The "D" day pool, best guess as to when Trump is out

[Justin-case]

They wont touch Trump Jr.

That's a pipe dream as long as Trump is in office. I wouldn't be surprised though if they picked him up the moment Trump leaves the White House grounds for the last time in a two years.

Jr. lied to congress, I think he may be next to be indicted. Either way, democrats will have two years to expose all of the gang that couldn't lie straight's lies, 2020 should be a landslide.

 

[Justin-case]

Ivanka on the other hand, trump is the only that touches ivanka.

 

[TacoMac]

Jr. lied to congress, I think he may be next to be indicted.

It would be a very, very stupid move to do so.

The statute of limitations on federal felonies is 5 years. (Capitol offenses are much longer, but that isn't the case here.)

In order to indict and charge junior and get him to roll over on his dad, you're going to have to wait. After all, Trump could simply tell him to plead guilty, get sentenced, then pardon him and there's nothing for him to worry about.

You wait. Two years.

Then the day Trump leaves office, you pick up junior, charge him, and there's nothing on this earth daddy can do to help him. Then he'll roll over like a 10 cent whore on nickle night.

 

[Fogdog]

Yeah, the Trumpers say, let them thar liberals in Florida, Alabama, Texas and
Mississippi drown! That'll git them thar coastal elites, besides they don't believe in no stink'n climate change fake news.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Rule: Climate Emergency | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)

"Oceans are warming faster than we thought"

"Ice in Antarctica is melting faster than we thought"

Wait for it. Right wingers will start saying "I told you those scientists were wrong about climate change". Then cut funding.

 

[Fogdog]

HOUSTON (Reuters) - New York’s attorney general sued Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N) on Wednesday, alleging that the world’s largest oil company for years misled investors about the risks of climate change regulations on its business.

This was in October, and now not a peep online of the status that I can find.
Too many distractions.

You got me interested and I started looking. There is a wave of lawsuits being filed all over this country. Here's a report about one that pertains to my neck of the woods:

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/14112018/crab-fishermen-climate-change-lawsuit-fossil-fuel-companies-ocean-algae-neurotoxin-fishery-closure

Dated November 18.

It was reported locally but as you say, things have gone silent since. I guess we won't hear much while Exxon's lawyers tie the lawsuit up with their shenanigans. But the issue is real. Crabbers have lost a lot of prime time harvest days before Christmas to algae blooms that render Dungeness Crab unsafe to eat. The industry has no complaint about the closures and have advocated for strict safety standards but it costs them. They have a valid complaint in that regard.

Here's what Exxon's lawyer said:

Scott J. Silvestri, corporate media relations manager of Exxon Mobil Corp., said in an email to the Chronicle that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a global issue and requires global participation and actions.

"Lawsuits like this — filed by trial attorneys against an industry that provides products we all rely upon to power the economy and enable our domestic life — simply do not do that," he said.

When I read those words, I can't help but get pissed off. The double dealing Exxon does all it can to delay action at a global scale then tells local people their issues are counter productive to taking action at a global scale.

The article from a local paper: https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2018/11/oregon_and_california_crabbers.html

Too bad there wasn't actual local coverage. The report came from The Associated Press.

 

[Grandpapy]

The New York case will settle "weather" it's real or not.
I can see where distraction is keeping it out of the court of pubic opinion.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

It would be a very, very stupid move to do so.

The statute of limitations on federal felonies is 5 years. (Capitol offenses are much longer, but that isn't the case here.)

In order to indict and charge junior and get him to roll over on his dad, you're going to have to wait. After all, Trump could simply tell him to plead guilty, get sentenced, then pardon him and there's nothing for him to worry about.

You wait. Two years.

Then the day Trump leaves office, you pick up junior, charge him, and there's nothing on this earth daddy can do to help him. Then he'll roll over like a 10 cent whore on nickle night.

I figure Mueller wants Don jr's ass too, but he might bust him to draw Trump out and force him to pardon junior, it won't help him at all though. A pardon is an admission of guilt under the law and abrogates his 5th amendment rights. Congress will pull him in right after the pardon and put him on the hot seat again with no pleading the 5th, another pardon dad please. Repeat please, then there's the state charges and they will come with no pardon. It might end up being more important to get a traitor out of office than to get Don jr.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

I figure Mueller wants Don jr's ass too, but he might bust him to draw Trump out and force him to pardon junior, it won't help him at all though. A pardon is an admission of guilt under the law and abrogates his 5th amendment rights. Congress will pull him in right after the pardon and put him on the hot seat again with no pleading the 5th, another pardon dad please. Repeat please, then there's the state charges and they will come with no pardon. It might end up being more important to get a traitor out of office than to get Don jr.

there isn't enough time to get him out of office now, unless an axe we don't know about is already swinging....anything they started tomorrow would take pretty much until the pricks term is over to implement.

 

[TacoMac]

I figure Mueller wants Don jr's ass too, but he might bust him to draw Trump out and force him to pardon junior, it won't help him at all though. A pardon is an admission of guilt under the law and abrogates his 5th amendment rights. Congress will pull him in right after the pardon and put him on the hot seat again with no pleading the 5th, another pardon dad please. Repeat please, then there's the state charges and they will come with no pardon. It might end up being more important to get a traitor out of office than to get Don jr.

That post is wrong on so many levels that it's not worth pointing it all out.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

there isn't enough time to get him out of office now, unless an axe we don't know about is already swinging....anything they started tomorrow would take pretty much until the pricks term is over to implement.

It would kinda insure that Trump is finished as POTUS, leaving that idiot in office is dangerous to the country and a bunch of forced family pardons would do it. Imagine what Trump would do from November 2019 until Jan 20th 2020 with the certainty that a set of cuffs await him after the inauguration of the new POTUS in a landslide democratic win. They'd perp walk the fucker before the bible cooled off from the new POTUS's hand and he knows it.

I figure he will be impeached and the republican senate will be put on the spot with a very public televised senate trial. The GOP senate will be between a rock and a hard place and the democrats win either way, thought the country might loose a lot if he stays in office until after the election. There will be an impeachment trial and the closer to the election it is the better it will be for the democrats, but first there will be a bunch of very entertaining and informative public house investigations.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

That post is wrong on so many levels that it's not worth pointing it all out.

IF Don jr. is indicted, what other reason could there be other than bait for Trump? I agree that Mueller might wait until Trump is out of office and I don't really think he needs junior on a hook to issue his report. Impeachment is a political act, not a legal one and Donald pardoning his family members would be very unpopular even among republicans, it would go over like a turd in the punch bowl with the public and congress. Family pardons would also make burying Mueller's report that much more difficult, especially if junior was charged with the indicted Russians in a conspiracy case.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

IF Don jr. is indicted, what other reason could there be other than bait for Trump? I agree that Mueller might wait until Trump is out of office and I don't really think he needs junior on a hook to issue his report. Impeachment is a political act, not a legal one and Donald pardoning his family members would be very unpopular even among republicans, it would go over like a turd in the punch bowl with the public and congress. Family pardons would also make burying Mueller's report that much more difficult, especially if junior was charged with the indicted Russians in a conspiracy case.

I don't think Republicans would be outraged about anything anymore.

 

[TacoMac]

Your entire post was wrong. A pardon is the complete removal of the crime. After a pardon, the crime never existed.

It is not an admission of guilt.

Congress would not be able to send him a Christmas card, let alone subpoena him.

Your entire thought process and understanding of what a pardon is and how it works is completely wrong.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

I don't think Republicans would be outraged about anything anymore.

I agree, but it won't stop the democrats from using an impeachment trial to put the GOP senate and house on the spot, after public hearings and closer to the election when it will have maximum impact.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

Your entire post was wrong. A pardon is the complete removal of the crime. After a pardon, the crime never existed.

It is not an admission of guilt.

Congress would not be able to send him a Christmas card, let alone subpoena him.

Your entire thought process and understanding of what a pardon is a me d how it works is completely wrong.

A pardon is an admission of guilt, look it up. It also means the abrogation of the right to non self incrimination, no pleading the 5th, again look it up before you accuse me of ignorance and being wrong about this matter.

Congress CAN subpoena Don jr, as many times as they wish and they don't need to send him a card, only the legal paper work.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

A

A pardon is an admission of guilt, look it up. It also means the abrogation of the right to non self incrimination, no pleading the 5th, again look it up before you accuse me of ignorance and being wrong about this matter.

Congress CAN subpoena Don jr, as many times as they wish and they don't need to send him a card, only the legal paper work.

Not quite true.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

Not quite true.

Where did I go wrong?

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Where did I go wrong?

It's complicated. I am no legal scholar but from some casual reading it is not correct. Look into it. Your interpretation stems from a 1915 case and is far from certain.

 

[TacoMac]

Where did I go wrong?

Everywhere. I'll take them one at a time.

A pardon is an admission of guilt

No, it is not. I don't know what hack site you got that off of, but it's entirely wrong.

A presidential pardon literally wipes the crime out. It doesn't exist anymore. It never, ever happened.

Here is article 72 of the U.S. Constitution that grants the president pardon abilities:

“The President shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence: (a) in all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a Court Martial; (b) in all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends; and (c) in all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death”.

That's it. Notice it doesn't say "but the guy is still guilty"?

Because he isn't. That's exactly what a pardon does: It completely obliterates the crime. It never happened. It no longer exists.

It also means the abrogation of the right to non self incrimination, no pleading the 5th

No, it does not. If you can still be incriminated in any way, you keep your 5th amendment rights. It takes a very, extremely limited scope for that to ever happen. In fact, it's only ever happened once in American history.

So no. You're wrong. Flat out.

Congress CAN subpoena Don jr, as many times as they wish and they don't need to send him a card, only the legal paper work.

Wrong.

Congress, like any body of law, has to have probable cause to use a subpoena. They can't just issue them like candy for no reason whatsoever.

The entire idea of getting Junior to testify against Trump is that Junior would be facing punishment for a crime. Now, that we know of, the only crime Junior is guilty of is lying to congress, a felony.

So if they charge him with lying to congress and lying to the FBI and President Trump pardons him for those crimes, that's it. It's over. They can't then subpoena Junior to testify about what Trump did because Junior was no doubt involved in it as well, which is self incriminating. He would then simply take the 5th. Forever.

That's how it works.

The only time you are not allowed to plead the 5th is when you can not in any way be implicated. Anything Junior testifies against his father about, he was also involved in, ergo, he can be implicated and thus be a witness against himself even if he hadn't been charged of that particular crime at the time.

It's you that needs to do a lot more reading. Or you could do what I did and get a degree in Criminal Justice. Then you'd understand a lot of this shit much better.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

Everywhere. I'll take them one at a time.



No, it is not. I don't know what hack site you got that off of, but it's entirely wrong.

A presidential pardon literally wipes the crime out. It doesn't exist anymore. It never, ever happened.

Here is article 72 of the U.S. Constitution that grants the president pardon abilities:

“The President shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence: (a) in all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a Court Martial; (b) in all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends; and (c) in all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death”.

That's it. Notice it doesn't say "but the guy is still guilty"?

Because he isn't. That's exactly what a pardon does: It completely obliterates the crime. It never happened. It no longer exists.



No, it does not. If you can still be incriminated in any way, you keep your 5th amendment rights. It takes a very, extremely limited scope for that to ever happen. In fact, it's only ever happened once in American history.

So no. You're wrong. Flat out.



Wrong.

Congress, like any body of law, has to have probable cause to use a subpoena. They can't just issue them like candy for no reason whatsoever.

The entire idea of getting Junior to testify against Trump is that Junior would be facing punishment for a crime. Now, that we know of, the only crime Junior is guilty of is lying to congress, a felony.

So if they charge him with lying to congress and lying to the FBI and President Trump pardons him for those crimes, that's it. It's over. They can't then subpoena Junior to testify about what Trump did because Junior was no doubt involved in it as well, which is self incriminating. He would then simply take the 5th. Forever.

That's how it works.

The only time you are not allowed to plead the 5th is when you can not in any way be implicated. Anything Junior testifies against his father about, he was also involved in, ergo, he can be implicated and thus be a witness against himself even if he hadn't been charged of that particular crime at the time.

It's you that needs to do a lot more reading. Or you could do what I did and get a degree in Criminal Justice. Then you'd understand a lot of this shit much better.

These are the opinions of American legal scholars and I've seen them repeated by many times by highly respected former prosecutors and law professors. A pardon is an admission of guilt and abrogates a person's 5th amendment rights because since they are pardoned they can't incriminate themselves. Trump will issue a blanket pardon for Don jr., absolving him of all crimes committed before the pardon, either that or Don pleads the 5th and it starts all over again. Get some actual legal opinions about this, I have and I don't think all of those lawyers were lying, your not qualified to form such an opinion based on your interpretation of the constitution, get professional help.

The speaker and her majority run the house of representatives and they can subpoena whoever they wish as often as they wish, remember all those Hillary email investigations, or the Benghazi ones?

You should have studied for that legal degree, you might have made it to the bar. Unless the degree is from Trump University...

Watch Joe Arpaio Learn His Pardon Was An Admission Of Guilt | The Beat With Ari Melber | MSNBC

MSNBC’s Ari Melber confronts Senate candidate Joe Arpaio over his immigration record and fact checks Arpaio’s claim that accepting President Trump’s pardon doesn’t mean he’s guilty. The Supreme Court ruled otherwise as Melber explains on The Beat.