Ah.... all becomes clear....
^ Deep fake.
Ah.... all becomes clear....
^ Deep fake.
I think now in the next days when searched for "teleprompter", "end of quote" and/or "gaffe" it will show "0 results" within a second.
(That's right, the population should no longer be confused...)
Trump lost the election because Hugo Chávez and the Venezuelans hacked his teleprompter
now that manafort, flyinn and stone have been pardoned by trump, they can no longer hide behind the 5th amendment and can be compelled to give testimony....and if it is determined that they lied during that testimony, they would be guilty of perjury....and could be jailed.
trump has to have known this before granting the pardons, right?
They were pardoned for the one time they lied to the FBI, it does mot mean that it gives them card blanch to lie to the FBI for the rest of their lives.
The same that if you got pardoned for killing someone it does not mean that you can go on killing people for the rest of your life with impunity.
The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.
and if i understand the law correctly....if called to testify about the murder you were pardoned for....you can't plead the 5th...and any lie about the murder will subject you to a perjury charge.
this where i see trump in jeopardy....if congress or NY opens investigations, and the subpoena manafort or stone....they could go to jail if they lie under oath.
so why would they lie?
they're certainly not going to get a pardon from biden.
IMO, jared is the one trump has to be very worried about....i definitely think he'd flip if it meant avoiding serious jail time.
^ Following from Ray's comment above.
Trump can't pardon a State offense (only a Federal one)? and ...
Trump can't pardon for an Federal offense, already (allegedly) committed, but not yet charged for?
If convicted of an offense (of magnitude) he can't run for President for his next potential term?
Ford granted to Richard Nixon, his predecessor, a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes that he might have committed against the United States as president
i'm venturing out of my depth, but as i understand it....
they're not witnesses against themselves...in the scenario referenced above, they would be witnesses for the prosecution in cases against trump and all his dodgy dealings/organizations.
as far as legal precedent, i'm pretty sure this happens regularly with immunity in trials of organized crime figures and white collar criminals.
with regard to manafort's fraud charges in NY and double jeopardy
DA Cy Vance Moving Forward With Paul Manafort CaseIn October of last year, New York state Democrats passed a law to close the “double jeopardy loophole,” to allow the state to prosecute people for state crimes after they have received presidential pardons, but it’s not clear how that will affect Manafort now.
Dmitriy Shakhnevich, a constitutional law professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said that if prosecutors move forward with a case against Manafort, it’s likely the state’s new law will be called into question.
“It will be challenged for sure if there’s any state prosecution under this law,” he said.
However, in admitting their role in dodgy dealings, they would also be damning themselves. There might not be any legal ramifications, but they'd still have to explain it to the missus....
It does, but it's not the same thing. Immunity is the key factor here - those people have something to gain from their cooperation, or everything to lose from their refusal to cooperate. No-one needs immunity from prosecution for a crime they've already been pardoned for, so where's the incentive to cooperate?
I'm sure it doesn't. A lot, however, hangs on the "correct" interpretation of a document ratified in 1791, and the law does give a good god damn about that:
Pendant that I am, I would argue that while the amendment offers a person a safeguard against having to be a witness against himself, in the absence of a definition of "against," it would be for the person himself to decide whether his testimony might damage him. However, pedant that I am, I would argue that the amendment offers a person no safeguard against having to be a witness against himself where due process of law is otherwise established. Of course, it's never interpreted like that....Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The matter of perjury is troublesome in and of itself. Any person who pleads not guilty to any crime, but is then found guilty, could, in theory, be tried again for perjury. This doesn't happen. If anyone tried to bring such a prosecution, the lawyers would have a field day.
^
interesting.
you clearly know more about this than i do.
we'll see how it plays out.
i listened to a podcast with weissman about ten days ago, and that's likely what influenced my line of thinking which i posted above.
here's an article in which he lays out his perspective....
Manafort and Stone may be hauled back to court despite Trump pardon, says top Mueller prosecutor | The IndependentManafort and Stone may be hauled back to court despite Trump pardon, says top Mueller prosecutor
‘You cannot be pardoned for future crimes,’ says Andrew Weissman
Paul Manafort and Roger Stone could still find themselves in legal trouble despite being pardoned by Donald Trump, a top lawyer has said.
Andrew Weissman, who served as a prosecutor on special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe, believes both men – convicted in that investigation – may be brought before a grand jury again and asked to testify.
Mr Manafort, the president's former campaign manager, was jailed in 2019 for financial crimes.
Meanwhile, Mr Stone, a former adviser to the president, was convicted of multiple offences, including obstructing the House investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election campaign.
He was sentenced to 40 months in jail but had his sentence commuted in July, a day before he was due to be locked up.
Both have now had their convictions struck out by Mr Trump, who is issuing a slew of pardons to ex-aides caught up in the scandal, as he prepares to leave the White House in January.
Speaking to MSNBC on Thursday, Mr Weissman said that neither man is fully out of the woods yet, and will have no protection against future charges.
"You cannot be pardoned for future crimes and each of those people, Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, has evidence in their head," he said.
"They have information that a grand jury could seek, they can all be given grand jury subpoenas, required to testify in the grand jury."
Michael Flynn, the president's first national security adviser, was pardoned in November having been convicted for twice lying to prosecutors about his contacts with Russia.
Mr Weissman added: "If they then lie before the grand jury, which is a new crime, and that happens after 20 January, there is no president Trump at that point to give them a get out of jail free card.
"And so all of this effort by the president to shield his friends and allies and potential conspirators will be for nought.
"Because all of these people can be in that trick box of being put before the grand jury where they either have to tell the truth or they risk being prosecuted for a new crime of perjury and obstruction of justice".
Just to be clear about this, I know nuffink.
I think Weissman has it about right.... The 5th amendment cannot be invoked before a Grand Jury.
That then leaves the problems of proving that they've lied, if they lie, and of watching them walk away without punishment for crimes already committed (and pardoned) even if they don't.unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury
There is a chance that some will end up incriminating themselves on matters yet undisclosed, of course. I really have no idea.
Last edited by TheMadBaron; 27-12-2020 at 07:04 PM.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)