Manafort found guilty on 8 counts, mistrial declared on remaining 10.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I don't like it, it's a waste of taxpayer money. Like with the many Clinton investigations. Yet, people want it to continue. Again, I'm not pro Clinton in the slightest. But, nothing has been found.

However, that isn't the case in this situation. What are we at now, around 30 people who have been at least indicted? Clearly there's reason to continue looking. For now.

a reply to: narrator

And let me be claer, just because I think they will stop at nothing to get outsiders like trump doesnt mean I think trump is innocent of crimes.

On the contrary; anyone with his wealth has no doubt broke finaincial crimes.

If he is caught, he should have to pay the price.

But the bigger picture is clear; the establishment, or deep state, or whatever you want to call it, will not tolerate anyone is a position of leadership that will not bow down to their wishes.

Remember, schumer told us all quite clearly; you dont go after the intel community, because they will find ways of getting back at you. And we see Brennan, clapper, and comey doing that every day.

And all the while, we see the media eat it up and cheer for this deep state.

And it works; normal everyday people are cheering and begging the intel community to break any law neccessary to get trump.

And the upmost proof at how successful this is; even many bernie supporters, who witnessed their choice screwed over and cheated by these same people, are rabidly cheering on this corruption.

So I say let trump and his people pay for their crimes, but I will still point out the corruption of the establishment in the effort to cover up their own crimes and keep any even possible outsider from gathering power.

originally posted by: narrator
a reply to: Xtrozero

I don't like it, it's a waste of taxpayer money. Like with the many Clinton investigations. Yet, people want it to continue. Again, I'm not pro Clinton in the slightest. But, nothing has been found.

However, that isn't the case in this situation. What are we at now, around 30 people who have been at least indicted? Clearly there's reason to continue looking. For now.

Here is why Trump picked Manafort...

Donald J. Trump, girding for a long battle over presidential delegates and a potential floor fight at the Cleveland convention, has enlisted the veteran Republican strategist Paul J. Manafort to lead his delegate-corralling efforts, according to people briefed on Mr. Trump’s plans.

Mr. Trump confirmed the hire in a brief telephone interview. “Yes,” he said, “it is true.”

Mr. Manafort, 66, is among the few political hands in either party with direct experience managing nomination fights: As a young Republican operative, he helped manage the 1976 convention floor for Gerald Ford in his showdown with Ronald Reagan, the last time Republicans entered a convention with no candidate having clinched the nomination.

He performed a similar function for Mr. Reagan in 1980, and played leading roles in the 1988 and 1996 conventions, for George Bush and Bob Dole.

I mean come on, so the guy has dirt on him from a decade ago...why is Trump even mentioned in all this.

a reply to: Grambler

Agreed, on all counts. That's why we have to shine a light on corruption whenever we see it. I'm with you, and I'll be doing the same.

Unrelated, Hicks was a hero of mine. I always like seeing that picture of him when I scroll through threads here. Thanks for that.

originally posted by: Grambler


So I say let trump and his people pay for their crimes, but I will still point out the corruption of the establishment in the effort to cover up their own crimes and keep any even possible outsider from gathering power.

People need to becarful what they wish for.. The liberals started the whole #metoo movement over Trump and it has done little but eat the left alive one man at a time....lol

originally posted by: narrator


Agreed, on all counts. That's why we have to shine a light on corruption whenever we see it. I'm with you, and I'll be doing the same.

Unrelated, Hicks was a hero of mine. I always like seeing that picture of him when I scroll through threads here. Thanks for that.

I agree, but corruption is what the establishment says it is, or who gets investigated.

originally posted by: narrator
a reply to: Grambler

Agreed, on all counts. That's why we have to shine a light on corruption whenever we see it. I'm with you, and I'll be doing the same.

Unrelated, Hicks was a hero of mine. I always like seeing that picture of him when I scroll through threads here. Thanks for that.

Thanks, hicks was the man.

I voted for trump because I knew the establishment was corrupt.

even though I am a libertarian at heart, I would have voted for bernie had he won his primary and trump did not, despite disagreeing with bernie about almost every single economic policy.

The reason was I was voting for any even potential outsider to the establishment.

I could not believe trump actually won.

But it was obvious not long after, there was no way the establishment would allow him to make any real changes.

So we see the constant witch hunt, the cheering for conflict with russian, the cheering when trump dropped bombs on syria (in my opinion his worst moment)

The estbalishment will not tolerate a on globalist puppet who doesnt want regime change wars all over the globe.

They need their wars, open borders, and free money; and they have the tools to take anyone out that may even remotely challenge thaat.

Or to put it like Hicks would;

they take you in a room, show an angle of the jfk assasination from a different angle with a government shooter killing jfk. And if you dont say what is my agenda, they will take you out, one way or another.

(I dont think that literally happens, but this was a hicks joke)

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Not even close. It is a constitutional power reserved solely to the President. Any use falls under the political question doctrine and not criminal law.

The use to encourage people to not testify against him, would fall under obstruction, even if he has the authority of issuing it.

Contrary to popular belief the President and not the Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. The legal term you are looking for as to why the President cant commit obstruction of justice is called prosecutorial discretion.

Prosecutorial Discretion Law and Legal Definition

Prosecutorial discretion refers to the fact that under American law, government prosecuting attorneys have nearly absolute powers. A prosecuting attorney has power on various matters including those relating to choosing whether or not to bring criminal charges, deciding the nature of charges, plea bargaining and sentence recommendation. This discretion of the prosecuting attorney is called prosecutorial discretion.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Surely issuing a pardon means someone is guilty of a crime be that via a jury or admission? That being the case, Trump cannot pardon a crime that anyone has committed who hasn't been found guilty, yet, in the upcoming trial. Sure he could pardon Manafort of these 8 crimes and Cohen but that looks bad. And who knows how the other Manafort trial will go.

originally posted by: Grambler
Remember, schumer told us all quite clearly; you dont go after the intel community, because they will find ways of getting back at you. And we see Brennan, clapper, and comey doing that every day.

And all the while, we see the media eat it up and cheer for this deep state.

No one else found that comment abnormal? It is almost like Schumer knew what was coming and my question is how did he know. Given the latest revelation that Brennan briefed Harry Reid on the dossier, which reid then leaked to media, I am thinking Schumer, as the #2 in seniority in the democratic caucus, might have been involved also.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Grambler
Remember, schumer told us all quite clearly; you dont go after the intel community, because they will find ways of getting back at you. And we see Brennan, clapper, and comey doing that every day.

And all the while, we see the media eat it up and cheer for this deep state.

No one else found that comment abnormal? It is almost like Schumer knew what was coming and my question is how did he know. Given the latest revelation that Brennan briefed Harry Reid on the dossier, which reid then leaked to media, I am thinking Schumer, as the #2 in seniority in the democratic caucus, might have been involved also.

well we have all been told the fact that george papadopolous said he talked to russians that had dirty emails on hillary before wikileaks released the dnc emails proves he knew of the dnc "hack" and therefore the entire trump russian collusion investigation needed to be started.

SO I guess seeing as how schumer knew the intel agency leaders were going to come after trump, which we see know through their actions, texts messages, and tv appearances; there needs to be an equally large and year long investigation into him and the democrats.

a reply to: RexKramerPRT
President Ford pardoned President Nixon for crimes he wasn’t charged with or found guilty of.

Now, Therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

Source

originally posted by: RexKramerPRT
a reply to: Xcathdra

Surely issuing a pardon means someone is guilty of a crime be that via a jury or admission? That being the case, Trump cannot pardon a crime that anyone has committed who hasn't been found guilty, yet, in the upcoming trial. Sure he could pardon Manafort of these 8 crimes and Cohen but that looks bad. And who knows how the other Manafort trial will go.

Under the Constitution the pardon power has no set criteria and is at the sole discretion of the President. The President can issue a pardon for any violation / potential violation of federal law.

That means all 18 counts Manafort faced and the charges in his second upcoming trial in the DC district.

Not that I like the analogy but Nixon was pardoned of all crimes even though he was never charged with one. (ETA - See post above this one for info).

Ramifications for a Presidential pardon in the scenario some have laid out falls under the political question doctrine. The court system, including the Supreme Court, has stated that the courts have no jurisdiction or right to get involved when a co equal branch of government exercises a constitutional authority that is granted solely to that branch.

Pardons fall under that doctrine.

a reply to: RexKramerPRT

he's not gonna pardon anyone involved with russia, or his administration/campaign, while there's a chance that one of his kids, or son in law, might need a pardon later. he might only get a couple pardons out before the backlash comes back at him and he is out. and, I really wouldn't count on pence for anything..

originally posted by: Willtell


Trump will pardon him.

You're assuming Trump's loyalty when all we've seen is expendiency.

Bottom line: does it suit Trump to pardon him or throw him under the bus?

a reply to: xtradimensions

a reply to: Xcathdra

a reply to: dawnstar

Cheers for the reply, so 2/3 reference Nixon and 1/3 says no pardon. Rex's straw poll doesn't look good for either one.

a reply to: narrator

Because they are trumped up fake charges. Plain and simple. A political hit job. And the Democrats are next when they get someone in. This Deep State control will hit them too.

originally posted by: Tempter
I'm sorry but I'm not seeing all the meat here. Let's recap:

1) Charges against Manafort - guilty

2) Cohen pleads guilty (avoiding trial) - guilty

3) Trump is unaffected - TRUE


There's still NOTHING HERE.

Every single time you lefties think you have GEOTUS dead to rights, he wins. He wins every single time.

I don't think it's going to change.

You can't beat him and after the FULL POWER of the intelligence community behind it, you've got NOTHING on him.

Even if the Dems retake the house, an impeachment would only lead to a non-vote in the Senate, or at the worst a win-vote for Trump. I don't see how you win, Lefties.

Heaven forbid we shove GEOTUS down your throats again in 2020. You might actually implode. I worry for you die-hards if that were to happen.

THERE'S STILL NOTHING ON TRUMP.

PROVE ME WRONG!

You are right 100%

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: network dude

Thats because the SC investigation / prosecutions arent protecting security. They are covering for Clinton / Democrats by trying to effect a coup by removing Trump from office.

You consider having Pence in office a 'coup"?

That's funny.

Fake charges? You are either ignorant or lying. They had mountains of evidence and witnesses. It was so clear cut that the defense didn't even try to defend him because it was pointless.