This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Trump Jr.s own words meet a standard for treason

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

12 words in a Trump Jr. released email utterly destroy the Pussy Grabber's son's proclaimed innocence. Read the article:

http://www.salon.com/2017/07/21/donald-trump-jr-s-actions-meet-a-standard-for-treason/

View user profile
I think there will be an interesting judicial review of Presidential pardon powers in the next year.

Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment".

The critical issue can a President pardon himself while in office, and pardon those immediately connected to the President concerning the same offense the President and those connected to him may have committed?

So if Mueller brings a Ricco action in regard to a conspiracy to interfere with the American elections with collusion with a foreign nation and obstruction of that investigation, and the President immediately pardons himself and all people listed in the criminal indictment. Will that pardon be valid.

This issue is going to the Supreme court, and I believe that commons sense will bring a unanimous decision from the Supreme Court that our founding father by inclusion of the words "except in the cases of impeachment" never meant that this power be applied to the crimes of the President and those associated as co-conspirators. Otherwise, our founding fathers who created this nation to overthrow depotism and tyranny would be giving a tyrant the ability to be above the law. President Trump and his co-conspirators could however be pardoned by the next President, and this certainly comports with the logic which Nixon made his resignation. The political fall out for that Pardon put Jimmy Carter in the White House. I could be completely wrong on this analysis and you could have a split decision where the court would apply strict construction and allow the President to Pardon himself, but I think that is a very low probability.

View user profile
I think we figured out already the President can't pardon himself. That would leave him to commit any crime w/o impunity and that was never the intention of the founding fathers but that's pretty elementary.

View user profile
There were no meetings, but if there were, they were not with Russians, but if they were, it was not about the campaign, except a little.

View user profile
polecat wrote:There were no meetings, but if there were, they were not with Russians, but if they were, it was not about the campaign, except a little.
Smile

View user profile
polecat wrote:There were no meetings, but if there were, they were not with Russians, but if they were, it was not about the campaign, except a little.

And I didn't know Donald Jr. met w/ the Russians except it may have been mentioned.

View user profile
I think we figured out already the President can't pardon himself.

Actually he can. The question will be if the pardon will be held up by the Supreme Court? Once again it is good "we" figured it out, but I think I will wait for the Supreme Court to determine if such a pardon will be valid, but some other "we" think otherwise:

Mark Tushnet, law professor, Harvard University

The president's constitutional power to pardon "offenses against the United States" is limited only by excluding "cases of Impeachment." A self-pardon for ordinary criminal offenses does not fall within that exception, on my understanding.

Jessica Levinson, law professor, Loyola Law School

As is the case with a number of important constitutional issues, the answer to the question here of whether or not the president can pardon himself exists in gray area. Or put more bluntly, the answer is, "Who the heck knows?" This is partly because this is simply not a question we ask ourselves very often.

Susan Low Bloch, law professor, Georgetown University

I believe the president can pardon anyone, including him or herself. But the pardon cannot stop an investigation and, in a well-functioning democracy, should provoke an impeachment. The Constitution specifically provides that the pardon power does not prevent — or undo — an impeachment. I'm not sure if these Republicans would impeach, but I think that is the only check on the president.

I do not agree with these opinions, but I guess "we" as determined by Dreams this issue is as simple as the concept of doubt beyond a reasonable doubt. My prediction is the Supreme Court will rule a self pardon constitutionally invalid, but I recognize there is no consensus on the same, and certainly the "we" who think there is should tell the Supreme Court that "we" have solved the issue.

View user profile
This whole thread is bullshit! The man can throw a dead spiral through a tire so shut the fuck up!

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
2seaoat wrote:I think we figured out already the President can't pardon himself.

Actually he can.  The question will be if the pardon will be held up by the Supreme Court?  Once again it is good "we" figured it out, but I think I will wait for the Supreme Court to determine if such a pardon will be valid, but some other "we" think otherwise:

Mark Tushnet, law professor, Harvard University

The president's constitutional power to pardon "offenses against the United States" is limited only by excluding "cases of Impeachment." A self-pardon for ordinary criminal offenses does not fall within that exception, on my understanding.

Jessica Levinson, law professor, Loyola Law School

As is the case with a number of important constitutional issues, the answer to the question here of whether or not the president can pardon himself exists in gray area. Or put more bluntly, the answer is, "Who the heck knows?" This is partly because this is simply not a question we ask ourselves very often.

Susan Low Bloch, law professor, Georgetown University

I believe the president can pardon anyone, including him or herself. But the pardon cannot stop an investigation and, in a well-functioning democracy, should provoke an impeachment. The Constitution specifically provides that the pardon power does not prevent — or undo — an impeachment. I'm not sure if these Republicans would impeach, but I think that is the only check on the president.

I do not agree with these opinions, but I guess "we" as determined by Dreams this issue is as simple as the concept of doubt beyond a reasonable doubt.  My prediction is the Supreme Court will rule a self pardon constitutionally invalid, but I recognize there is no consensus on the same, and certainly the "we" who think there is should tell the Supreme Court that "we" have solved the issue.

I can post the same amount of opposite opinions so you wasted your time but I don't have to have the Supreme Court tell me that. As far as the concept of doubt beyond a reasonable doubt that hinges on the intelligence of the decider.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-trump-cant-pardon-himself-the-constitution-tells-us-so/2017/07/21/f3445d74-6e49-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html?utm_term=.e193aea64c29

View user profile
I can post the same amount of opposite opinions

So that consensus "we" is now a debate. You do provide consistent entertainment.

View user profile
Why would he need to pardon himself? LOL
When he said he didn't have anything to do with Russia he followed it up with a "BELIEVE ME"

View user profile
So let's say Trump pardons himself and everyone connected to him after all have been convicted of treason or whatever the charges may be, and the supreme court backs him up, and the congress refuses to expel him ...

Then we're all stuck with a convicted criminal and traitor as our president.

That makes just as much sense as having Trump as our president in the first place.

Q: Who but the deep state neocons can benefit from all the divisions now preventing us from any form of people power or compromise? Racial divisions, gender divisions, class warfare, right vs. left, and on and on and on.

Think about it. Facism has always started by the rich, conservative folk pushing divisions that split apart the political power that might otherwise overthrow the tyrants.

Mao was right, of course -- ultimate power does lie with the people. So if you are a tyrant or a conspiratorial tyrannical group, you must do your best to divide the people you desire to control. Ergo, the Nazi party in Germany in the 1930s, and Putin in Russia today. Anyone remember how the Pussy Grabber did his best to accommodate white racists, Jew haters, Mexican haters, etc.

Do you really think all the insane divisiveness in our country today just came about on its own?

Reality.
Always.

View user profile
Wordslinger wrote:So let's say Trump pardons himself and everyone connected to him after all have been convicted of treason or whatever the charges may be

Whatever the charges may be, they won't be treason, which only applies in wartime.

View user profile
RealLindaL wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:So let's say Trump pardons himself and everyone connected to him after all have been convicted of treason or whatever the charges may be

Whatever the charges may be, they won't be treason, which only applies in wartime.

And how is that determined?

The U.S. has formally declared war 11 times in its history, but the last time was during World War II.

Today, American forces are still operating under the authorization for the use of military force that President George W. Bush requested after the September 11 attacks in order to fight countries or groups connected to the attacks.

https://news.vice.com/story/why-the-united-states-doesnt-declare-war-anymore

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
del.capslock wrote:
RealLindaL wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:So let's say Trump pardons himself and everyone connected to him after all have been convicted of treason or whatever the charges may be

Whatever the charges may be, they won't be treason, which only applies in wartime.

And how is that determined?

The U.S. has formally declared war 11 times in its history, but the last time was during World War II.

Today, American forces are still operating under the authorization for the use of military force that President George W. Bush requested after the September 11 attacks in order to fight countries or groups connected to the attacks.

https://news.vice.com/story/why-the-united-states-doesnt-declare-war-anymore

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted and executed for selling nuclear secrets to Russia during the cold war. No active war was taking place at that time. Certainly helping a foreign nation throw an American national election would constitute treason.

View user profile
Wordslinger wrote:
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted and executed for selling nuclear secrets to Russia during the cold war.  No active war was taking place at that time.  Certainly helping a foreign nation throw an American national election would constitute treason.  

I'm pretty sure they were convicted of espionage not treason. What they did was  treasonous--assuming, of course, they did what they were accused of--but I don't think they were charged with it.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
del.capslock wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted and executed for selling nuclear secrets to Russia during the cold war.  No active war was taking place at that time.  Certainly helping a foreign nation throw an American national election would constitute treason.  

I'm pretty sure they were convicted of espionage not treason. What they did was  treasonous--assuming, of course, they did what they were accused of--but I don't think they were charged with it.

I'm not an attorney, but I watched an interview on CNN of an attorney who is an alleged expert on constitutional law. He said that the president COULD pardon anyone, including himself, UNLESS the issue was impeachment.

As I see it, Trump's attorneys and his penchant for rash, hurtful decisions means he'll try to fire Mueller. His attorneys are already trying to discredit lawyers Mueller has hired.

Wouldn't you agree with me that if he does fire Mueller, he'll lose a large number of republicans in both congressional houses. His deranged base won't be enough to keep him in power. We're already seeing billionaires and republican congressional members withdrawing their support for him.
This show is getting bigger and better every day. Drip ... drip .... drip-drip ..

View user profile
Wordslinger wrote:
I'm not an attorney, but I watched an interview on CNN of an attorney who is an alleged expert on constitutional law.  He said that the president COULD pardon anyone, including himself, UNLESS the issue was impeachment.

As I see it, Trump's attorneys and his penchant for rash, hurtful decisions means he'll try to fire Mueller.  His attorneys are already trying to discredit lawyers Mueller has hired.

Wouldn't you agree with me that if he does fire Mueller, he'll lose a large number of republicans in both congressional houses.  His deranged base won't be enough to keep him in power.  We're already seeing billionaires and republican congressional members withdrawing their support for him.
This show is getting bigger and better every day.  Drip ... drip .... drip-drip ..

I hope so but I'm not so sure anymore. Most of the Republican members of Congress are such depraved scum that I'm not sure if they'd turn on Trump under any circumstances. Conservatives nowadays seem completely without any notions of patriotism or morality.

There might be a sea-change in 2018, in which case things could change.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
The prosecutor who is bringing charges against the President or anybody in the conspiracy would appeal any pardon to the Supreme Court, and would have standing. The Supreme Court could expand the exclusions of what a President cannot pardon, and that might include a self pardon and all co-conspirators because their interpretation of the pardon clause never intended for self pardons. They also could use a strict constructionist approach and say the only exception is that the President cannot pardon an impeachment. So the "we" consensus is hardly settled, and that is why I hold the best hope for the state of New York to prosecute the President and his children for their Russian connections and any money laundering. He cannot self pardon the same, and could be facing long jail sentences if the state brings state ricco charges.

View user profile
del.capslock wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted and executed for selling nuclear secrets to Russia during the cold war.  No active war was taking place at that time.  Certainly helping a foreign nation throw an American national election would constitute treason.  

I'm pretty sure they were convicted of espionage not treason. What they did was  treasonous--assuming, of course, they did what they were accused of--but I don't think they were charged with it.


http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-rosenberg-trial-begins

"Judge Irving R. Kaufman presides over the espionage prosecution of the couple accused of selling nuclear secrets to the Russians (treason could not be charged because the United States was not at war with the Soviet Union)."

View user profile
RealLindaL wrote:http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-rosenberg-trial-begins

"Judge Irving R. Kaufman presides over the espionage prosecution of the couple accused of selling nuclear secrets to the Russians (treason could not be charged because the United States was not at war with the Soviet Union)."

That still begs the question of what exactly constitutes "being at war". Would Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I or II or Afghanistan count, because there's been no declaration of war in any of those conflicts.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
The Korean war was never concluded, and even though the Korean war was not a declared war the conflict resulted in 37 thousand Americans dead. No American has ever been put to death for Treason, but the question remains if Russia is actively supporting North Korea(they are) and as an ally of a nation who if the Korean conflict reignited with American troops at risk, could collusion with the Russians supporting North Korea be considered Treason even though there would be other statutory alternatives, and the narrow definition of a declared war in the constitution would seem to bar the same?

A prosecutor has the right to file a multi count indictment and has choice of laws which may have concurrent sentencing. A prosecutor if they added Treason to a count on an indictment, they could argue to the grand jury that the collusion was aiding our enemies in a hot conflict. The prosecutor could get the indictment. The defendant would make a motion to strike because the Korean conflict is not a "declared war", and the judge could strike that count, or allow it which would result in an immediate appeal which would provide a distraction. Even if the Supreme Court ruled that in fact collusion with an enemy like North Korea is indirect when one aids the Russians, and the Court agrees completely, the prosecutors are not going to be looking for complications when they can get convictions on other statutory violations.

The reality is that although Russian collusion could become Treason in the near future, most prosecutors would not include it in a multi count indictment even though they could get a grand jury to agree(they could agree on a ham sandwich also), but if Americans start dying in Korea and the Russians continue to supply and support the North Koreans......a count of treason is a very real possibility if folks are obstructing those connections while Americans are dying in Korea. As the Korean conflict has never been formally concluded these issues are very dynamic and not necessarily settled.

The broader non constitutional definition of treason and the generic use of the same was exactly why our founding fathers limited it so that it would not be used in political debates as part of a democracy.

View user profile
Wordslinger wrote:
del.capslock wrote:
RealLindaL wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:So let's say Trump pardons himself and everyone connected to him after all have been convicted of treason or whatever the charges may be

Whatever the charges may be, they won't be treason, which only applies in wartime.

And how is that determined?

The U.S. has formally declared war 11 times in its history, but the last time was during World War II.

Today, American forces are still operating under the authorization for the use of military force that President George W. Bush requested after the September 11 attacks in order to fight countries or groups connected to the attacks.

https://news.vice.com/story/why-the-united-states-doesnt-declare-war-anymore

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted and executed for selling nuclear secrets to Russia during the cold war.  No active war was taking place at that time.  Certainly helping a foreign nation throw an American national election would constitute treason.  




What goes around comes around. Remember that Roy Cohn made sure Ethel Rosenberg fried and he would love to know the same thing happened to the spineless punk who he helped to make but shunned him on his death bed when he was dying of AIDS.

View user profile
Nobody has been executed for constitutional treason in our history as a nation, but when American kids start dying because of traitors who are assisting indirectly a nation who may be killing Americans.......the pichforks will be raised.

I think what would be better would be forfeiture of all his assets so that when Junior gets out of jail he can actually work a job without a silver spoon up his asz.

View user profile
Your first paragraph is a nightmare of run on sentences w/ too much side info. that leaves you dazed and confused as to whether you're asking a question or just making statements. Very difficult to read.

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum