Trump campaign meeting and ended up saying it was Papadopo-licious.

But I like Papapalooza too!

"Hop-on-pop-pulus"

Looking forward to the future.

How does an indictment, sealed or not, keep Trump from pardoning any one?

The premise being that a given indictment “A” stays for the time being, either until all are in place or one is needed to counter a pardon.
The Constitution forbids the POTUS, in theory, from pardoning co-conspirators or himself when involved in a criminal conspiracy. Admittedly there has never been a real life test of this but it’s a Constitutionally sound theory.

In full disclosure this not completely my thoughts but my impressions from what I’ve read and heard.

There is no clear statement in the Constitution that a President cannot pardon a co-conspirator but it is an interesting theory.

I think a good argument can be made that the use of the pardon power to protect the President (or his closest family or allies) from investigation of criminal offenses would be an obstruction of justice.

Obstruction of justice may, perhaps be the clearest and easiest (pattern) to prove against the orange shitgibbon (aka PINO).

Indeed, the Constitution is mute on this matter of the scope or extent of presidential powers of pardon (how could the Founders possibly have envisioned such tangled web woven as that to which we now bear witness? FFS!). Thankfully, the Constitution is a "living document" (despite what some hardcore, far-RWNJs maintain), and Mueller--by withholding Indictment A (presumably Trump)--has employed a strategy (a hedge, in essence) to (a) neuter anticipated executive power or--more cunning-- (b) entrap the executive, should he be so reckless in asserting his assumed power as to pardon those under Indictment B.

Mueller clearly recognizes that this moment is uncharted, and in so being offers an opportunity for the judiciary to clarify the matter scope and intent relative to the power of pardon through case law; indeed, the higher principle and tradition of "rule of law" is under trial here.

Of course, I'm speculating. Everyone is, I suppose, In short, there's a cat/mouse game playing out among lawyers over the constitutional scope of powers relative to the checks and balances principle.

Appreciate your insight, TomSlick.

Will have no problem pushing everything to the limit, including pardon powers
I DO have faith in Mueller being smarter for one.
Ask Tillerson or Mad dog....

that B is a corrected version of A. It has been published elsewhere. This happens when a prosecutor has to ammend an indictment. B just replaces A.

Of course, at any time, there are dozens of sealed indictments in the system. So any of them could also indict trump. It doesn't need to be A vs B. It can stand alone.

Lets just hope the core is true. The mechanics aren't important.

contains the notation (by the clerk) "Indictment B"

But the notation "B" is a notation used by the clerk for internal purposes. It doesn't indicate that the indictment so noted is one in a series. A quick search found other indictments issued by DC grand juries that contain the "B" notation, but none that ever contained an "A" notation.

I'm sure Claude Taylor is the next source.

It's not that this subject isn't fascinating, it is, and 1000 times more worthwhile than yet another post running after the harassment ball (Goooood suckers!!!). But, after all, we have no shortage these days of ex- federal prosecutors explaining what they think Mueller is probably up to.

SO glad he's on OUR side!

If anyone can pull this off it will be Mueller.

" By definition, Indictment (A) has to be against someone of higher value in the investigation than Manafort, "

co-conspirators can be ranked, meaning unsealing of indictments in a ranked order so as to not prejudice the investigation swimming toward the bigger fish.

one grows suspicious in these trying times, SheShe.

Which is probably why they do it. But the bear is out of the bag, that is my message to the Politburo.

why the Palmer Report and Mench are highly unreliable sources. This isn't some conspiracy, it's just a terrible place to go for anything other than creative speculation.

That was the only exception I had with the analysis. I believe it would be more accurate to say, "has to be against someone of higher 'relevance to' the investigation..."

But overall, a concise piece laying out some points I'd not considered before.

That whole bunch is so much like the gang who couldn't shoot straight, I can't imagine it took long to find damning evidence from the start of the investigation and connect a bunch of dots.

I wish this would come to a conclusion already, we're getting squeezed in my state like nobody's business when it comes to any kind of social services. We need regime change.

I agree there is a possibility with your theory if Flynn and his son end up being Indictment (C).

But its hard to know exactly what arrangements have been made with Flynn and if he is already a witness...

Yet hard to know what Mueller does. He is one smart man and has a strong team. He has brought in the best of the best.

along with attempts to end FBI investigation into Flynn and firing Comey. Hope Hicks' involvement in email chains from Papadopolous and Carter Page regarding contacts with Russians and Don Jr's coordination with Wikileaks indicates that her testimony should be enough to nail him for conspiracy, because she undoubtedly passed along all those email messages to her boss who acted on the information.

That if he used his pardons to inhibit an investigation, he could be impeached for that. I could imagine Mueller having a sealed indictment for Trump on money laundering since it might have happened years ago, while he is still connecting the dots on everything else.

Since it's a constitutional power, congress doesn't have the power to regulate it. That's where the notion of conflict of interest in the judiciary comes from; federal law.

Just as the scotus isn't bound by legislation concerning conflict of interest, neither is the pardon clause. If congress had just passed a law granting pardon authority, it could be regulated by congress. But it wasn't. It's a rare constitutional power; and it isn't limited.

In any event, it has never been challenged or tested. It would surely take a torturous route through federal courts and end up at the scotus, where it would be greeted by a majority of originalists.

don't count on any limitation of the pardon; the odds are very bad.

I trust Mueller to know....and the legal minds he has on his team.

is above the law? What democratic principal is applicable for such immunity?

What if the crime is mass murder? Pardons? No way is pardon power absolute.

possess it's impeachment powers. That is the proper venue to stop a president from issuing rogue and self-serving pardons, not necessarily the courts.

Impeachment by the House has no direct effect other than to initiate a trial in the Senate.

Conviction by the Senate results in the President being removed from office (and, optionally, disqualification from holding any future office). After that, of course, he can no longer issue pardons.

But during that process, which is likely to take weeks or months (conceivably less if there's universal agreement that the President must be removed immediately), the President is still President, and has time to issue as many pardons as he likes. The Constitution places very few limits on the President's impeachment power:

he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment

and there's some language excepting cases of impeachment. Whatever that means.

State crimes are the biggie in this instance tho: since, as it happens, many of the players are involved in foreign money laundering, foreign payments for elections, foreign financial transactions of nefarious types...and many/most of the players and banks involved are located in NY, all of those possible transgressions are subject of NY state laws, and the NY state AG--who has already prosecuted tRump for his "University", and shut down his "charitable" Foundation. His pardon power is powerless there. Sad.

After a lifetime of financial crimes and admitted sexual predation, it would be true justice if Trump were to be impeached, removed, indicted, and convicted.

Recommended.

Sounds like an open and shut case.

The Palmer Report needs much more fermentation before it'll be ready for prime time.

Just my opinion.

Doesn't mean they are muehler's. I hope they are, but it could just be other unrelated activity. At any time, there are hundreds of sealed indictments. Any of them could be muehlers; lets hope they all are.

for being a garbage fake news site.

I just have this strange urge to discount rumor and unfounded speculation. Reality seems so much more satisfying.

**fainting gif here**

No idea what I have ever posted...

many people frequently assert that if they've never heard of it, it can't possibly exist, or if it does exist, it can't possibly be worthy.

The Palmer Report was the blog that broke the story in January 2017 that one and only one of the forty-nine organizers of the Women's March was responsible for blackballing the name of a noted feminist pioneer from mention at the event.

The episode was confirmed by the self-proclaimed purist who admitted the fact the night before the event. She tried very hard to defend the indefensible on Twitter where she was soundly drubbed for her self-serving exclusion of that one particular woman as unworthy of recognition.

For that report alone, I was very grateful to Mr. Palmer. It's nice to be able to tell the difference between an ally and an opportunist. Others may have had the story, but Mr. Palmer was the one one who had the courage to report it.

I forgot he reported this slight to a feminist pioneer for nary a mention of her name at the Woman's March

It's imaginative fun. It's also sourced, as far as I can tell, from the unicorn that lives up his ass. I love his stories, but they are fun bedtime stories, that's all.

Last edited Wed Nov 22, 2017, 11:02 AM - Edit history (1)

you never heard this story or know of this blog. Does your omniscience cover all stories and all blogs the world over? Just asking since if you say you have NEVER seen this information, then is it suspect for all of us and because you say so, we should all ignore this information?

Luckily, you're the only one making the argument an open and shut case exists, regardless of what you've never heard of...

Article 2, Section 2.1

pardoning a co-conspirator, especially before a personally embarrassing trial, makes for one hell of an abuse of power impeachment charge.


but the co-conspirators will likely escape federal punishment. hopefully there's some state-level violations they can be held accountable for.

it certainly goes against the "intent of the framers" for a despotic president to pardon his cronies, but that intent didn't make it into the actual language of the constitution.

perhaps it might lead to a prompt amendment.

republicans might even be open to the *after* donnie's gone. but not before.

and the scotus has a majority of originalists. The scotus, btw, doesn't feel bound by any limits on conflict of interest other than their own conscience. They have unlimited powers as well, and are fine with abusing them........

state crimes aren't covered. neither are "cases of impeachment," whatever that means.

means a pardon can't stop the removal of a president or appointed official by means of congressional impeachment.

State crimes aren't covered, but there is precedant whereby the feds can claim supremecy over a state court and prosecute at the federal level. That nullifies state charges. Of course, federal charges can be pardoned.

It's a sticky wicket.

This can only be resolved politically, not legally. And congress is sadly in no mood to lift a finger.

state crimes are the issue for tRump and the minions...and fed pardons do not nullify state crimes. especially with canny prosecutors like Mueller and Schneiderman at the helm. They are way smarter than tRump and his handpicked lawyers.

they supercede the jurisdiction. If the feds want to prosecute, courts will let them. State charges can't procede or it would create double jeopardy. It's a tactic the doj could use to nullify state efforts to prosecute.

but there has to be a federal analog of the charges. Which in most cases there will be though......

An example would be if you killed a federal officer (fbi or postal worker). If the state leveled charges but the feds wanted to prosecute, they would have supremacy and they would be granted jurisdiction. The state couldn't proceed. ever.

in more than one jurisdiction, for the same underlying criminal act. That is not double jeopardy.

And if the feds aren't interested in prosecuting all such questions are moot, aren't they?...Mueller leveled far fewer charges at Manafort than he could have, leaving the door open for NY to proceed should tRump try to stop the process with a pardon.

The upshot is the pardon power, even wielded by someone as irresponsible as tRiump, is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. As I am sure his few competent advisors are aware.

Congress for impeachment, then it would make sense that Trumpy could NOT pardon any of the defendants because his indictment will go to Congress for an impeachment hearing, the crimes for which Trumpy could not pardon.

My point being that there are many, many things about the Constitution — everything from founding principles to minor errata — that aren’t actually IN the Constitution.

Several courts in other jurisdictions, both here and abroad, have dealt with similar pardon language and ruled that the Executive can’t pardon co-conspirators to the crime itself; the “except in cases of impeachment” can be broadly applied.

Of course, that application is what makes the whole thing moot. The question could only be answered by the SCOTUS. We all know how Thomas and Gorsuch will decide, and three others besides.

Even THAT is all moot though, because people are dreaming if they think the House will impeach or the Senate will convict, either body with the requisite majorities.

It’s just not going to happen. These are people who have convinced almost half the country that they need to elect a pedarast so that poor people can pay for billionaires’ tax cuts. They have neither shame nor morality.

We’re all going to have to work on elections, education, registration, GOTV, and making ourselves into total pains in the ass at other levels until 2020.

Mueller’s findings will most likely be vitally important to historians and not much else.

If you think the Republican Congress is going to DO anything about it.

Mueller comes back with undeniable evidence of everything from laundering mob money to the pee pee tapes... And you think that Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnel or the people who vote for Roy Moore are going to do anything about it? They’re not. You think all of a sudden the people desperate to take away student loans so that private jet owners can get a bigger tax break are going to do anything? That the
people who thought Trump was “more honest” and only watch Fox will do anything other than shout “fake news!” and turn up the volume on Infowars to drown out the sounds of “those people” protesting? And you call ME illogical?

How will Mueller’s report affect your life in any way? It won’t. It will change nothing.

that if Donald Trump tries to pardon his own alleged co-conspirators in the Trump Russia scandal, the courts will rule that those pardons are unconstitutional."

Bullshit.

The Constitution says no such thing.

Anywhere.

Not even close.

million other things not existing when written. Nada...or is it nyet?

Is that Trump is on his way to owning the courts.

the category of the felony involved -- that it doesn't imply that the preceding indictment was an "A."

Wish I was that smart. One other very good reason, comrade Benedict donald should be afraid, Mueller is a Marine. We take our oaths, very seriously. Semper Fidelis (Always Faithful).

She was at all the meetings and may very well prove to be a lynchpin. Mueller has a team that is astounding and could present the Donald with a nuclear option of a different sort.

Boom

Thanks she!

and Junior, they will certainly have plenty to think about before making a wrong move.

There's so much totally unrealistic, not grounded in the law mumbo jumbo in there I don't know where to begin.

that the whole fucking bunch can't be tied into some big time STATE charges that can't be pardoned? Im just counting on Mueller to be smart enough to make sure pardons won't work for these assholes

What am I missing? Didn't GHWBush pardon all his Iran-Contra coconspirators? Before they were even brought to trial.

The media and Democrats just yawned and decided to move forward.

Did Putin own his ass? There is no comparison. None.

We are on new ground here, what do you not understand?

Iran, Russia, what's the difference?
A crime is a crime.

We are talking about tRump. A compromised presidency and a Russian connection that lead to his presidency. Treason. Sad that you do not see that.

I could have sworn there was talk about Presidential pardons. My mistake.

if it means he himself is protected.

Please please please!!!

I like the way that Mueller is working with the NY AG. The theory in the Palmer report has not been tested but it is clear that the NY AG can also indict targets and trump cannot pardon state law indictments

First, the fact that the indictment contains the notation "Description: Indictment (B)" does not mean that there is a related "Indictment (A)" out there. Here are some other USDC indictments with the same notation:

http://www.exportlawblog.com/docs/US_v_Tajideen.pdf
https://www.scribd.com/document/356641539/Imran-Awan-Hina-Alvi-Grand-Jury-Indictment-of-Congressional-Mortgage-Fraud

I challenge anyone to find an indictment with the notation "A" or "C". You won't.

And the idea that Trump can't pardon "co-conspirators" is utterly without constitutional foundation.

And what crimes do you think Trump has committed that are so closely related to the specific crimes that Manafort and Gates are charged with?

this definition that everyone seems to be taking for granted? Why are indictments always listed in a (somewhat subjective) order of "value", rather than, say, the order in which they are ready?

the article has a Fox News level of "telling people what they want to hear to generate traffic" level of complete bullshit.

Mueller time, indeed. I'll drink to that!

So for trump it comes down to those small victories, like staying in power for another day.

The reason, Flynn hasn't been indicted yet.

Just a thought. Tie both of these guys in the same indictment. Would that block any pardon?