Just so that you will know, it is perfectly legal for anyone to use an unsecured phone, other communications device, and/or computer for any legal purpose imaginable in the United States -- so long as it does not (NOT) involve the transmission, reception, or re-transmission of CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. Do you comprehend this now?! I cannot make it any clearer than THAT! Hillary broke the law, whether you enjoy hearing about it or not -- but FBI 'Führer', James Comey, let her completely 'off the hook', while Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, simply smiled and looked the other way.... Useful information -- Example: Trump sends someone an email on his PERSONAL computer, phone, etc., with a recipe for cookies. THAT'S OK! Next example: Trump sends someone an email on his PERSONAL computer or phone with the 'launch-codes'... THAT'S NOT OK! Don't worry... I have every confidence that eventually you'll figure this out....
Truth, @(original)late ? You have no idea whatsoever what Trump uses and what he doesn't! The tragic thing is that somehow, some way, through some bizarre, half-witted thought-process, you THINK you do....
You said you'd consider it indicative of guilt if Trump pardoned himself. Isn't it similarly indicative of guilt if Giuliani has actually requested a pardon? That has been reported, andvof course it's that horrible MSM that reported it, but suppose it's true.
He said every phone he used was a government secured phone. It is an episode that has never been adjudicated Comey made sure of that even though he had no authority to do so. Durham is investigating it now.
I don't see your point, regardless of who reported it. Surely you remember that even a convicted slimebag like Rod Blagojevich could ASK to be set free (and was). As I said several times, I don't like the idea of presidential "pardons", but I don't always get what I like... do you...? Don't read too much into it. What I said, and what I meant, is that I will NOT condone a sitting president pardoning himself -- in ADVANCE or AFTER being charged with a crime while president.
My point is: why would Rudy ask for a pardon when he hasn't even been charged with a crime? It suggests he committed one we don't know about. This isn't a Trump issue, it's a Rudy issue.
I don't like Trump, the only reason I voted Biden is Trump, but I like jokes. If Trump will pardon Joe and his son, it will be great joke!
We know that after Trump stopped the arm shipment to Ukraine he asked Ukrainian president to investigate a son of his political opponent. Was it crime or a "perfect call"?
"He said"?????? "President Donald Trump routinely calls old friends, business partners, and confidants on his personal iPhone while in the White House, giving Chinese and Russia spies easy access to his personal communications and interests, reports The New York Times. The story cites American intelligence reports, which detail how Trump aides have repeatedly warned the president not to use his personal iPhone and to use the secure White House landline instead. Despite the warnings, Trump continues to take personal cellphone calls, and the White House has resolved to simply hoping the president doesn’t discuss classified matters over the phone" https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/24...rsonal-calls-china-russia-spies-eavesdropping So here we are, a few weeks from the end, and you are still holding onto that absurdity. You need divine intervention, and FYI, I'm an atheist.
I don't have a 'crystal ball', Asherah. Giuliani denies this New York Times story. Who knows? Do you know what the truth is? If it were true, however, maybe Giuliani is just 'covering his ass', which should probably never be completely ruled out when dealing with the kind of rabidly radical Democrat character-assassins and saboteurs that nearly ALL Republicans have been having to defend against for at least the past four years. Back on topic (TOPIC), and maybe for the last time in this thread, as much as I personally dislike the whole idea of 'presidential pardons', it is a practice that goes back in this country all the way to George Washington in 1795, as I pointed out earlier. BUT, no president has ever pardoned himself, and I could not support Trump pardoning himself. I hope that's finally clear enough....
I hear you, but it seems inconsistent to excuse Giuliani for wanting to cover his ass (hypothetically; remember I did not insist this is true), but not affording Trump the same courtesy of letting him cover his ass. (Look at me! Defending the orange narcissist! Seriously, I'm just trying to get your reasoning, and you're fun to talk with).
I need to clarify something... I don't "excuse" Giuliani or anyone else, including President Donald Trump, if they've committed crimes! If I've been wholly consistent in one thing throughout the endless Democrat-Republican 'axe-fights' during the past four years, it is that! I've said repeatedly that if (IF) Donald Trump had committed crimes (CRIMES), I would demand that he is duly and properly charged with those crimes, impeached, removed from office, made to stand trial afterward, and if found guilty, to suffer the proper punishment. In the specific case of a sitting-president, there are, of course, certain unique considerations, and honestly, I'm not thrilled with some of those special exemptions, either, temporary or not. I feel the same way about Giuliani, or you, myself, or any other person! Nobody should be above the LAW! We right-wing Conservatives tend to be 'law-and-order' people, and I make no exception for anyone -- which is why I'm 'allergic' to the whole idea of a president, king, czar, führer, or anybody else being able to 'grant pardons'. You're kind of 'fun to talk with', too, Asherah... and, on the whole, more circumspect and logical than most liberals I've run into here in the Forum. I would recommend another poster here to you named @Derideo_Te who's quite liberal -- but one with whom I've had very interesting and spirited discussions, ranging all the way from Irish history, to speculation about getting drunk at a Tuscan villa and falling into a Koi pool. He's explosive, rash, and a dyed-in-the-wool Trump-hater -- but very energetic and both intelligent and mostly reasonable in an odd, but consistent "liberal" kind of way that I think I also notice in you. Cheers!
And Trump refuted it and it died, the NYT never provided confirmation on it's unnamed sources one of whom appeared to be the Omarosa who had no credibility. He said all his phones met security protocols, prove otherwise. And BTW why would it require a pardon, did it for Hillary?
Not even Nixon dared to 'pardon' himself, and neither would Trump, assuming, of course, that this whole vague idea of Trump needing a pardon was based in anything more than a radical Democrat 'wet dream' in the first place! Do we really have so little else to concern ourselves with...?
So ordering the illegal ABDUCTION of small children from their parents is a CRIMINAL offense that does NOT require a pardon for YOUR heinous LOSER*-in-Chief, Cy? Sad!
The most obvious one is obstruction of justice. Mueller detailed the evidence in volume 2 of his report. Mueller was not allowed to indict a sitting President, and decided against making a prosecutorial judgment. Nevertheless, over 1000 former federal prosecutors have reviewed the evidence and signed a letter stating that in their judgment, the evidence is more than enough to indict on several counts. The letter, and signatures, can be see here.
Absolute worst case in terms of a "hoax" is that Trump and his people should not have been investigated. But once Mueller was appointed special counsel, there was an authorized government investigation, which means that efforts to obstruct it are subject to laws on obstruction of justice.
Is Mueller's 'imputation' (which didn't 'grow legs' necessary to walk into a "prosecutorial judgment") mean that at 12:01 PM, on January 20, 2021, the FBI will come to arrest Trump for whatever crimes it was that Mueller really wanted to bust him for...? I'm not a lawyer, and I think that's a valid question. At that moment, as we all know, Trump won't be a "sitting president" any longer.... I've never known of anyone who hates Trump to miss any opportunity imaginable to 'go after' him as often as possible, on any pretext conceivable. Thus, should Trump be planning a hasty escape to a country which has no extradition treaty with us...? What drama...! Illegal aliens have their brats tagging along with them -- but why is it our responsibility to let ANY of them in the country. If they never get INTO the country in the first place, then there'd be no "ABDUCTION" of small children (as you put it) at all! Mamacita and Papacito need to apply for asylum before (BEFORE) they approach our borders, and, KEEP THEIR BRATS WITH THEM AT HOME, awaiting a ruling on their application! And if their application for asylum is approved, they can come -- legally -- bringing their "small children" with them. But, no, Te, it is not a 'crime' to use necessary means to keep illegal aliens out (OUT) of the United States! Still, the ACLU and all the other devious, Leftist 'bleeding hearts' want them pouring in here by the tens of thousands as they did during Comrade Obama's last term in office. We can hope that this is one part of an "Obama 2.0" that Joe Biden doesn't allow to happen! We'll see.... . Ah, 2014, "the good old days" under Obama.
I strongly disagree with your claim that Mueller's investigation "didn't grow legs necessary to walk into a 'prosecutorial judgment'", because Mueller explicitly said that he would not make a prosecutorial judgment*. And because he also explicitly stated "if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state," so there's no basis for a claim that Mueller believed there's no case for obstruction. You can believe what you want, and you are free to excuse his behavior because you believe the investigation was unfair. But if you'd like to claim there's no case for obstruction you'd have to dig into Mueller's analysis, as I did - and as did the 1000 former federal prosecutors that agree with me. Do you even realize what he did with dangling pardons, praising people who didn't talk while attacking those who did (remember him referring to Cohen as a "rat?") I don't know that Mueller really wanted to bust Trump for anything; If anything - I think he was being overly generous to him by deciding against making a prosecutorial judgment solely because he didn't think it would be fair. Will the FBI come to arrest Trump after Biden is sworn in? I'm confident it wouldn't occur that early, but it could occur sometime in 2021. Will it occur? At best, it's a 50% chance - the decision to indict a former President is not an easy one. I would absolutely like him to be indicted and prosecuted, followed immediately by a commutation by Biden. I'm not out to punish Trump out of hatred (even though I don't like the man), and that's why I'm in favor of a commutation. But I firmly believe his conduct was grossly inappropriate and illegal, and it needs to be shown that Presidents are not above the law. --------------- * Here's Mueller's words: The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers." 1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations , see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F .R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction... ...we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct "constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (201x (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast , a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought , affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.
