Showing posts with label pardons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pardons. Show all posts

Friday, April 20, 2018

New York Attorney General moves to sidestep any potential presidential pardons.

Courtesy of HuffPo: 

New York’s attorney general has asked officials to change state law so President Donald Trump’s aides can be tried for any criminal acts committed in the state, even if they have been given a presidential pardon. 

In a letter sent to New York’s top lawmakers, including Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) said that he was troubled by Trump’s frequent discussion of his ability to issue pardons and that he was worried those who had committed crimes in the state would escape prosecution. New York has a double jeopardy law that prevents individuals from being charged with the same crime twice, even if the charges originated at the federal level. 

“New York’s statutory protections could result in the unintended and unjust consequence of insulating someone pardoned for serious federal crimes from subsequent prosecution for state crimes,” Schneiderman wrote in the letter, dated April 18. “Even if that person was never tried or convicted in federal court, and never served a single day in federal prison.”

I am not a lawyer, but I believe that if this is successful the legal term is "checkmate." 

Friday, April 13, 2018

Donald Trump signs pardon for former Dick Cheney chief of staff Scooter Libby. Wait, what?

Wait, who pardoned me?
Courtesy of ABC News: 

President Donald Trump is poised to pardon Scooter J. Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, according to sources familiar with the president’s thinking.

The president has already signed off on the pardon, which is something he has been considering for several months, sources told ABC News. 

The move would mark another controversial pardon for Trump and could raise questions as an increasing number of the president’s political allies have landed themselves in legal jeopardy. The White House has repeatedly said that no pardons are currently on the table for people caught up in the Russia investigation.

You may remember that Trump already pardoned Joe Arpaio, which at least made a little more sense than this.

So why would Trump pardon a dude that was convicted of lying to the FBI and obstructing justice during the Bush Administration?

Please, what are you new here?
Yeah, what he said.

This is more of Trump's mob boss mentality at work.

"Yeah hey Vinnie, don't youse worry about getting pinched by the coppers. We will have you out in no time. We take care of our own in the Costa Nostra."

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

Donald Trump's lawyer John Dowd once floated the idea of pardoning Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn.

Courtesy of the New York Times:  

A lawyer for President Trump broached the idea of Mr. Trump pardoning two of his former top advisers, Michael T. Flynn and Paul Manafort, with their lawyers last year, according to three people with knowledge of the discussions. 

The discussions came as the special counsel was building cases against both men, and they raise questions about whether the lawyer, John Dowd, was offering pardons to influence their decisions about whether to plead guilty and cooperate in the investigation. 

The talks suggest that Mr. Trump’s lawyers were concerned about what Mr. Flynn and Mr. Manafort might reveal were they to cut a deal with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, in exchange for leniency. Mr. Mueller’s team could investigate the prospect that Mr. Dowd made pardon offers to thwart the inquiry, although legal experts are divided about whether such offers might constitute obstruction of justice.

I heard one of the reporters on cable news this morning clarifying that this suggestion came before Michael Flynn pleaded guilty and started cooperating with the Mueller investigation, and before Manafort's indictment.

Of course the question to ask is WHY would Donald Trump's personal attorney, who was not representing either Manafort or Flynn, have broached this option?

Just what are they so concerned about Mueller learning from these two?

And does it rhyme with "allusion?"

Of course John Dowd and the White House deny this conversation ever took place, which by the new fact checking rules of the Trump Administration means it ABSOLUTELY happened.

Thursday, November 23, 2017

I think this is the best way to end our Thanksgiving day.

Yeah, THAT'S the way a real President acts in public.

And here is Obama's greeting for this Thanksgiving.
For his part Trump's Thanksgiving message to the troops was to attack Obama and to accuse him of not supporting the military.

Donald Trump is one fat fowl POS that should NEVER be pardoned.

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

John McCain gives impassioned speech in support of the release of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on CIA torture.

Courtesy of CNN:

Republican Sen. John McCain broke with members of his party Tuesday, lauding the release of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on torture and decrying the use of torture as having "stained our national honor" and doing "much harm and little practical good." 

McCain, a survivor of torture himself from his Naval service during the Vietnam War, said from the Senate floor that the techniques outlined in the report "not only failed their purpose — to secure actionable intelligence to prevent further attacks on the U.S. and our allies — but actually damaged our security interests, as well as our reputation as a force for good in the world." 

McCain said that while "the truth is a hard pill to swallow...the American people are entitled to it." And he acknowledged that violence against the U.S. from the "Muslim world" is "possible..perhaps likely," but argued that America's enemies "hardly need an excuse" to attack the nation, so the good done by the release of the report should trump any security concerns. 

"This report strengthens self-government and, ultimately, I believe, America's security and stature in the world," he said. 

You know it has been a long time coming, but finally there is something good to report about Senator John McCain.

I have long said, and I still believe, that much of McCain's legacy was  wiped out after he snatched Sarah Palin from the wilds of Wasilla, hosed her off, and plopped her on the national stage.

However at least in this case McCain has partially redeemed himself.

And it is particularly striking considering how many other politicians and Right Wing pundits are reacting to this report.

Of course the next question is what do we do next?

For the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, the answer is obvious: 

“In all countries, if someone commits murder, they are prosecuted and jailed. If they commit rape or armed robbery, they are prosecuted and jailed. If they order, enable or commit torture – recognized as a serious international crime – they cannot simply be granted impunity because of political expediency. When that happens, we undermine this exceptional Convention, and – as a number of U.S. political leaders clearly acknowledged yesterday – we undermine our own claims to be civilized societies rooted in the rule of law.” 

Unfortunately I do not believe that is going to happen here, especially with the Republicans about to take  back the Senate.

So what other option do we have?

Well Anthony Romero of the American Civil Liberties Union has a novel idea.

Pardon the torturers: 

The Obama administration could still take measures to hold accountable the officials who authorized torture. Some of the statutes of limitations have run out, but not all of them have. And the release of the Senate’s report provides a blueprint for criminal investigations, even if that’s not what the intelligence committee set out to do.

But let’s face it: Mr. (President) Obama is not inclined to pursue prosecutions — no matter how great the outrage, at home or abroad, over the disclosures — because of the political fallout. He should therefore take ownership of this decision. He should acknowledge that the country’s most senior officials authorized conduct that violated fundamental laws, and compromised our standing in the world as well as our security. If the choice is between a tacit pardon and a formal one, a formal one is better. An explicit pardon would lay down a marker, signaling to those considering torture in the future that they could be prosecuted. 

Mr. (President) Obama could pardon George J. Tenet for authorizing torture at the C.I.A.’s black sites overseas, Donald H. Rumsfeld for authorizing the use of torture at the Guantánamo Bay prison, David S. Addington, John C. Yoo and Jay S. Bybee for crafting the legal cover for torture, and George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for overseeing it all. 

While the idea of a pre-emptive pardon may seem novel, there is precedent. Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson pardoned Confederate soldiers as a step toward unity and reconstruction after the Civil War. Gerald R. Ford pardoned Richard M. Nixon for the crimes of Watergate. Jimmy Carter pardoned Vietnam War draft resisters. 

The spectacle of the president’s granting pardons to torturers still makes my stomach turn. But doing so may be the only way to ensure that the American government never tortures again. Pardons would make clear that crimes were committed; that the individuals who authorized and committed torture were indeed criminals; and that future architects and perpetrators of torture should beware. Prosecutions would be preferable, but pardons may be the only viable and lasting way to close the Pandora’s box of torture once and for all. 

This is something that I admit would never have occurred to me, but it would be quite the spectacle don't you think?

Could you imagine the outrage that would come from the conservatives over this?

Fox News broadcasts would consist simply of one long primal scream.

What do you think?