It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Giuliani: Trump 'probably' has power to pardon himself

page: 5
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
The relevant part:


It remains our position that the President’s actions here, by virtue of his position as the chief law enforcement officer, could neither constitutionally nor legally constitute obstruction because that would amount to him obstructing himself, and that he could, if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon if he so desired.


The position of Trumps lawyers is that he could not commit obstruction of justice because he’s the chief law enforcement officer of the nation. So he can’t obstruct an investigation, even into himself, because all investigations are at his discretion. That’s bull$#it. And sets a dangerous precedent.

Partisanship aside, it should scare everyone when the presidents lawyers argue that the president can kill an investigation into himself or his friends because all investigations are at his discretion as top law enforcement officer.

That is unquestionably putting the president and whoever he wants to pardon above the law. Quite literally.


Also relevant is the rest of the paragraph:



1Nevertheless, the President’s strong desire for transparency indicated the need to obtain an honest and complete factual report from the Special Counsel, which would sustain and even benefit the Office of the President and the national interest throughout his time in office. Thus, full cooperation was in order, and was in fact provided by all relevant parties.


The point they are making is Trump could have ended the entire investigation, but didn’t.




posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
Does anybody seriously want to live in a country where a president can reek whatever chaos and mob-like behavior he chooses, and have it condoned? Where he is exempt from consequences that even the best and worse of those among us would have to face? Doesn't that eviscerate our system of checks and balances?

This is not patriotism. This is knowingly destructionist.


He is not exempt!

500 DAYS to give some amount of proof of a crime and zilch.

in that case the potus can pardon himself

he can pardon himself unless there is evidence against him that warrants a real legal special council

At this point even if mueller had evidence he is holding back then we would actually have to reappoint a special council legally with a narrow scope to regather the evidence legally



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: underwerks




That is unquestionably putting the president and whoever he wants to pardon above the law. Quite literally.


Can you imagine the absolute outrage if a Democratic president tried this BS? But somehow Trump has been elevated to Godlike stature and do anything he wants, because a dork lawyer like Giuliani says so...

Amazing....


I guess we’ll see eventually. Whatever Democrat president is elected next will be applauding Trump for this move.

Because now, no matter how much the right wing screeches about dirt and corruption, the next Hillary-esque candidate will just be able to say, nope! Top law enforcement official here, and I can kill any investigation I want!




posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:04 AM
link   
The only thing that could stop trump from pardoning everyone and ending the mess would be EVIDENCE!

EVIDENCE!

Without it there is only rabid hatred and ignorance.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
The relevant part:


It remains our position that the President’s actions here, by virtue of his position as the chief law enforcement officer, could neither constitutionally nor legally constitute obstruction because that would amount to him obstructing himself, and that he could, if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon if he so desired.


The position of Trumps lawyers is that he could not commit obstruction of justice because he’s the chief law enforcement officer of the nation. So he can’t obstruct an investigation, even into himself, because all investigations are at his discretion. That’s bull$#it. And sets a dangerous precedent.

Partisanship aside, it should scare everyone when the presidents lawyers argue that the president can kill an investigation into himself or his friends because all investigations are at his discretion as top law enforcement officer.

That is unquestionably putting the president and whoever he wants to pardon above the law. Quite literally.


Also relevant is the rest of the paragraph:



1Nevertheless, the President’s strong desire for transparency indicated the need to obtain an honest and complete factual report from the Special Counsel, which would sustain and even benefit the Office of the President and the national interest throughout his time in office. Thus, full cooperation was in order, and was in fact provided by all relevant parties.


The point they are making is Trump could have ended the entire investigation, but didn’t.

It still remains to be seen whether he will kill the investigation or not. With Giuliani doing the cable news rounds trying to normalize this move by a sitting president it stands to reason this is something they are actively considering. Especially given the letter outlining it from January.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Please tell me

What would you do if you were in trumps shoes and you did not do anything illegal?



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
The relevant part:


It remains our position that the President’s actions here, by virtue of his position as the chief law enforcement officer, could neither constitutionally nor legally constitute obstruction because that would amount to him obstructing himself, and that he could, if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon if he so desired.


The position of Trumps lawyers is that he could not commit obstruction of justice because he’s the chief law enforcement officer of the nation. So he can’t obstruct an investigation, even into himself, because all investigations are at his discretion. That’s bull$#it. And sets a dangerous precedent.

Partisanship aside, it should scare everyone when the presidents lawyers argue that the president can kill an investigation into himself or his friends because all investigations are at his discretion as top law enforcement officer.

That is unquestionably putting the president and whoever he wants to pardon above the law. Quite literally.


Also relevant is the rest of the paragraph:



1Nevertheless, the President’s strong desire for transparency indicated the need to obtain an honest and complete factual report from the Special Counsel, which would sustain and even benefit the Office of the President and the national interest throughout his time in office. Thus, full cooperation was in order, and was in fact provided by all relevant parties.


The point they are making is Trump could have ended the entire investigation, but didn’t.

It still remains to be seen whether he will kill the investigation or not. With Giuliani doing the cable news rounds trying to normalize this move by a sitting president it stands to reason this is something they are actively considering. Especially given the letter outlining it from January.


According to the letter, full cooperation and transparency were in order. But we never see any mention of that.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: DBCowboy




But what I think is that the Trump administration says this stuff so leftists can lose their minds.

Skills he learned in troll school?

He'd be banned if he was a member here. Lol.


You and Trump would be going to the same class reunion.




posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

No he would have been in remedial trolling. He's not even good at that. Lol.
Me...top of the class. As usual.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
The relevant part:


It remains our position that the President’s actions here, by virtue of his position as the chief law enforcement officer, could neither constitutionally nor legally constitute obstruction because that would amount to him obstructing himself, and that he could, if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon if he so desired.


The position of Trumps lawyers is that he could not commit obstruction of justice because he’s the chief law enforcement officer of the nation. So he can’t obstruct an investigation, even into himself, because all investigations are at his discretion. That’s bull$#it. And sets a dangerous precedent.

Partisanship aside, it should scare everyone when the presidents lawyers argue that the president can kill an investigation into himself or his friends because all investigations are at his discretion as top law enforcement officer.

That is unquestionably putting the president and whoever he wants to pardon above the law. Quite literally.


Also relevant is the rest of the paragraph:



1Nevertheless, the President’s strong desire for transparency indicated the need to obtain an honest and complete factual report from the Special Counsel, which would sustain and even benefit the Office of the President and the national interest throughout his time in office. Thus, full cooperation was in order, and was in fact provided by all relevant parties.


The point they are making is Trump could have ended the entire investigation, but didn’t.

It still remains to be seen whether he will kill the investigation or not. With Giuliani doing the cable news rounds trying to normalize this move by a sitting president it stands to reason this is something they are actively considering. Especially given the letter outlining it from January.


According to the letter, full cooperation and transparency were in order. But we never see any mention of that.

If full cooperation and transparency is what they were shooting for, then why the full court press to justify why Trump shouldn’t have to cooperate?

I’m thinking transparency and cooperation here hold the same weight as the democratic in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
The relevant part:


It remains our position that the President’s actions here, by virtue of his position as the chief law enforcement officer, could neither constitutionally nor legally constitute obstruction because that would amount to him obstructing himself, and that he could, if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon if he so desired.


The position of Trumps lawyers is that he could not commit obstruction of justice because he’s the chief law enforcement officer of the nation. So he can’t obstruct an investigation, even into himself, because all investigations are at his discretion. That’s bull$#it. And sets a dangerous precedent.

Partisanship aside, it should scare everyone when the presidents lawyers argue that the president can kill an investigation into himself or his friends because all investigations are at his discretion as top law enforcement officer.

That is unquestionably putting the president and whoever he wants to pardon above the law. Quite literally.


Also relevant is the rest of the paragraph:



1Nevertheless, the President’s strong desire for transparency indicated the need to obtain an honest and complete factual report from the Special Counsel, which would sustain and even benefit the Office of the President and the national interest throughout his time in office. Thus, full cooperation was in order, and was in fact provided by all relevant parties.


The point they are making is Trump could have ended the entire investigation, but didn’t.

It still remains to be seen whether he will kill the investigation or not. With Giuliani doing the cable news rounds trying to normalize this move by a sitting president it stands to reason this is something they are actively considering. Especially given the letter outlining it from January.


According to the letter, full cooperation and transparency were in order. But we never see any mention of that.

If full cooperation and transparency is what they were shooting for, then why the full court press to justify why Trump shouldn’t have to cooperate?

I’m thinking transparency and cooperation here hold the same weight as the democratic in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.


I’m not sure this kind of “thinking” has had any success thus far. In fact, this sounds like another media-induced outrage that will soon blow over when their fears never come to fruition, for the thousandth time.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Trump is turning into a little Hitler.

Guilliani is his Martin Borman.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
Trump is turning into a little Hitler.

Guilliani is his Martin Borman.


another kneejerker that cares not for due process and the constitution

all this political hogwash would put to the side for just one shred of evidence

it is quite childish to put forth the line of reasoning that if one follows the constitution then they have to be a trump supporter

the sickos in charge of the investigation went over the edge because they do not know what the founders wrote about such



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
The relevant part:


It remains our position that the President’s actions here, by virtue of his position as the chief law enforcement officer, could neither constitutionally nor legally constitute obstruction because that would amount to him obstructing himself, and that he could, if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon if he so desired.


The position of Trumps lawyers is that he could not commit obstruction of justice because he’s the chief law enforcement officer of the nation. So he can’t obstruct an investigation, even into himself, because all investigations are at his discretion. That’s bull$#it. And sets a dangerous precedent.

Partisanship aside, it should scare everyone when the presidents lawyers argue that the president can kill an investigation into himself or his friends because all investigations are at his discretion as top law enforcement officer.

That is unquestionably putting the president and whoever he wants to pardon above the law. Quite literally.


Also relevant is the rest of the paragraph:



1Nevertheless, the President’s strong desire for transparency indicated the need to obtain an honest and complete factual report from the Special Counsel, which would sustain and even benefit the Office of the President and the national interest throughout his time in office. Thus, full cooperation was in order, and was in fact provided by all relevant parties.


The point they are making is Trump could have ended the entire investigation, but didn’t.

It still remains to be seen whether he will kill the investigation or not. With Giuliani doing the cable news rounds trying to normalize this move by a sitting president it stands to reason this is something they are actively considering. Especially given the letter outlining it from January.


According to the letter, full cooperation and transparency were in order. But we never see any mention of that.

If full cooperation and transparency is what they were shooting for, then why the full court press to justify why Trump shouldn’t have to cooperate?

I’m thinking transparency and cooperation here hold the same weight as the democratic in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.


I’m not sure this kind of “thinking” has had any success thus far. In fact, this sounds like another media-induced outrage that will soon blow over when their fears never come to fruition, for the thousandth time.

And it’ll continue to sound like another media induced outrage, until it isn’t. Then it’ll be too late.

A big part of the danger in my eyes is people getting to the point they let statements like the one from the presidents lawyers slide because of the media’s reaction to it.

That opens up the door to enabling our leaders to do whatever they want, laws be damned as long as the media reacts a certain way. And it’s easy to play the media for any reaction you want. So this is in effect handing Trump and by extension any future president the political capital to disregard any laws they choose.

The implications of that far outweigh any other part of it in my opinion.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:49 AM
link   
"Trump 'probably' has power to pardon himself"

And he probably does after he farts if he has any manners.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:53 AM
link   
We currently have a USAG who is hiding from duty and is criminal responsible for being a dumbass

He cited a statute for his recuse that does not pertain at all to the ongoing investigation.

www.cnbc.com...

www.thegatewaypundit.com...[editb y]edit on 4-6-2018 by howtonhawky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Trump claims innocence, but he sure acts guilty.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Trump claims innocence, but he sure acts guilty.

SO
It does not make him a criminal...

All it takes to nullify an illegal pardon is one shred of evidence showing a crime in this case

IS 500 DAYS NOT ENOUGH TIME TO OUTLINE EVIDENCE OF A CRIME?

At this point any evidence would do.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Jebus rice, more hit pieces, considering the context you somehow still managed to spin it, ugh 😑

Anyways, "Probably", "He won't" and "Interesting constitutional question".

Rudy brings up a valid point that could serve as a great discussion.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky


Sorry, but nope. It's not over until it's over, and needless to say, it's not over, much as Donald Trump would like it to be -- (while he's still a free man and pretending to be a "president". Yeah, I know he plays one on TV but I don't think he'll be receiving any Emmy awards for his take on the 'role'.)






new topics

top topics


active topics

 
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join