Remembering TCPaul, 2016-2019

when you see Donny Jr leave the country "on vacation" you know he got advance warning

"Donald Trump Jr. Will Be Indicted By Mueller, Former Prosec backfromthedead02/02/19
Trump will go off the rails if Donnie Jr is indicted Donny trijocker02/02/19
Trump is ALREADY "off the rails" and has been for most of hi catwoman33302/02/19
And Trump will just pardon him. He'll then give a statement thirdtierlaw02/03/19
anybody with a brain knows that mob bosses always use their backfromthedead02/03/19
ok. Do you disagree with how I said it was going to play out thirdtierlaw02/03/19
depends on how Congressional Repubs react to Mueller's final backfromthedead02/03/19
Let's try it and find out? Really, it would be beautiful eve frida202/03/19
Just so I'm clear, I have no problem with his kids being ind thirdtierlaw02/03/19
"Cooper: Make-believe isn't OK when you are president" ever backfromthedead02/03/19
sure, I've lost cases where all the state had was circumstan thirdtierlaw02/03/19
you can't have collusion without conspiracy, how many people backfromthedead02/03/19
Well, I agree with you; even if Donny gets indicted, he gets toooldtocare02/03/19
how about this angle -- a president can't pardon a material backfromthedead02/03/19
Of course Trump would take that gamble. Why would the SCOTUS thirdtierlaw02/03/19
Yeah, why wouldn't Trump "gamble"? I'm no constitutional sc toooldtocare02/03/19
then a presidential pardon under no circumstance can be an o backfromthedead02/03/19
Well, no argument with concept, but again can't agree. Ford toooldtocare02/03/19
I understand what you're getting at, but isn't any pardon a thirdtierlaw02/03/19
Trump has repeatedly gone on record as saying the law is too backfromthedead02/03/19
What is your point? A person who is notorious for saying stu thirdtierlaw02/03/19
point is we have a lunatic for president and that lunatic ha backfromthedead02/03/19
"Trump Won’t Commit to Making Mueller Report Public" call backfromthedead02/03/19
Hopefully we can have a constitutional amendment to limit th frida202/03/19
When was Trump ever ON the rails? employmentlawyer02/04/19



backfromthedead (Feb 2, 2019 - 6:04 pm)

"Donald Trump Jr. Will Be Indicted By Mueller, Former Prosecutor Says, And Will Help To Ensnare His Father"
"not fair not fair witch hunt" will be the tweet we'll see from Trump when it happens
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-jr-will-be-indicted-mueller-former-prosecutor-says-and-will-help-1315865

Reply
trijocker (Feb 2, 2019 - 6:44 pm)

Trump will go off the rails if Donnie Jr is indicted
Donny can just hop the Trump jet with his gf/attorney Kim Guilfoyle.
Donny has already told others he expects to be indicted.
The sweethearts can continue to run the Trump org from some nation with no extradition treaty.

Reply
catwoman333 (Feb 2, 2019 - 9:09 pm)

Trump is ALREADY "off the rails" and has been for most of his life.

Reply
thirdtierlaw (Feb 3, 2019 - 8:53 am)

And Trump will just pardon him. He'll then give a statement saying, "Family first, politically I'd let this run its course and prove this is just a witch hunt, but I refuse to use my son as a political chess piece like the dems are willing to do. This is why I'm trying so hard to drain the swamp. So of course I pardoned him." His base will cheer him on louder than ever, the dems will continue to call him shady, unethical, and claim this proves everything, and nothing will change.

Reply
backfromthedead (Feb 3, 2019 - 10:36 am)

anybody with a brain knows that mob bosses always use their son as the "information bagman" so to speak to insulate / separate themselves from anyone knowing they had "direct knowledge / contact" of / with stuff that can take them down -- the son is the only one the mob boss can trust to stay "loyal", a quality that Trump has gone on record time and time again saying that he values above all (i.e, Comey), to Trump "loyalty" signifies dying on your sword or taking a bullet to protect Trump --

his father, Fred Trump, built a real estate empire at the same time the various mobs in NYC were growing and strengthening their grip / power on anything a dollar was attached to, i.e. business and politics, so Fred Trump prospered at the same time the various mobs in the NYC area prospered and that could only have happened if Fred Trump was in the mob's pocket or really if the mob was in Fred Trump's pocket, it was a mutually beneficial relationship, in return for millions in kick backs, Fred Trump got protection and got uber rich, the 45th president of the United States grew up in that environment and when he assumed power in his father's real estate empire in the 70s he knew full well about the symbiotic relationship between his father's business and the various mobs that expected respect, loyalty and payoffs, Trump was comfortable playing that game and the Trump family grew richer -- Trump learned about power and how to hold on to power from his father and the various mob families

Reply
thirdtierlaw (Feb 3, 2019 - 10:47 am)

ok. Do you disagree with how I said it was going to play out? Trump's family being indicted won't change anything

Reply
backfromthedead (Feb 3, 2019 - 11:03 am)

depends on how Congressional Repubs react to Mueller's final report, Nixon's support was rock solid until it wasn't -- Mueller grew up as an FBI agent taking down mob bosses and their organizations, he's the only man in America that could have taken on Trump -- Trump figured that out too late



Reply
frida2 (Feb 3, 2019 - 11:07 am)

Let's try it and find out? Really, it would be beautiful even if a pardon came. Mueller's indictments tend to be colorful and include more information than they strictly need to. It would be great to have the info out even if there was a pardon. Plus, then there is no 5th amendment protection, and he could be held in contempt for refusing to testify.

Reply
thirdtierlaw (Feb 3, 2019 - 11:19 am)

Just so I'm clear, I have no problem with his kids being indicted. I'm just saying nothing will come from it. Yes, he would no longer have a 5th amendment protection, but it's amazing how "fuzzy" people's memories can get while testifying.

Sure I don't deal with these issues on a national stage, but I see this play out in Federal and state court all the time. Where amazingly a person who was able to successful run a large scale drug trafficking operation can barely remember how to spell his name much less the specifics of the operation and how he knows certain people.

Reply
backfromthedead (Feb 3, 2019 - 12:03 pm)

"Cooper: Make-believe isn't OK when you are president"
ever get a conviction where the circumstantial evidence proved too damning? especially when the perp has gone on public record time and time again as a pathological liar
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/02/02/trump-building-wall-emergency-cooper-kth-ac360-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/this-week-in-politics/

Reply
thirdtierlaw (Feb 3, 2019 - 12:09 pm)

sure, I've lost cases where all the state had was circumstantial evidence. But it doesnt matter if Jr.'s memory is fuzzy or not, if they want a conspiracy charge they don't need Jr.'s help because most of the evidence against Jr. would be admissible against trump as well.

Reply
backfromthedead (Feb 3, 2019 - 12:25 pm)

you can't have collusion without conspiracy, how many people does it take to show conspiracy? -- remember the old joke about how many people does it take to screw in a light bulb? one to hold the bulb and another to turn the ladder around, that's the stupidity of all the people surrounding Trump during the 2016 campaign / wanting to ingratiate themselves with Trump (a lifelong thing with Donny Jr cause daddy thought he was stupid) -- they all thought Hillary WAS going to win and they thought grasping at straws could pull it off for Trump, ANYTHING and the Russians realized that way long before anybody caught wind of what was going on and PLAYED everybody and and anybody they COULD on multi-level fronts -- AMERICA GOT SUCKERED and as a result we got Trumpacola and Mueller got himself THE investigation of his career / life

Reply
toooldtocare (Feb 3, 2019 - 12:42 pm)

Well, I agree with you; even if Donny gets indicted, he gets pardoned by the Donald, and predictably his base will cheer and the democrats will fume. And as others have pointed out, there is zero-Congress, the democrats, the courts-anyone can do about the pardon(short of indicting him in state court).

Reply
backfromthedead (Feb 3, 2019 - 1:15 pm)

how about this angle -- a president can't pardon a material witness in an active and ongoing investigation in which the president is under investigation, maybe precedent could be set that a president's power to pardon is not indefatigable, course it would take a SCOTUS ruling -- would Trump take that gamble? would SCOTUS put their sacred rep on the line or would they decline to take the case letting a lower court ruling stand or would this go straight to SCOTUS bypassing all lower courts?

Reply
thirdtierlaw (Feb 3, 2019 - 1:34 pm)

Of course Trump would take that gamble. Why would the SCOTUS take that case? The lower court would throw it out almost immediately. There is no basis for that rule, other than you just want that rule to be in place.

You're asking the SCOTUS to completely make up limits to the pardon power that has no connection to the constitution, or any current law.


ETA: For someone who is so antiTrump, why would you think for a second Trump would care about the SCOTUS setting an unfavorable precedent for future presidents to deal with? It is laughable to believe for a second he cares about the Republican party or really anyone besides himself and maybe his family. So of course he would "take that gamble."

Reply
toooldtocare (Feb 3, 2019 - 2:18 pm)

Yeah, why wouldn't Trump "gamble"? I'm no constitutional scholar, but my recollection that for good or ill, there's no such prohibition in the Constitution. Like it or not, the power regarding federal crimes is almost unlimited.

Reply
backfromthedead (Feb 3, 2019 - 2:30 pm)

then a presidential pardon under no circumstance can be an obsruction of justice, the two concepts can never exist simultaneously in the same breadth -- the power to pardon effectively makes moot any question of obstruction of justice concerning the raison d'etre -- that effectively makes a president above the law if he can escape the consequences of breaking the law through the use of the pardon, esp when it comes down to one person who can attest to the fact that the law was indeed broken and the founding fathers never considered that impeachment was no tool for removal if the president's party is unmoved for purely partisan reasons -- this country is open to the possibility of dictatorship and Trump is the man who would love to take us there --

"Trump said 'you have to get rid of' the Russia probe and parroted a Kremlin talking point in a wide-ranging interview"
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/trump-russia-mueller-cbs-face-the-nation-2019-2

Reply
toooldtocare (Feb 3, 2019 - 2:48 pm)

Well, no argument with concept, but again can't agree. Ford's pardon of Nixon was issued before any indictment was filed, and as such could be considered obstruction of justice as it closed forever ongoing criminal investigation(s). And the courts did nothing. The pardon power is so broad as to be scary when it's in the wrong hands.

Reply
thirdtierlaw (Feb 3, 2019 - 3:40 pm)

I understand what you're getting at, but isn't any pardon a constitutionally approved type of "obstruction of justice"? It is the executive branch saying, "I don't care what law the legislative branch passed or how the judicial branch sentenced/upheld that law, I'm going to say differently." Any pardon circumvents the justice system.

As obnoxious as it is, there is still a system of checks and balances that stops Trump from becoming a dictator. He can be impeached or voted out, and though it wasn't there at the time of drafting, term limits are in place.

I'm not sure I agree that the founding fathers weren't aware of the risk of partisan politics. I'm not a historian but I believe, George Washington was extremely outspoken about the dangers of political parties. So it's hard to believe that he was the only one.

As for "that effectively makes a president above the law if he can escape the consequences of breaking the law through the use of the pardon, esp when it comes down to one person who can attest to the fact that the law was indeed broken..." That is not a new or novel issue in the justice system and the 5th amendment sanctions this type of problem. The right against self-incrimination is very strong and constitutionally guaranteed, so it is not uncommon to have 2 codefendants both refuse to testify. I can't imagine this not being a known issue at the time of drafting the bill of rights. The country really stacks the rules in favor of defendants, just because someone is the president doesn't mean those rules just go out the window.

Reply
backfromthedead (Feb 3, 2019 - 3:56 pm)

Trump has repeatedly gone on record as saying the law is too lenient as it pertains to defendant's rights and I'll call anybody a liar that denies Trump has taken that position as "the law and order candidate / president" -- (CENSORED) Trump and the MAGA State he rode in on

Reply
thirdtierlaw (Feb 3, 2019 - 4:25 pm)

What is your point? A person who is notorious for saying stupid things, says something stupid, so in this one case we should acquiesce and implement his suggestion?

The law still applies to people who don't agree with it. I'm not sure how the system would work if that wasn't the case.

Reply
backfromthedead (Feb 3, 2019 - 5:05 pm)

point is we have a lunatic for president and that lunatic has a self perceived self serving "carte blanche" on impeding an investigation (yeah I know Mueller's take down record speaks for itself but we still got Barr coming down the pike) with nearly total support from his base and party, and when the final Mueller report comes out we'll see how much of it he tries to bury for all the myriad of reasons he has at his disposal, chiefly among them politically biased fake news

Reply
backfromthedead (Feb 3, 2019 - 6:22 pm)

"Trump Won’t Commit to Making Mueller Report Public"
calling all leakers or maybe WikiLeaks?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/03/us/politics/trump-interview-mueller.html

Reply
frida2 (Feb 3, 2019 - 2:53 pm)

Hopefully we can have a constitutional amendment to limit the pardon power at some point. It won't happen in time to help with the trump problem.

Reply
employmentlawyer (Feb 4, 2019 - 1:10 pm)

When was Trump ever ON the rails?

Reply
Post a message in this thread