Will Trump Try to Pardon Himself, His Family Members, and Convicted Members of His Campaign/Administration

4GX

Well-known member
Fabrication of evidence and changing official documents to secure a conviction or confession is a crime and they were caught red handed...Page is first up suing for 75 million...he will get paid the evidence is clear.
It’s so clear that NO ONE (not associated with or in the tank for Drumpf) believes any such thing— please let us know when Carter Page gets the first dollar in any such claim.
 

gneiss rocks

Well-known member
Carter Page wasn't pardoned.
It was all part of Crossfire Hurricane. What they did to Flynn was worse and yes they fabricated evidence and hid or changed documents in both cases, which is why they had to drop/retract the case due to these well documented lies and improprieties. When very bad people are in charge guilt does not matter, they can just pick any crime out of a hat and convict anyone. No different than a banana republic filling up their jails with political prisoners, it is easy.
 

Happygoluckky

Well-known member
It was all part of Crossfire Hurricane. What they did to Flynn was worse and yes they fabricated evidence and hid or changed documents in both cases, which is why they had to drop/retract the case due to these well documented lies and improprieties. When very bad people are in charge guilt does not matter, they can just pick any crime out of a hat and convict anyone. No different than a banana republic filling up their jails with political prisoners, it is easy.
He did confess...twice...also a registered foreign agent of turkey.
 

4GX

Well-known member
It was all part of Crossfire Hurricane. What they did to Flynn was worse and yes they fabricated evidence and hid or changed documents in both cases, which is why they had to drop/retract the case due to these well documented lies and improprieties. When very bad people are in charge guilt does not matter, they can just pick any crime out of a hat and convict anyone. No different than a banana republic filling up their jails with political prisoners, it is easy.
You weren’t very clear in that hodge-podge you posted— but charges weren’t dropped against Flynn— he was already convicted, when he tried to welsh on his plea bargain agreement— that’s why Drumpf chose to pardon him— if not, Flynn was STILL likely headed to jail.
 

Irish60

Well-known member
It was all part of Crossfire Hurricane. What they did to Flynn was worse and yes they fabricated evidence and hid or changed documents in both cases, which is why they had to drop/retract the case due to these well documented lies and improprieties. When very bad people are in charge guilt does not matter, they can just pick any crime out of a hat and convict anyone. No different than a banana republic filling up their jails with political prisoners, it is easy.
You can parse this any way you want. But Page and Flynn are in different places. Flynn accepted the pardon; which is tantamount to an admission of guilt. He will have a difficult time seeking any damages. Page was not pardoned. It's different. It seems like facts confuse you, but try to keep pace.
 

gneiss rocks

Well-known member
You weren’t very clear in that hodge-podge you posted— but charges weren’t dropped against Flynn— he was already convicted, when he tried to welsh on his plea bargain agreement— that’s why Drumpf chose to pardon him— if not, Flynn was STILL likely headed to jail.
Yes the were dropped by the DOJ after a 3 judge panel found the FBI not only had no reason to investigate but in their own hidden Transcripts said the FBI did not believe Flynn was lying but still pursued a conviction on lying...which yes after they destroyed him financially, then threatened to do his son if he did not plead guilty. So yes it was they found no probably cause, entrapment and strong arming a plea. Thus the DROPPING of his case.
 

4GX

Well-known member
Yes the were dropped by the DOJ after a 3 judge panel found the FBI not only had no reason to investigate but in their own hidden Transcripts said the FBI did not believe Flynn was lying but still pursued a conviction on lying...which yes after they destroyed him financially, then threatened to do his son if he did not plead guilty. So yes it was they found no probably cause, entrapment and strong arming a plea. Thus the DROPPING of his case.
No, the case was NOT dropped— it went through to a conviction— you can’t drop a case, after a conviction— which is why the judge refused to allow Drumpf’s DoJ to TRY to drop the charges, at that point. At this point, if the charges (really, the CONVICTION) had been dropped, there would have been NO REASON for Drumpf to pardon Flynn— but Flynn was likely going to jail on his conviction — for the charges that were NOT DROPPED, before he pled guilty.. it’s really not that complicated— it’s like saying that someone had an abortion who was not pregnant— if Flynn wasn’t already convicted of the charges (that were NOT DROPPED), then there would have been no reason for Drumpf to pardon him.
 

gneiss rocks

Well-known member
No, the case was NOT dropped— it went through to a conviction— you can’t drop a case, after a conviction— which is why the judge refused to allow Drumpf’s DoJ to TRY to drop the charges, at that point. At this point, if the charges (really, the CONVICTION) had been dropped, there would have been NO REASON for Drumpf to pardon Flynn— but Flynn was likely going to jail on his conviction — for the charges that were NOT DROPPED, before he pled guilty.. it’s really not that complicated— it’s like saying that someone had an abortion who was not pregnant— if Flynn wasn’t already convicted of the charges (that were NOT DROPPED), then there would have been no reason for Drumpf to pardon him.
The DOJ dropped and Sullivan went rouge for political reasons, breaking all judiciary rules and precedents. You will not find this in another case, judges are not prosecutors and juries, there was no way Flynn could get anything under our laws ...the fruit of a poisonous tree.
 

4GX

Well-known member
The DOJ dropped and Sullivan went rouge for political reasons, breaking all judiciary rules and precedents. You will not find this in another case...the fruit of a poisonous tree.
There is nothing “rouge” [sic] about what Sullivan did— that practice of appointing an outside judge to evaluate the decision by the plaintiff (the DoJ) in this case to TRY to drop the charges has been used numerous other times— that’s why it was clearly defined— Sullivan followed precedent when he did it— the only people who think Sullivan “went rouge” [sic] are Drumpf supporters who don’t know the law and thus don’t know what they are talking about.

The bottom line is that the charges were NEVER dropped— it was TOO LATE for that— Flynn was ALREADY CONVICTED of a felony— by dint of his own choice to plea bargain— you can’t DROP a charge that has already been litigated through to a verdict (in this case, a guilty verdict).
 

gneiss rocks

Well-known member
There is nothing “rouge” [sic] about what Sullivan did— that practice of appointing an outside judge to evaluate the decision by the plaintiff (the DoJ) in this case to TRY to drop the charges has been used numerous other times— that’s why it was clearly defined— Sullivan followed precedent when he did it— the only people who think Sullivan “went rouge” [sic] are Drumpf supporters who don’t know the law and thus don’t know what they are talking about.

The bottom line is that the charges were NEVER dropped— it was TOO LATE for that— Flynn was ALREADY CONVICTED of a felony— by dint of his own choice to plea bargain— you can’t DROP a charge that has already been litigated through to a verdict (in this case, a guilty verdict).
Google it dummy. You will find hundreds of stories Flynn charges Dropped from both the 3 judge panel and the DOJ...and it happens all the Time when new evidence is found after a conviction or guilty plea. DNA evidence, charges dropped after conviction...think and research a bit, you sound silly.
 

4GX

Well-known member
Google it dummy. You will find hundreds of stories Flynn charges Dropped from both the 3 judge panel and the DOJ...and it happens all the Time when new evidence is found after a conviction or guilty plea. DNA evidence, charges dropped after conviction...think and research a bit, you sound silly.
Sounding silly is your main activity on this forum (the guy who can’t spell “rogue”— and instead turns it into a women’s makeup product)-- the charges were not dropped— regardless of what ANY silly news media source you choose to cite may say— you can’t drop the charges AFTER a conviction, without the acquiescence of the judge on the case— and this judge did NOT agree to dropping the charges. When new evidence emerges, after a conviction, the prosecution STILL has to go to the judge and REQUEST that the charges be dropped— it is NOT a unilateral decision by the prosecution AT THAT POINT! If the judge does not agree, then the conviction stands.

But the ultimate silliness is that you can’t understand that, if Flynn were not convicted of a felony (which can’t happen in the first place, if the charges were DROPPED)— and facing a jail sentence, then there would be NO NEED for Drumpf to pardon him.
 

Gh0st

Well-known member
There have been numerous rumors about whether Trump plans to issue full presidential pardons for the (many) members of his campaign and "administration" that have been convicted of crimes (e.g.- Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Gen. Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos) or are currently under indictment (e.g.-Steve Bannon); there are also numerous rumors (some originating from Trump himself) that he has plans to pardon himself and/or various members of his family and inner circle (e.g.- Ivan-Ka, Donny Junior, and Eric Trump, Jared Kushner, Allen Weisselberg [CFO of the Trump Organization]) preemptively, to prevent federal prosecution for various alleged crimes (i.e.- tax evasion, obstruction of justice in the Mueller investigation, collaboration with a foreign power in the 2016 campaign, violations of the federal emoluments clause, etc., etc.)...

However, recent debate has centered on whether Trump might (instead) step down before his official term ends, elevating Mike Pence to President-- with the understanding that Pence would then issue presidential pardons to Trump and/or his family/inner circle. I see this as unlikely (at least for Trump's family members/associates)--as Trump, in my view, would be unlikely to want to leave his and/or his family members fate in the hands of someone else. I think it would be more likely that Trump issues pardons for all of his family and associates-- and then leaves ONLY his own pardon in the hands of Pence-- a` la the Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford "arrangement" that took place in 1974...

However, even this seems less likely, to me, than Trump simply trying to issue pardons for himself and all of his family and inner circle-- he does not strike me as somebody who would ever want to leave his fate in somebody else's hands, if he does not have to-- and he has made it clear that he thinks he DOES have the power to pardon himself-- as Trump famously said (about Nixon): "He left; I don't leave."
Why would Trump need to pardon himself over an impeachment that didn't lead to conviction?

1. He can't. Impeachment is exempt from Presidential pardon. In the Nixon case, Congress dropped the impeachment proceedings after his resignation. Presidential pardon can't bail you out of impeachment and conviction. Had they pursued an impeachment hearing, they could have impeached and convicted Nixon and there's nothing Ford could've done about it. Trump's impeachment just flat out failed and some still can't get over it. Pretty much the only limitation on Presidential pardon is that it can't stop impeachment of an elected official, can't overturn/pardon a conviction resulting from impeachment, and must be a Federal crime.

2. No President in history has attempted to pardon themselves. Probably wouldn't survive in court. This is just hyperbolic on you're part.

3. It wouldn't leave his pardon in the hands of Pence, it would be in the hands of Joe Biden. Unless you're implicating Biden in this conspiracy you've imagined, then not going to happen.
 

ByeDon

Active member
Why would Trump need to pardon himself over an impeachment that didn't lead to conviction?

1. He can't. Impeachment is exempt from Presidential pardon. In the Nixon case, Congress dropped the impeachment proceedings after his resignation. Presidential pardon can't bail you out of impeachment and conviction. Had they pursued an impeachment hearing, they could have impeached and convicted Nixon and there's nothing Ford could've done about it. Trump's impeachment just flat out failed and some still can't get over it. Pretty much the only limitation on Presidential pardon is that it can't stop impeachment of an elected official, can't overturn/pardon a conviction resulting from impeachment, and must be a Federal crime.

2. No President in history has attempted to pardon themselves. Probably wouldn't survive in court. This is just hyperbolic on you're part.

3. It wouldn't leave his pardon in the hands of Pence, it would be in the hands of Joe Biden. Unless you're implicating Biden in this conspiracy you've imagined, then not going to happen.
Trump is perhaps the most innocent man anywhere in the history of the United States.
 

4GX

Well-known member
Why would Trump need to pardon himself over an impeachment that didn't lead to conviction?

1. He can't. Impeachment is exempt from Presidential pardon. In the Nixon case, Congress dropped the impeachment proceedings after his resignation. Presidential pardon can't bail you out of impeachment and conviction. Had they pursued an impeachment hearing, they could have impeached and convicted Nixon and there's nothing Ford could've done about it. Trump's impeachment just flat out failed and some still can't get over it. Pretty much the only limitation on Presidential pardon is that it can't stop impeachment of an elected official, can't overturn/pardon a conviction resulting from impeachment, and must be a Federal crime.

2. No President in history has attempted to pardon themselves. Probably wouldn't survive in court. This is just hyperbolic on you're part.

3. It wouldn't leave his pardon in the hands of Pence, it would be in the hands of Joe Biden. Unless you're implicating Biden in this conspiracy you've imagined, then not going to happen.
Virtually NOTHING you wrote above is accurate:
1) Yes, Drumpf does not NEED to (TRY to) “pardon himself over an impeachment”— but that’s because impeachment does not result in criminal charges— it results in removal from the office-- if the Senate votes to convict on the impeachment charge(s). Of COURSE Drumpf does NOT have the right to pardon himself from impeachment—if he did, then the entire impeachment process would be pointless.

2) NO ONE ever said that Drumpf could “pardon himself over an impeachment”— what was pointed out is that Drumpf MIGHT try to pardon himself (in advance) from multiple potential FEDERAL criminal charges that he might face (after he leaves office, most likely, since the current DoJ has chosen to follow a new premise, that a sitting President can NOT be prosecuted while in office, for almost anything). Presidential pardons are only applicable against FEDERAL criminal charges— not Impeachment charges, nor STATE criminal charges— THAT, more than any other reason, is why Drumpf did NOT try to “pardon himself over an impeachment”— if presidential pardons WERE effective at cancelling an impeachment, you can BET that Drumpf WOULD have pardoned himself from impeachment.

3) Your comment about Nixon and Ford completely misrepresents (and indicates broad misunderstanding about) the Watergate situation that led to Nixon’s resignation: Nixon resigned, BEFORE he could be impeached— at that point, impeachment no longer had any effect on Nixon— yes, Congress could no longer impeach Nixon—because he was no longer in office— NOT because Ford pardoned Nixon! Ford’s pardon ensured that there would NOT be a federal investigation, charges, and a (possible) conviction of Nixon (AFTER Nixon resigned) for authorizing the Watergate burglary of Democratic Party headquarters— Ford’s pardon had NOTHING to do with Nixon not being impeached.

4) Your comment that “no President in history has attempted to pardon themselves“— and thus that my comment is “hyperbolic”— ignores all the facts of this matter: Drumpf has OPENLY discussed that he COULD pardon himself (and stated that HE believes that he DOES have the power to do that— because [he says that] his legal advisors have told him that he DOES have the power to do that); moreover, legal scholars have been openly discussing this sad (and HOPEFULLY, unlikely) possibility—and they are divided on A) Whether Drumpf CAN, in fact, pardon himself-- and B) Whether such a pardon would hold up if contested in court. I WISH that you were correct, and that there was NO such possibility of Drumpf TRYING to pardon himself— and, then, even if he did, I WISH that there is/was NO possibility of such a pardon being upheld in court— but, unfortunately, it IS possible— which is one of the REASONS that I posted this thread in the first place.
 

4GX

Well-known member
Pretty useless post.

You don't like him, therefore he must be guilty of something. You don't like him so he'll make an unprecedented move and pardon himself from the things he most certainly must be guilty of.

Thanks for sharing.
Talk about useless posts— we’d start with your earlier one in this thread.
 

OldSoulon

Well-known member
Trump is the most corrupt president ever. A walking counter intelligence risk.

He's got nothing on Brennan, former head of the CIA, who is an Iranian apologist, and cried when the key scientist
helping Iran create a nuke to destroy Israel, was blown away.
 

Gh0st

Well-known member
1) Yes, Drumpf does not NEED to (TRY to) “pardon himself over an impeachment”— but that’s because impeachment does not result in criminal charges— it results in removal from the office-- if the Senate votes to convict on the impeachment charge(s). Of COURSE Drumpf does NOT have the right to pardon himself from impeachment—if he did, then the entire impeachment process would be pointless.
Conviction through impeachment hold the same weight as indictment by Grand Jury. Congress is limited in that it can only impose the sentence of removal from office and disqualification of holding future office. Yes, it does result in conviction of criminal charges just as if you were indicted by Grand Jury and found guilty in a court of law. The only difference is sentencing options. So, you're wrong.

2) NO ONE ever said that Drumpf could “pardon himself over an impeachment”— what was pointed out is that Drumpf MIGHT try to pardon himself (in advance) from multiple potential FEDERAL criminal charges that he might face (after he leaves office, most likely, since the current DoJ has chosen to follow a new premise, that a sitting President can NOT be prosecuted while in office, for almost anything). Presidential pardons are only applicable against FEDERAL criminal charges— not Impeachment charges, nor STATE criminal charges— THAT, more than any other reason, is why Drumpf did NOT try to “pardon himself over an impeachment”— if presidential pardons WERE effective at cancelling an impeachment, you can BET that Drumpf WOULD have pardoned himself from impeachment.
Obstruction of justice, or in this case, Congress, was one of the articles of impeachment levied against Trump. You specifically mentioned obstruction of justice in your tirade where you imagined all the things Donald Trump could be convicted of and pardoned himself from so I assumed you were talking about the instance where he already faced this charge. He also didn't need to pardon himself from impeachment because there was no conviction. I know where Presidential pardons apply because I'm the one that explained it to you. The rest of this just goes back on your TDS.

3) Your comment about Nixon and Ford completely misrepresents (and indicates broad misunderstanding about) the Watergate situation that led to Nixon’s resignation: Nixon resigned, BEFORE he could be impeached— at that point, impeachment no longer had any effect on Nixon— yes, Congress could no longer impeach Nixon—because he was no longer in office— NOT because Ford pardoned Nixon! Ford’s pardon ensured that there would NOT be a federal investigation, charges, and a (possible) conviction of Nixon (AFTER Nixon resigned) for authorizing the Watergate burglary of Democratic Party headquarters— Ford’s pardon had NOTHING to do with Nixon not being impeached.
I realize that Ford's pardon had nothing to do with Nixon not being impeached and never said that it did. I said that if Congress had convicted Nixon, there's nothing Ford could do about it which is 100% true. He resigned his Federal office that impeachment would have removed him from. He was still open to multiple state and federal charges as a result of the impeachment hearings and evidence that came from them. Ford pardoned him so federal cases were out, but impeachment had nothing to do with state cases that could have been brought.

Your comment that “no President in history has attempted to pardon themselves“— and thus that my comment is “hyperbolic”— ignores all the facts of this matter: Drumpf has OPENLY discussed that he COULD pardon himself (and stated that HE believes that he DOES have the power to do that— because [he says that] his legal advisors have told him that he DOES have the power to do that); moreover, legal scholars have been openly discussing this sad (and HOPEFULLY, unlikely) possibility—and they are divided on A) Whether Drumpf CAN, in fact, pardon himself-- and B) Whether such a pardon would hold up if contested in court. I WISH that you were correct, and that there was NO such possibility of Drumpf TRYING to pardon himself— and, then, even if he did, I WISH that there is/was NO possibility of such a pardon being upheld in court— but, unfortunately, it IS possible— which is one of the REASONS that I posted this thread in the first place
I guess you just don't understand the difference between a precedent and a law. I never said there was any legal barrier to Trump pardoning himself. It's completely unaddressed in the Constitution and has never come up. If it were done, it would almost certainly be challenged in the Supreme Court. Trump isn't wrong. He does have the power as pardon powers are written to pardon himself. Until this gets challenged in court, every President has that power. The fact that you firmly believe that he will do something no President in history has even attempted, is hyperbolic.

Talk about useless posts— we’d start with your earlier one in this thread.
I don't spend a lot of time on this waste of space of a debate forum anymore, so I'm pretty much done arguing with someone that comprehended less than 5% of that earlier post.
 

ByeDon

Active member
Conviction through impeachment hold the same weight as indictment by Grand Jury. Congress is limited in that it can only impose the sentence of removal from office and disqualification of holding future office. Yes, it does result in conviction of criminal charges just as if you were indicted by Grand Jury and found guilty in a court of law. The only difference is sentencing options. So, you're wrong.



Obstruction of justice, or in this case, Congress, was one of the articles of impeachment levied against Trump. You specifically mentioned obstruction of justice in your tirade where you imagined all the things Donald Trump could be convicted of and pardoned himself from so I assumed you were talking about the instance where he already faced this charge. He also didn't need to pardon himself from impeachment because there was no conviction. I know where Presidential pardons apply because I'm the one that explained it to you. The rest of this just goes back on your TDS.



I realize that Ford's pardon had nothing to do with Nixon not being impeached and never said that it did. I said that if Congress had convicted Nixon, there's nothing Ford could do about it which is 100% true. He resigned his Federal office that impeachment would have removed him from. He was still open to multiple state and federal charges as a result of the impeachment hearings and evidence that came from them. Ford pardoned him so federal cases were out, but impeachment had nothing to do with state cases that could have been brought.



I guess you just don't understand the difference between a precedent and a law. I never said there was any legal barrier to Trump pardoning himself. It's completely unaddressed in the Constitution and has never come up. If it were done, it would almost certainly be challenged in the Supreme Court. Trump isn't wrong. He does have the power as pardon powers are written to pardon himself. Until this gets challenged in court, every President has that power. The fact that you firmly believe that he will do something no President in history has even attempted, is hyperbolic.



I don't spend a lot of time on this waste of space of a debate forum anymore, so I'm pretty much done arguing with someone that comprehended less than 5% of that earlier post.
There has been no President in the history of our Country who has been treated so badly...This should never be allowed to happen to another President. Witch Hunt!
 

Tesoro

Well-known member
Hopefully Trump slips quietly into the night. No criminal trials. The nation needs to heal and move on from the last four years.

It is interesting from all of you law and order guys that you have no issue with pardons.
I think the only pardon I ever had a problem with was when Obama pardoned those five terrorist and threw in a pardon for an army deserter ta boot.
 

SWMCinci

Well-known member
Clever YAP . I see what you’re doing here lol. A couple questions . When did these federal crimes occur ? What was the crime ? And why haven’t they been dealt with already ? Why did they get a pass the last few years if they occurred a while back ?
Lastly you need to be pardoned of something . What would he be pardoning them from ?
Every question you just asked is applicable to Trump.
The investigations are searching for a crime, they are not searching for evidence of one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SWMCinci

Well-known member
Obama/Biden adm., 0 indictments, 8 years.
Trump adm. 212 indictments, 4 years.
Nuff said.
.......
Not really, Obama's DOJ tended to ignore actual crimes - Lois Lerner, Eric Holder, GSA, Solyndra, VA, etc. It's easy to be scandal-free if you just ignore scandals.
 

Happygoluckky

Well-known member
The pivot from Hunter Bidens laptop (which has turned out to be a nothingburger) to pardons for the trump children and inner circle covering broad based yet to be disclosed crimes.

Hilarious.
 
.
Top