Giuliani: Trump 'probably' has power to pardon himself

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

However he might have had had a Freudian slip of the tongue; saying that Trump can pardon himself suggests that Trump might have made a boo boo-why would suggest a self pardon if your employer has nothing to hide?

You should watch the interview. It wasn't a slip, he was badgered into answering a hypothetical so you could run around screaming he must be guilty for a couple of days. Just like romney and the "do you believe states have the right to limit contraception?" question posed by the same guy, george stephanopolaus. The purpose is the narrative, nothing more or less.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

None of those things you just said are true. At all. No I'm not a leftist Obama supporter.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

However he might have had had a Freudian slip of the tongue; saying that Trump can pardon himself suggests that Trump might have made a boo boo-why would suggest a self pardon if your employer has nothing to hide?

I think they have Trump dead to rights on obstruction, at least. Ergo, the musings of the president CAN'T obstruct justice and of self pardon.

LOL, it's fun listening to you lot on your prayer mats, beating yourself up over your fantasies.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

However he might have had had a Freudian slip of the tongue; saying that Trump can pardon himself suggests that Trump might have made a boo boo-why would suggest a self pardon if your employer has nothing to hide?

You should watch the interview. It wasn't a slip, he was badgered into answering a hypothetical so you could run around screaming he must be guilty for a couple of days. Just like romney and the "do you believe states have the right to limit contraception?" question posed by the same guy, george stephanopolaus. The purpose is the narrative, nothing more or less.

Exactly.

...and for the record, there is nothing in the Constitution that stops Trump from pardoning himself of federal crimes. His only limitation is to pardon a person who is impeached.

The DoJ memo in 1974 is nothing more than opinion and forms no law. Stopping Trump from pardoning himself or anyone else would require an amendment to the Constitution.

Not that he needs to pardon himself, of course.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Two things:
1) what did he obstruct
2) is obstruction of that treason, bribery, or high crimes/misdemeanors?

1) If Trump fired Comey in some attempt to stop or end or hinder the FBI's Russian meddling investigation that's obstruction of justice. We know now that Russia meddled in our elections. We've even tried to bring the Russians responsible to justice for it.

Russia didn't change votes but they did hold rallies and paid Americans to hold these rallies. They paid companies (mostly social media) to advertise their own articles and paid a small army of Russian citizens to write, promote and propagate pro-Trump articles, blog posts and Twitter posts. Literally Russian shills shilling for candidate Trump all over the internet.

2) That's part of what Mueller and his team have been investigating; to what extent did the Trump campaign know about what Russia was doing and were any efforts made to work with the Russian government in this meddling.

We already know that Trump's son met with a number of foreign nationals in Trump tower (remember, about adoptions?). We've also learned that the FBI specifically warned both the Trump and Clinton campaigns about Russian foreign nationals attempts to contact both campaigns and explicitly stated that if any contacts were made to contact the FBI. The Trump campaign continued to make contact with Russian foreign nationals (more than 76 times) and made no attempt to tell the FBI, even so far as to attempt to set up a 'back channel' with Russia after Trump was elected. The Trump campaign also attempted to either downplay or outright deny ever making those meetings.

If working directly with a foreign government to get yourself elected to the oval office doesn't constitute high crimes or at least misdemeanors then I don't know what would.

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Two things:
1) what did he obstruct
2) is obstruction of that treason, bribery, or high crimes/misdemeanors?

1) If Trump fired Comey in some attempt to stop or end or hinder the FBI's Russian meddling investigation that's obstruction of justice. We know now that Russia meddled in our elections. We've even tried to bring the Russians responsible to justice for it.

Russia didn't change votes but they did hold rallies and paid Americans to hold these rallies. They paid companies (mostly social media) to advertise their own articles and paid a small army of Russian citizens to write, promote and propagate pro-Trump articles, blog posts and Twitter posts. Literally Russian shills shilling for candidate Trump all over the internet.

2) That's part of what Mueller and his team have been investigating; to what extent did the Trump campaign know about what Russia was doing and were any efforts made to work with the Russian government in this meddling.

We already know that Trump's son met with a number of foreign nationals in Trump tower (remember, about adoptions?). We've also learned that the FBI specifically warned both the Trump and Clinton campaigns about Russian foreign nationals attempts to contact both campaigns and explicitly stated that if any contacts were made to contact the FBI. The Trump campaign continued to make contact with Russian foreign nationals (more than 76 times) and made no attempt to tell the FBI, even so far as to attempt to set up a 'back channel' with Russia after Trump was elected. The Trump campaign also attempted to either downplay or outright deny ever making those meetings.

If working directly with a foreign government to get yourself elected to the oval office doesn't constitute high crimes or at least misdemeanors then I don't know what would.

1 is total bullocks
the potus is head over all counter intelligence investigations
he can fire everyone involved if he choose

the only investigation that trump is not head over would be an investigation where he is the direct target of the investigation

he has been cleared twice from being the target of such investigations

you lefties realize the democrats will never act on this because it sets presidency for the next person in charge right?

dog and pony show

a reply to: howtonhawky

What is obstruction of justice?

Whether a sitting president can or can’t be charged with a crime is still unsettled law, law professors say.

Legal scholars say it’s more likely that Mueller would release evidence that Trump obstructed justice and let the political process take it from there.

It's not really for you and I to decide. Can the president break the law without repercussions? Is congress the only body that can bring the president to justice, if so, what do we do when a congress is unwilling to do so? Do we just accept that the president broke the law and do nothing about until the next election?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

The President has the Constitutional power to change his staff... in case you missed it Obama fired more people than POTUS Trump has, and Obama put in position of power very leftwing and loyal people to OBAMA... Rosenstein himself recommended that Comey had to be fired, which lefties claimed "it was all POTUS Trump"...

Also, i do wonder in what context this whole "could he pardon himself" enchilada came about... I am pretty certain some "left-wing reporter" asked something like "If something is found about Trump, could he pardon himself?"... I find it extremely unlikely that Giuliani would just say this without any context to it.

a reply to: links234

What law did the POTUS break?... What's more...where is the "evidence", not claims that come about from 3rd and 4th person hearsay, nor "Russian information which cannot be corroborated"... Where is the evidence?

The evidence we have is that "The Obama administration started a plot to spy on a Presidential candidate, who is the political opponent of Obama and HIllary." The Obama administration in conjunction with the FBI, CIA, and DHS amongst Obama's DOJ officials set up a plot not only to spy on a Presidential candidate who is also the political opponent to Obama/Hillary, but they continued to spy on Trump when he became POTUS". Despite over 2 years of "investigations" by the plotters, not one piece of substantiated evidence has been presented that show "Trump colluded with Russia". But, we do have the fact that Hillary and the Obama administration did "collude with Russia and Iran". Then they hired a pro-democrat firm which hired a former British spy who wrote he would do anything not to get Trump elected... Not to mention that most of the information in the "Steele dossier" comes from... "Russian government informants"... But hey, it has been POTUS Trump who colluded "with the Russians"...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Your first paragraph: Obstruction of justice is a felony.

Your second paragraph: None of that is true.

"Remember When The Media Didn't Even Blink an Eye at The Suggestion a President Hillary Could Pardon Herself??"

www.diogenesmiddlefinger.com...


Actual article

lawandcrime.com...

A President trying to pardon him or herself would be a serious violation of the Checks and Balances we have in place. None of those three sides can exempt themselves from the scrutiny of the other two -- it would violate the basic principles of our government.

That this is even being discussed is troubling, and that anyone could think it appropriate is even more so.

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Your first paragraph: Obstruction of justice is a felony.

Your second paragraph: None of that is true.

LOL, POTUS Trump did not obstruct justice because the DAG, Rosenstein, recommended that Comey be fired...

As for your claim that nothing else i wrote is true... ROFLMAO Clapper himself stated "That it is a good thing that there was a spy in his campaign"... Clapper gave up the fact that there was at least one spy on the Trump campaign.



Hillary had more collusion with the Russians, but did not have an FBI/CIA spy on her campaign... That shows favoritism toward Hillary, whose husband received $500,000 U.S.D FROM THE RUSSIANS (a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that assigned a buy rating to Uranium One stock) for Clinton's "pro-Russian speeches. Not to mention that the Clinton foundation received $250 million U.S.D. FROM THE RUSSIANS...

www.nytimes.com...

www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: Kharron

Where was your "HORROR" over the article posted by DBCowboy above your comment?...

Here it is again...
If Hillary Is Indicted, President Clinton Could Pardon Herself and Congress Might be Helpless

Someone should ask Giuliani "Has Trump stop beating his wife?"

Than we can all go bouncing off the walls for a week about how troubling it is that we're even discussing if Trump stopped beating his wife.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Kharron

Where was your "HORROR" over the article posted by DBCowboy above your comment?...

Here it is again...
If Hillary Is Indicted, President Clinton Could Pardon Herself and Congress Might be Helpless

You mean why is there "him or herself" in my unedited post?

a reply to: DanDanDat

LOL, what the heck are you talking about?... Oh wait, this is the same type of idiocy the left has spouted about "Melania disappearing", when in fact she was just recovering from her illness and appeared (today?) alongside POTUS Trump...

a reply to: Southern Guardian

So... Is this power retro-applicable? And can it be done against war crimes?