Is it possible if Manafort stays quiet regarding any alleged incidents that incriminates his leader, it would be possible for him to me offered a full pardon by the commander-in-chief for his alleged crimes, if convicted?

29 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Do we have list these every time an Illiberal asks the question?

 

You’re the defence lawyer go look them up.

In other words, you don't know....or there is none. As Mr. Strzok admitted, there was no there, there. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Farangwithaplan said:

Is it possible if Manafort stays quiet regarding any alleged incidents that incriminates his leader, it would be possible for him to me offered a full pardon by the commander-in-chief for his alleged crimes, if convicted?

Any President has the power to pardon for any Federal crime. It is full final and unreviewable.

18 minutes ago, Farangwithaplan said:

it would be possible for him to me offered a full pardon by the commander-in-chief for his alleged crimes, if convicted?

 

We are told that the President's pardon powers are pretty much unfettered, save maybe pardoning himself for "high crimes and misdemeanors" if impeached (House) and convicted (Senate). I bet Alan Dershowitz has a different opinion re: self-pardoning.

 

I think he can "pre-pardon" someone, that is to say, issue blanket pardons before any conviction. At least that's what legal experts on the TV say. Politically that may be damaging though.

 

I assume he could pardon the twelve (12) Russian GRU spies recently indicted, but the optics of that might not be so good?

 

 

 

Edited July 31, 20187 yr by mtls2005

5 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

I think he can "pre-pardon" someone, that is to say, issue blanket pardons before any conviction. At least that's what legal experts on the TV say. Politically that may be damaging though.

But nice option to keep in the back pocket if any of this starts to go south.

 

I have no idea if it will and I have only a passing interest in this and my knowledge of US criminal law goes as a as watching old episodes of Boston Legal for the outstanding phrasing in the closing statements that inadvertently swayed the jury's verdicts.

4 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Speaking as a former Criminal defense attorney, I feel there is a more than a good chance the Government will fail to convict this innocent man.

What on earth is innocent about this man? He took tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments, did not declare himself an agent for those governments, and hid millions in revenue to avoid taxes. Does your allegiance to the tangerine tornado really blind you to this extent? He is going down. Expect him to remain in jail the rest of his life. And that is a good thing. This man is a menace to society.

7 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

What on earth is innocent about this man? He took tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments, did not declare himself an agent for those governments, and hid millions in revenue to avoid taxes. Does your allegiance to the tangerine tornado really blind you to this extent? He is going down. Expect him to remain in jail the rest of his life. And that is a good thing. This man is a menace to society.

Really? I thought the trial hasn't started yet.....

 

And the law says he is innocent.

 

So your post is better defined as Has your hatred of President Trump's Blinded

 you to the essence of American liberty?

26 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Really? I thought the trial hasn't started yet.....

 

And the law says he is innocent.

 

So your post is better defined as Has your hatred of President Trump's Blinded

 you to the essence of American liberty?

 

From the Guardian:

 

Quote

Bradley Moss, a Washington-based attorney who specialises in national security issues, expressed dismay that Manafort was allowing his case to go this far.

 

“They have him nailed dead to rights,” said Moss. “He is going to spend the rest of his life in jail if convicted.”

 

In addition to the alleged tax evasion, Manafort is accused by Mueller’s team of lying to banks about his debts in order to obtain multi-million-dollar loans. He is preparing for the prosecution to subject him to an embarrassing dissection of his former lifestyle.

 

According to a list of about 500 exhibits that Mueller’s team filed to court, the prosecutors are prepared to wield photographs of a $21,000 wristwatch, bespoke suits and expensive homeware into which Manafort allegedly ploughed his money to hide it from the IRS.

 

(https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/29/paul-manafort-mueller-charges-court-trial-trump)

I find the 21 K watch expense particularly interesting as I write this in Thailand. Am I alone?

 

How much evidence do you need? 

 

And there is surely more.

 

Please Google sunk cost fallacy.

Edited July 31, 20187 yr by JestSetter

4 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Oh I'm sorry I forget many of you aren't Americans. So that you non Americans know, Here we are lucky enough to have a system where an accused person is presumed innocent and the Government has the heavy burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt via material and relevant evidence that is admissable under long standing evidentiary standards.

 

Americans learn that in Grammer school as it is one of the bedrocks of our legal and constitutional system and we all view criminal cases that way. 

 

 

 

nah ! u r presumed guilty and you have to prove your innocent ? history channel discovery full of innocent people sitting in the can, after a few decades they finally prove they are innocent...

2 minutes ago, Mad mick said:

history channel discovery full of innocent people sitting in the can, after a few decades they finally prove they are innocent...

 

Manafort is white, presumably Manaforte (Firm Hand) in the old country...my guess given his dad was mayor of New Britain, CT for a while.

 

Ah, the gold old days...

 

 

Four posts have been removed. One grammar and spelling police post plus a reply. Additionally, a couple of insulting and inflammatory ones too.

Making comments on grammar and spelling is off topic and very poor netiquette. 

You all know the rules on being insulting, inflammatory and trolling, so keep it on topic please.

1 hour ago, Mad mick said:

Oh I'm sorry I forget many of you aren't Americans. So that you non Americans know, Here we are lucky enough to have a system where an accused person is presumed innocent and the Government has the heavy burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt via material and relevant evidence that is admissable under long standing evidentiary standards.

 

Americans learn that in Grammer school as it is one of the bedrocks of our legal and constitutional system and we all view criminal cases that way. 

 

 

nah ! u r presumed guilty and you have to prove your innocent ? history channel discovery full of innocent people sitting in the can, after a few decades they finally prove they are innocent...

Actually, in America if you have alot of money, there is a good chance you will be found not guilty. If you are poor, more than likely you will be found guilty. The American justice system is rigged for the rich. If you can afford a few million for the best legal team, you can establish count in the minds of the jury. Just look at the OJ Simpson case, as an example. Manafort has alot of money. What he does have going against him, is the full weight and force of the federal prosecutors. They will throw an nearly unlimited amount of money at this corrupt clown. He is going down. And that is a good thing for the nation, and for humanity. 

 

As far as evidentiary standards go, though that is essentially true, they all go out the window with a high end legal team, and their ability to twist truth and facts. That is the essence of corruption, in the minds of many. 

6 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Oh I'm sorry I forget many of you aren't Americans. So that you non Americans know, Here we are lucky enough to have a system where an accused person is presumed innocent and the Government has the heavy burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt via material and relevant evidence that is admissable under long standing evidentiary standards.

 

Americans learn that in Grammer school as it is one of the bedrocks of our legal and constitutional system and we all view criminal cases that way. 

 

 

 

I think you will find that the British had a common law system about 500 years before we introduced it to North America.

4 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Really? I thought the trial hasn't started yet.....

 

And the law says he is innocent.

 

So your post is better defined as Has your hatred of President Trump's Blinded

 you to the essence of American liberty?

Next thing you know he'll be chanting "Lock him up, lock him up, lock him up..."

17 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Any President has the power to pardon for any Federal crime. It is full final and unreviewable.

It can also be political sûicide, see G. Ford.

On 7/30/2018 at 4:35 PM, Nyezhov said:

Speaking as a former Criminal defense attorney, I feel there is a more than a good chance the Government will fail to convict this innocent man.

How did that work out for you Vlad?

 

If I ever need a lawyer, don’t apply.