Pages

Thursday, June 8, 2017

Thought of the day...

President Trump would be well within his constitutional rights to provide General Flynn and everyone else under investigation a Presidential Pardon... which would, in effect, shut down any criminal probe.

The President has the power to stop any investigation.
It's called a Pardon
Would anyone try to demand that such a move would constitute Obstruction of Justice?

Perhaps that would have been the better move with Flynn. Rather than make his case to the FBI director that he felt Flynn was a good guy who hadn't done anything wrong, and had been through enough, he could have given that speech to the American public while announcing a Presidential Pardon. It might have been unusual and perhaps not very politically popular... but it would be hard to consider it illegal.

It could be argued that the President was not only in his rights to ask Comey to lay off Flynn, but that he was actually showing restraint in wielding his Presidential power by not just offering a Pardon.

33 comments:

james said...

Talk about twisted logic. Sounds as if Ch is as afraid of that Russian "cloud" as Trump is.

wphamilton said...

Issuing a pardon to everyone under investigation would not be obstruction of justice. It would be a terrible move because it would multiply inquiries into what Trump's conduct was that led him to that point. If it was done for corrupt purposes, then it could become any of several things including abuse of power. It is not restraint that has kept Trump from trying that.

It does bring up a related question, which is kind of interesting. Can you recall any legitimate examples of Trump showing restraint, about anything?

opie said...

President Trump would be well within his constitutional rights to provide General Flynn and everyone else under investigation a Presidential Pardon.

Maybe he can wave his magic tweet and pre pardon himself......LOL!!!! Amazingly humorous thread!!!!

james said...

LOL

Wp says "Can you recall any legitimate examples of Trump showing restraint, about anything?"
_____________
Well, he does keep backing down on some of his most ridiculous campaign promises.

Loretta said...

"but it would be hard to consider it illegal."

If Olinsky can pardon CONVICTED traitors....

wphamilton said...

Is Trump backing down from ridiculous promises due to restraint, or is he forced to because he would lose?

james said...

Even so, that's a form of restraint.

Meanwhile:
For discussion----
Fox host to Trump: "‘Fake news media’ isn’t the issue, it’s you."

james said...

“This is not how a President of the United States behaves.”
— Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), quoted by Axios, in his opening statement before former FBI Director James Comey testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

I guess the GOP will want to say, Yes, it is.

Loretta said...

"Is Trump backing down from ridiculous promises due to restraint, or is he forced to because he would lose?"

Lose to whom?

He's systematically dismantling Olinsky's pen and phone legacy....

So far, so good.

Loretta said...

Spam

Loretta said...

Spam

C.H. Truth said...

WP - I think the larger point here (which is a variation of a point made by Dershowitz) is that the constitution provides the President with the powers to provide Pardons (and thus shut down any criminal probe).

- Ford pardoned Nixon. Could that pardon have prevented information to come out that could have incriminated Ford in any way regarding Watergate?
- Bush pardoned Weinsberger. Could that pardon have prevented information to come out that could have incriminated Bush?

Dershowitz has also provided historical examples of Presidents directing the Justice Department to investigate (or not investigate) or prosecute (or not prosecute) specific people (or specific groups of people).

He argues that the Comey idea of an independent DOJ or FBI is actually not rooted anywhere in the Constitution (it's more how they would like to see it). He also argues that by all legal reasoning, they all answer to the President, who has authority to use his or her prosecutorial discretion (as is backed up by historical examples).

But my question to you, WP... can you provide any historical examples of any President being seriously accused of "abuse of power" for using a Pardon? It seems like that argument is little more than grasping at straws.

james said...

Ford sank himself with his pardon of Nixon. That was considered an abuse of power by the voters.

Loretta said...

No it wasn't.

James said...

Read my lips. It was CONSIDERED that.

James said...

Well, Ch, let's just let Trump go on a rampage and pardon everyone in sight and see how that plays out politically.

Grasping at straws?

C.H. Truth said...

James - no question that Ford paid a political price for exercising his authority.

But it seems like today, potentially paying a political price for exercising Presidential authority is not enough. You have a bunch of liberals barking at the moon, trying to turn their dislike for Trump's political actions into something criminal.

James said...

Well, we have an investigation going on that Trump tried to shut down, so let's just see how that goes.

wphamilton said...

But my question to you, WP... can you provide any historical examples of any President being seriously accused of "abuse of power" for using a Pardon?

Not for a pardon - the President has plenary power in that respect. In fact that's the only example of that kind of power wielded by the President, as far as I know. The President cannot be charged with abuse of power, or anything else, from a pardon. Accused of it, sure. Charged, not a chance.

But you've curved around the point. It's not the pardon that's dangerous, it's why the pardon. Clinton got awfully close to that line with his pardon of Marc Rich. I am convinced that it would have been trouble if he'd pardoned Rich during his impeachment investigation, opening avenues of inquiry. No one would question that Clinton could pardon Rich, but everyone would want to know why. Something would come up, that Clinton would rather remain hidden.

If Trump started issuing pardons, it would intensify investigations not stop them. A pardon does not prevent the FBI from questioning someone, but it would remove his 5th Amendment option of declining to answer. That's likely not ideal for Trump.

Loretta said...

Ford received the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award for his pardon of Nixon.

Courageous moments are rewarded.

Loretta said...

It's starting.

Merry Comeymas!

opie said...

Going to be an interesting day. Comey just said the liar in chief lied about the FBI being in disarray and that he was a failed leader. Good start for anti trumpites. Yes it is opinion, but comey brought a gun to the knife fight.

C.H. Truth said...

If Trump started issuing pardons, it would intensify investigations not stop them. A pardon does not prevent the FBI from questioning someone, but it would remove his 5th Amendment option of declining to answer. That's likely not ideal for Trump.

You still assume that there really is a criminal action here. Let's assume that what we know right now is really all there is. Some smoke, but no fire. Let's assume (what we really should assume) that there was no criminal collusion between Trump's team and the Russians.

We know Flynn's investigation at this point is a one off. His ties are to Turkey, not Russia. Any criminal issues are likely more associated with paperwork disclosure issues than actual criminal actions in Turkey.

Other than Flynn not wanting to talk to Congress, everyone else has been more than willing to testify. Nobody else has threatened to use their 5th amendment rights.

I simply don't buy the idea that it would "intensify" anything.... largely because I simply don't see criminal collusion allegations to be anything more than an elaborate conspiracy theory.

You can't find what is not there.



Loretta said...

Nobody asked me to stop the Russian probe.

Oh.

opie said...

Just said he was fired because of the Russia investigation, that's what the POTUS said. .......WOW! That is going to make trump madder than he is.

wphamilton said...

Flynn had dealings with Russia as well. It remains to be seen what turns up there, and whether something is uncovered that can be prosecuted. It is a lot of smoke, and at the very least smoldering embers.

This isn't a case of finding what's not there. We already know that something is there, and the evidence is mounting. The question is how deep is it.

rrb said...


Lose to whom?

He's systematically dismantling Olinsky's pen and phone legacy....

So far, so good.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

that's what i was wondering. lose to whom? he cleaned hillary's clock, he's frustrated the media on a daily basis... i'm not sure who he is supposed to lose to.

opie said...

The question is how deep is it.

Reminds me of the old.....BS, MS, PhD.....bullshit, moreshit, Piled high and Deep. Comey is a pretty cool character.....!!!

opie said...

he cleaned hillary's clock

LOL... I guess having 3 million less votes is a massive win in upstate NY. LOL

C.H. Truth said...

This isn't a case of finding what's not there. We already know that something is there, and the evidence is mounting.

If you say so...

Loretta said...

"i'm not sure who he is supposed to lose to."

Thought I was missing something, LOL.

rrb said...

We already know that something is there, and the evidence is mounting.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

wp, i'm left to assume that you must be privy to non-public information. the only things i see mounting are bullshit and democrat despair.

behold the power of the clinton crime family. what started out as a lame excuse for getting waxed in the election has now become a full-blown investigation.

amazing.

wphamilton said...

I wish I could be so sanguine that it is all bs, and I could go back to expecting Trump to just act like an idiot. But Flynn a paid agent of a foreign power, covertly discussing erasing sanctions and military strategies with the Russians, and then Kushner with his covert discussions with Russian agents, and the Kremlin bankers ... and more where that came from ... I don't see much chance of this turning out to be merely another of the Clintons' lame excuses.