tantamount to admission of guilt, and the pardoned individual may thereupon be subpoenaed to provide testimony under oath, where refusal would subject them to further criminal liability unless they can make a good case that the testimony would put the pardonee at risk of self-incrimination of crimes beyond those pardoned (5th Amendment).

2. It is widely assumed that some possible charges are being held back in these cases in order to shield prosecutors' hands and, in the event of a federal pardon, permit states to prosecute equivalent charges where applicable without fear of running afoul of the double jeopardy proscription.

Umlaut

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Not really.

1. Accepting a pardon is tantamount to admission of guilt, and the pardoned individual may thereupon be subpoenaed to provide testimony under oath, where refusal would subject them to further criminal liability unless they can make a good case that the testimony would put the pardonee at risk of self-incrimination of crimes beyond those pardoned (5th Amendment).

2. It is widely assumed that some possible charges are being held back in these cases in order to shield prosecutors' hands and, in the event of a federal pardon, permit states to prosecute equivalent charges where applicable without fear of running afoul of the double jeopardy proscription.

Umlaut

These are good points. Depending on the wording/scope of the pardon, the pardonee WOULD still be subject to criminal prosecution for other crimes and/or perjury that occurred after the dates covered in the pardon. Few pardons are written in "carte blanche" wording and such a carte blanche wording would intensify the political backlash even more.