Trump's pardons, what it means for them

Prosecutors have "mounting amount of evidence" against Trump, Michael Cohen says - CBS News
Prosecutors have "mounting amount of evidence" against Trump, Michael Cohen says

President Trump's former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, says he is "not interested" in a presidential pardon — and claims Mr. Trump is going to face legal issues of his own soon after leaving the White House.

"It has to do with his finances, it has to do with his tax returns, it has to do with his properties, it has to do with the personal financial statements that he had made and provided in order to obtain loans," Cohen said on CBSN Thursday.

A number of investigations could cause legal trouble for Mr. Trump after he leaves office in January, including potential congressional inquiries as well as probes by the attorneys general of New York and Washington, D.C. and the Manhattan district attorney.

Cohen said he had been questioned by the state attorney general's team and the district attorney's office and claimed investigators are "well-prepared" with their evidence to "move relatively quickly" in their probes.

"I do believe that there is a mounting amount of evidence that they will be prosecuting upon," Cohen said. "Some of it of course is civil, and other parts of it are criminal."

Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to charges of fraud, campaign violations and lying to Congress and was sentenced to 3 years in prison. He was granted home confinement due to the pandemic earlier this year. President Trump has repeatedly blasted Cohen as a known liar, but Cohen says he has documents to back up his claims.

There is currently only one publicly known investigation that could lead to criminal charges for Mr. Trump, led by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. It initially targeted hush-money payments made during the 2016 campaign to adult film star Stormy Daniels, but Vance's office has since indicated in court filings that it has widened to look at possible crimes as wide-ranging as fraud and tax evasion.

However, the timeline of Vance's investigation is unclear. His seat is up for grabs in 2021, and the case is unlikely to be resolved until a new district attorney is in office.

Cohen declined to comment on any specifics of what he told investigators, but said "I know what it is that they're looking for" and asserted that they already have a "multitude of evidence" built up.

Asked about the president's mindset, Cohen, who worked as Mr. Trump's "fixer" for years before their public rift, said: "What he is right now is very, very nervous and he is very scared because in 27 days he knows that Joe Biden is going to be sworn in, and that's when there's going to be a plethora of litigation and subpoenas that are going to be flying around that he cannot control anymore."

Cohen admitted to lying for the president to cover up what he now calls Mr. Trump's "dirty deeds."

"When I started to realize that I was being used by Trump and the administration as his scapegoat, I didn't want to end up being remembered in history as the villain of Donald Trump's story," Cohen said on CBSN.

Unlike Mr. Trump's associates Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Michael Flynn, among others, Cohen has not received a pardon from the president — and he "didn't expect one," either.

"I truly believe that those who were accepting Trump's filth will have the stench of corruption following their name and their family's names for decades to come," he said. "It's just another disgraceful Trump act."

The president began announcing various pardons and commutations Wednesday evening. Among the first were Flynn, who briefly served as national security adviser before pleading guilty to lying to the FBI, and former Trump campaign staffer George Papadopoulos. Pardons for Stone and Manafort were announced the next evening.

All four of those Trump allies, like Cohen, were indicted on charges stemming from the Mueller investigation.

Trump administration considering immunity for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman: report
The U.S. State Department is reportedly considering immunity for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in a lawsuit accusing him of attempting to have a former Saudi intelligence official assassinated.

Saad Aljabri, a longtime aide to former Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, went public with his claims in August. His federal lawsuit alleges the crown prince dispatched a hit squad to Canada, where Aljabri lives in exile, and that border officials prevented them from entering the country.

Aljabri alleges the men were sent to kill him within days of the killing of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The Saudi government filed an Interpol notice asking other countries’ law enforcement to arrest and extradite Aljabri, accusing him of corruption and using his office to enrich himself.

Aljabri’s son Khalid told the Times that he fears Riyadh would view any immunity as carte blanche to make further attempts on his father’s life.

“It’s a really dangerous thing,” he told the newspaper. “It will be the equivalent of giving a U.S.-issued license to kill.”

I think this is a good idea for Trump's corrupt pardons, those concerning himself, coconspirators and witnesses. At the least it will force them to spend a fortune defending their pardons in court. Why not, let the courts decide, what if Trump pardoned all the federal poisoners at once? The SCOTUS might like this argument, the constitution says nothing about it and it is completely unsettled law. Donald is providing examples of abuse daily, the black water and other abusive pardons unconnected to Trump should not be un done, at least right away, see how they rule on the worst examples first starting with his self pardon. A pardon is essentially and executive order and Joe should undo a few conspiracy related federal pardons. Once you break new legal ground using the most egregious examples like Stone and Manafort, go for the rest later. It is a logical check on grossly abused pardon power, let the courts make the calls starting with the worst examples.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion | If Trump pardons himself, Biden should un-pardon him - The Washington Post

Opinion by Ken Gormley
Dec. 18, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. AST
Ken Gormley is an expert on the Constitution, the presidency and the pardon power. He is president of Duquesne University.

If President Trump makes the ill-advised decision to try to pardon himself before he leaves the White House in January, incoming president Joe Biden should respond with another unprecedented step: He should “un-pardon” his predecessor.

That might sound strange, even extra-constitutional. Certainly, there’s nothing in the words of the Constitution or in historical precedent that speaks of undoing a self-pardon — but that’s because there’s nothing that authorizes a self-pardon in the first place. The Constitution’s text, its original meaning and historical precedent all point strongly against the validity of a self-pardon.

In part because it’s unlikely that the legitimacy of such an audacious act would be determined in court, it’s important for the new president, with the advice of his Justice Department, to take a stand against this dangerous precedent.

The Framers of the Constitution gave the chief executive enormous discretion in wielding pardons. Presidents have used this sprawling power to pardon political allies (George H.W. Bush pardoned former defense secretary Caspar Weinberger), and even family members (President Bill Clinton pardoned his half-brother, Roger Clinton). The pardon power permits the president to pardon individuals of all past federal crimes, and even crimes that have not been specified. If Trump chooses to pardon his children or any other person within his orbit, he can do it.
But no president has ever tried to issue a self-pardon, for good reason. Taking a pardon for oneself constitutes an act of self-dealing, running counter to the clear text that says presidents can “grant” pardons, which implies a grant to others. It also runs counter to the landmark holding of United States v. Nixon, the Watergate tapes case, in which Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote for a unanimous court that not even the president is above the law.

In 1974, President Richard M. Nixon’s own Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion stating that Nixon could not pardon himself, based upon “the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case.” Likely for that reason, Nixon never pardoned himself.

If Trump were to try to take that step, presumably under the theory that Democrats will retaliate against him, Biden should first refer the question to the Office of Legal Counsel. If the OLC in 2021 concurs with the precedent of that office in 1974 — which is highly likely — this legal opinion would constitute a second piece of guidance shoring up the position that self-pardons are inherently unconstitutional. It would provide a basis for President Biden to then issue an executive order nullifying Trump’s action.

That action is especially important because Biden seems to be disinclined to have his Justice Department prosecute Trump in the interest of moving on. This means there may never be any “case or controversy” involving the self-pardon issue; the question would arise only if federal criminal charges were filed against the former president. Thus, it’s quite possible the matter will end there and never get to court. If it did, the Justice Department’s consistent interpretation of limited presidential power would be influential — another reason for the new administration to weigh in.

As Trump considers his options, he might want to keep in mind that a self-pardon would not be in his own best interests. The Supreme Court’s 1915 ruling in Burdick v. United States, declared that a presidential pardon carries with it “an imputation of guilt,” and that acceptance of a pardon constitutes a “confession.”

When I interviewed President Gerald Ford in 1999 for a program at Duquesne University on his pardon of Nixon, Ford stressed that the Burdick case was a crucial factor in his decision. He felt it would give the American public what it wanted most: a legal admission of wrongdoing from Nixon. Ford told me that he sent a young lawyer, Benton L. Becker, to Nixon’s compound in San Clemente, Calif., to explain the import of the Burdick case.
Nixon’s personal lawyer, Herbert “Jack” Miller, later confirmed this account and told me that Nixon initially sought to refuse to accept the pardon because he did not want to admit guilt. It was only after Ford’s lawyer threatened to walk away and withdraw the pardon that Nixon capitulated and accepted it knowing its legal consequences.

Because the acceptance of a pardon amounts to a legal admission of guilt, Trump would suffer a self-inflicted wound if he pardons himself and is considering running for president again in 2024. One would hope that a major political party would be loath to nominate a candidate who had effectively confessed to a federal crime.

And Trump’s legacy would be forever tarnished. Addressing the Constitutional Convention in 1787, James Iredel of North Carolina, later one of the first Supreme Court justices, sought to assuage fears about the reckless use of the pardon power. The greatest deterrent to a president abusing the power, he said, would be the “damnation of his fame to all future ages.”

If Trump is foolish enough to take that risk, his successor should not allow it to stand, for the benefit of the American presidency and future ages.

Trump's Corrupt Pardons, Court Challenges and Constitutional Amendments

Donald Trump's pardons range from the despicable (pardoning corrupt Republican politicians for insider trading and stealing from their donors) to the abusive of victims' rights (the Blackwater pardons) to the downright corrupt and arguably criminal (Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Mike Flynn).
There are those who say that even criminal pardons are a legitimate exercise of the broad presidential pardon power and are not susceptible to court challenge.

Even former Attorney General Bill Barr - a man not exactly tethered to the law - testified to the Senate that it would be a crime for a president to grant a pardon in exchange for a person's silence, an agreement not to incriminate the president. Accordingly, Trump's corrupt pardons MUST be challenged in court. If the judiciary rules that corrupt pardons to buy silence are not susceptible to court challenge, then the only remaining answer to prevent future presidents from granting corrupt pardons is a constitutional amendment.

This Is Not How Pardons Should Be Used.

Ali Velshi breaks down the Trump pardons so far and what they reveal about President Trump’s values vs. how outgoing presidents typically use the power.

Trump Pardons Crooks for Federal Financial Crimes, Time for the States To Step Up+Charge the Crooks

Trump has pardoned so many corrupt politicians for federal financial crimes: former New York Congressman, Republican Chris Collins, former California Congressman, Republican Duncan Hunter, former California Congressman (please note: in the video I erroneously said Hunter was a Tennessee Congressman), and others.

Trump's pardons shield these crooks from the consequences of their federal crimes. However, financial crimes that violate federal tax laws almost certain also violate state tax laws. So state attorneys general and state prosecutors hold step up and hold these crooks accountable for violating state laws.

The Political Depravity of Unjust Pardons

I'm furious at the recent presidential pardons. And you should be too. These pardons aren't normal. Warning: Contains opinion.

Time's short now and the video of these clowns monitoring the invasion of the capital while laughing and partying will mean they will need pardons for sure. Congress could use inherent powers to get answers and imprison them all for 10 years for contempt of congress (no pardon) or the new DOJ can do them if they lie in the future. State crimes will get most of them, but these pardons must be challenged and overturned.

Can you pardon a seditious conspiracy you initiated and were a party to, that directly attacks the capital and congress of the USA? What a test of the pardon power, Joe revokes Trump's pardons for sedition and the SCOTUS weighs in on whether he can do it. It's an existential example that the SCOTUS cannot duck or get around, Joe should revoke all Trump pardons for those who conspired with him in criminal acts, or acts of sedition. There is video of these clowns partying and celebrating while watching the capital hill attack unfold on TV monitors after inciting the sedition and riot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Talk of Trump Family Pardons Swirls as Washington Debates Removing Trump

Speculation that President Donald Trump would pardon his family swirled around Washington as Democrats threatened to impeach Trump if his Cabinet did not invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office.

Alleging that Trump is unfit for office after inciting a violent mob that attacked the U.S. Congress as it was certifying the election of Joe Biden as president, Democrats have demanded that Vice President Mike Pence exercise the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In his final days as president, Trump has issued a series of pardons and commutations to people he perceives as friends or allies. That list of pardons could extend to members of Trump's immediate family.

Meanwhile, the New York Times reported that Trump has discussed pardoning himself, an act that would be legally dubious and has never been attempted by his predecessors. Bloomberg News also said Trump himself was a possible pardon target.

"I think it's extraordinarily unlikely he resigns," Donald Trump's niece, Mary Trump, told CNN's Anderson Cooper on Thursday. "I think it's much more likely he tries to pardon himself."

Sources told Bloomberg News that Donald Trump is reviewing a list of possible pardons including his daughter, Ivanka, and her husband, senior adviser Jared Kushner. Donald Trump is also reportedly considering issuing a pardon to his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani has proven himself to be a staunch ally of Donald Trump, spearheading the effort to prove, without evidence, Donald Trump's allegations of widespread voter fraud.

Some observers believe that removing Donald Trump from office, taking away his power to issue a final round of pardons that could be construed as self-serving, is an essential factor in preventing the lame duck president from causing more damage.

"If House impeaches today - it puts huge pressure on Trump to behave himself for next 13 days," tweeted political commentator David Frum. "(EG no more corrupt pardons, for self and family or for pro-Trump insurrectionists). Will put a senatorial collar around Trump's neck until noon on the 20th."

"It's critical that Trump be removed BEFORE he attempts some blanket BS pre-emptive pardon of the Capitol terrorists, himself and his family," tweeted political strategist Greg Pinelo on Thursday. "Such pardons would not be legitimate, but they would cloud the legality of prosecutions by the next AG and DOJ."

Pence has not publicly stated that he was considering invoking the 25th Amendment, leading House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to suggest the possibility that Donald Trump could be the first U.S. president to be impeached twice.

"If the vice president and Cabinet do not act, the Congress may be prepared to move forward with impeachment," Pelosi said during a Thursday press briefing. "If he wants to be unique and be doubly impeached, that's kind of up to him and his Cabinet as to whether he should stay in office."

Impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump would have to be conducted under an emergency meeting of Congress. Members of the Senate and the House are not scheduled to return to Washington until at least January 20, the expected date of Biden's inauguration.

Video of sedition in progress, these people are every bit as stupid and white privileged as the morons they set upon the capital and congress. This will look real fucking good at their sedition trials when they wave their pardons around in the judge's face, stick out their tongues and give the courts and America the finger.

They better hope they end up in prison, I don't think they will be safe on the streets of America, their body guards will be nervous people who better get top dollar.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GLORIA: Trump listening to Laura Branigan watching DC Capitol Protest Save America Rally?