So when is Trump going to pardon Manafort?

[Honeycombe8]

He'll need to pardon Manafort before Manafort panics and flips. I read that it's possible, now, that Manafort will spend the rest of his life in jail, since he's not out on bail, anymore.

But if he pardons him NOW, he can only pardon him for witness tampering. Not for the main issues that will be prosecuted.

So...can Trump pardon him AGAIN, if he's found guilty for money laundering or the myriad other legal issues he has?

Trump doesn't care about people. So his only interest in pardoning Manafort is to prevent him from flipping. But now that he's incarcerated before the main event, this could be tricky.

[C_U_L8R]

1. He'll need to pardon Manafort again and again and again...

we can do this all day long.

[beachbum bob]

2. He can not pardon manafort until after the trial and convictions....

I would say mueller will use RICO to have asset forfeiture of manforts immediate family assets which would not be returned regardless of any pardon. The guilt is 100% acknowledged to receive a pardon...

[Lulu KC]

4. Thanks--wondering n/t

[H2O Man]

6. Ford pardoned Nixon

before Dick could be charged. (I saw someone saying a pardon has to be specific to charges last night on the news, but that is inaccurate.)

[grantcart]

19. Not necessarily, the issue hasn't been settled in court

The judge for Arpaio didn't accept the pardon without finalizing the guilty conviction first.

In any case Trump cannot pardon Manafort or Cohen because they then lose their right to not self incriminate and would have to tell everything or face new charges not covered by the pardon.

While the illusion of a pardon helps Trump the actual pardon would work against him, once given the witness becomes the property of the special prosecutor.

[H2O Man]

25. It's not "settled" in court

for good reason: no scholar of constitutional law thinks otherwise. In Arpaio's case, the judge could not overrule the pardon. Not a chance. Rather, that was rooted in timing per the verdict, and moldy Joe's need to accept the pardon based upon his being guilty. Not-guilty people, I assume you will agree, do not need pardons (though innocent people found "guilty" in court may).

The part of the issue that is likely to come up in federal court is if a president is attempting to obstruct justice by issuing pardons. As you will recall, Nixon's dangling pardons became an issue for exactly that reason. Ford's pardon erased that from possibly reaching the courts .

[Honeycombe8]

13. He can't pardon him for witness tampering?

I suppose that's because there is evidence of it, but he hasn't been tried & found guilty of it? That makes sense...phew!

[Shanti Mama]

3. And once pardoned

Manafort can be compelled testify against Trump without fear of incriminating himself.

[beachbum bob]

7. Depends, he could face new charges

[pwb]

5. Doesn't he have to be convicted first?

Think so.?

[beachbum bob]

8. Pardons only happen after trial, conviction and sentencing...

[H2O Man]

9. Not true.

One need only think of Ford pardoning Nixon.

[beachbum bob]

34. The pardon...was on what?...Nixon was never charged was he...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. This

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10738133

[pwb]

11. Thought so..

😊

[Hassin Bin Sober]

23. Then how did Ford pardon Nixon?

I think people get caught up on the DOJ’s self imposed policy and not what The Constitution actually says and what is generally understood as almost unrestricted power to pardon for federal offenses

Trump doesn’t even have to use so many pretty words

By the President of the United States of America a Proclamation
Richard Nixon became the thirty-seventh President of the United States on January 20, 1969 and was reelected in 1972 for a second term by the electors of forty-nine of the fifty states. His term in office continued until his resignation on August 9, 1974.
Pursuant to resolutions of the House of Representatives, its Committee on the Judiciary conducted an inquiry and investigation on the impeachment of the President extending over more than eight months. The hearings of the Committee and its deliberations, which received wide national publicity over television, radio, and in printed media, resulted in votes adverse to Richard Nixon on recommended Articles of Impeachment.
As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States. Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and on the discretion of the authorized prosecutor. Should an indictment ensue, the accused shall then be entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury, as guaranteed to every individual by the Constitution.
It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States. The prospects of such trial will cause prolonged and divisive debate over the propriety of exposing to further punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the unprecedented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office of the United States.
Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and ninety-ninth.
GERALD R. FORD

[jberryhill]

51. Or the blanket amnesty for draft evaders

I don’t know where people get this amnesia.

[Wednesdays]

15. Nixon. nt

[unblock]

10. donnie could pardon him for any and all federal crimes committed up to the date of the pardon.

there's no reason why donnie couldn't pardon him for money laundering or any other federal crime already committed.

he can't pardon future crimes and he can't pardon non-federal (e.g., state-level) crimes but that's the only limitation.


the question is, why *would* he. he needs maximum leverage against manafort, so making the pardon contingent on favorably testimony should work best -- assuming manafort trusts that donnie will deliver.

if donnie pardons him now, he loses a lot of leverage. manafort might be grateful for the pardon, but there's no incentive left not to tell the truth.

[H2O Man]

12. Correct.

Thank you for this. As you perhaps noted, there is misinformation being posted here.

[Honeycombe8]

14. Well, he can't be pardoned NOW for the big charges that he'll be prosecuted for.

Because he hasn't been tried & found guilty (or plead guilty) to any of those.

I was thinking of this NEW matter of witness tampering. I was thinking that since he was thrown in jail, he was guilty of it, but others have said that's not so. He would still need to be tried & convicted of witness tampering. So there's nothing for Trump to pardon right now. That's what my question was about: this premature and additional charge he's in jail for.

The problem for Trump with this development is the possibility that Manafort, a privileged silk-suited multi-millionaire, will panic, once in jail, and be more likely to consider flipping to shorten jail time.

[H2O Man]

16. Sure he can.

The only two things that Trump could not pardon Manafort for are: (1) state charges; and (2) future crimes. But Trump could pardon him today for any and all crimes that Manafort has been, or might be, charged with up to the exact moment of the pardon.

[Honeycombe8]

18. No...you can only pardon someone who has been found guilty, or plead guilty, to a crime.

Manafort has not plead guilty to anything. And he's apparently thrown in jail not because he was found guilty of witness tampering by a fact finder, but because there is enough evidence of it to revoke his bail.

I assume he'll be tried for witness tampering later, when he's tried for the other crimes he's charged with.

[H2O Man]

22. Way wrong.

As myself and others have noted, there are examples where exactly that has happened. Perhaps you are not old enough to remember Ford pardoning Nixon -- without naming a specific crime, much less any charges -- or President Carter pardoning "draft dodgers," who had not been charged.

There is not a single scholar of constitutional law that would agree with you. More, there is no case law to support your position. It's okay to admit you are wrong.

[Honeycombe8]

36. Oh, I wish I weren't old enough to remember that. But I do.

What I don't recall is that Nixon didn't admit guilt to anything. But yes...another poster corrected me, and I looked it up.

It seems what Trump could do is issue a "blanket pardon" for Manafort, for any and all charges, present & future, connected with certain things or time frames.

But as a couple of other posters pointed out, the problem with that is that Manafort would then not be able to take the Fifth about those matters, meaning he could provide evidence against Trump.

So it's tricky for Trump.

And even with a pardon, which in effect means Manafort is guilty, that wipes out Manafort's wealth.

But you might want to re-read your post. It's a bit rude. I have a long history of admitting a mistake...(see my original post, where I am ASKING a question), unlike many people. I'm a logical person who loves discussion & discourse, and exchanging information. As long as it's respectful and not insulting or rude.

It's okay to admit you were snarky.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. This

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10738133

[Hassin Bin Sober]

26. I think people are confusing DOJ guidelines, which are self imposed, and have no bearing on....

... The President’s almost absolute power of The Pardon.

Remember, Pardon powers are meant, among other things, to stop unjust or political prosecutions. Which is not the case here - but they’re sure as hell gonna make those claims.

[Honeycombe8]

37. +1. Thanks. nt

[jberryhill]

52. Nonsense

Do you seriously believe that after the mass pardon of Vietnam draft evaders, there was some government prize patrol going around and convicting them in order to make their pardon - as a class - effective?

[FarPoint]

54. How many Pardons can one person receive from a President?

Just a curious question...

[H2O Man]

59. Interesting question!

There really isn't an identified limit. But as your question hints at, a rational person would likely conclude that if there are many individual counts, or a blanket pardon, it makes obstruction and/or abuse of power fairly likely.

Very good question. I like it. Thanks!

[FarPoint]

62. Thank you....

It's obvious that tRump has no morale/ ethical boundaries so I think outside the box with him.
😇

[unblock]

17. wrong. pardons can be issued as soon as the alleged crime is committed.

the president does not need to wait for an arrest, indictment, trial, conviction, or any number of appeals.

pardons *usually* happen only after all appeals have been exhausted, but that's not always the case.


ford pardoned nixon before he was charged with anything, and carter gave amnesty to draft-dodgers, many of whom had not been charged with anything either.

[Honeycombe8]

20. No...the person charged must have been found guilty, or plead guilty.

There must be conclusive GUILT established legally. Finding "evidence" of a crime is the reason for an indictment. Not a finding of guilt.

That's my understanding.

Just because you're arrested for a crime & thrown in jail does not mean you're guilty of it. You have to plead guilty, or be found guilty of it in a court of law or other official entity (depending on the crime).

[unblock]

24. no. pardon can be granted at any time after commission of the offense: see ex parte garland:

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/71/333.html

The Constitution provides that the President 'shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.'

The power thus conferred is unlimited, with the exception stated. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. This power of the President is not subject to legislative control. Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon, nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders. The benign prerogative of mercy reposed in him cannot be fettered by any legislative restrictions.

[leftynyc]

30. Nope - think Nixon (n/t)

[Honeycombe8]

33. Hmmmm. This is confusing.

How can you pardon someone for something they are not guilty of?

So Trump COULD issue a "blanket pardon" for Manafort, like Ford did for Nixon (I looked it up).

If there is a "blanket pardon," then that absolves Manafort of ALL crimes, so he doesn't have to pardon different guilty findings at different times.

[Dave Starsky]

41. A lot of people were asking that when Ford pardoned Nixon.

That was really the first step in the Republican Party's trampling of the Constitution, which they've been doing ever since.

[leftynyc]

47. However,

not being sure how far you delved into this, forgive me if im telling what you already know. Because if Donnie pardons Manafort, Manafort could then be compelled to testify as and can't plead the fifth because he can't get in trouble due to the pardon. If he refuses, he can't then be charged with contempt...if he gets caught in a lie, he can be charged with perjury. Donnie could pardon him again but really, how far does he think he can take this?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

60. How far can he take it? As far as he has to in order keep his plump orange ass out of prison.

And ass far as the repiglicker congress will allow him. Basically all the way. And what the fuck are we going to do about it.

[leftynyc]

63. I don't ever remember

a midterm election that was more important than this one and I'm 57. Our country is teetering and this November is the rubicon. It's up to us to make sure we don't cross it. Conviction on impeachment is not going to happen unless something VERY dramatic happens but a check on Donnie is THE reason to make sure everyone votes.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

64. Agreed

[jberryhill]

53. Better example is Vietnam draft evaders

[leftynyc]

66. You're right

That is a better example for this.

[Honeycombe8]

38. Yes...someone pointed out the Ford-Nixon pardon...

I had thought Nixon must have admitted guilt to something, but he hadn't. It was a "blanket pardon." What pardons DO, if I understand correctly, is seal the guilt on the person pardoned...the pardon makes him guilty. I believe Ford said as much, when trying to explain the unpopular Nixon pardon.

Thanks.

[unblock]

40. a pardon, if accepted by the recipient, prevents the government from further pursuing charges

covered by the pardon.

it doesn't inherently require or imply any legal notion of guilt, as pardons can be given (most notably in dna cases) where the recipient was wrongly convicted.


there was a case (burdick v. united states) where president wilson tried to force a pardon on an unwilling recipient in order to compel testimony by denying him a fifth amendment argument to refuse to testify. in that case, the court said that acceptance of a pardon implies guilt, but that statement wasn't necessary for the decision in that case. it's been repeated often but doesn't really hold up, at least not in all pardon cases.

in nixon's case, the fact that he needed a pardon to stop further prosecutions put a stink on his presidency and his legacy. it's not technically an implication of guilt, so i'll leave it at calling it a stink.

[Honeycombe8]

43. But a conviction pardon is different.

There was a finding of guilt in that case. The pardon reverses the conviction, doesn't it? So they don't have to go through a court case to get the conviction overturned. The law enforcement agrees that the conviction was a mistake. So I don't know, but I'm going to guess that once pardoned, that person no longer has a "criminal record."

When there is no finding or admission of guilt, and a pardon, I've read that in accepting a pardon, a person accepts guilt.

At a 2014 panel discussion, Ford’s lawyer during that period, Benton Becker, explained another part of the President’s motivation was a 1915 Supreme Court decision, Burdick v. United States, which made Nixon accept his guilt in the Watergate controversy by also accepting the pardon.

The Court’s ruling in Burdick was that a pardon carried an "imputation of guilt" and accepting a pardon was "an admission of guilt.” Becker said he took copies of the Burdick decision to California when he met with former President Nixon, and under Ford’s instructions, he walked through the Burdick decision with Nixon.

Becker said the discussion with Nixon was very difficult, and the former President kept trying to change the subject way from Burdick until he acknowledged Becker’s discussion about what the Supreme Court decision meant.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-nixon-pardon-in-retrospect-40-years-later/

There might be a difference of opinion about it, even among experts.

[unblock]

44. a full pardon would wipe out any conviction covered by the pardon

or the pardon power could be used to leave the conviction in place but commute the sentence, there are variations on the theme.


yes, there is a difference of opinions regarding the "imputation of guilt" that a pardon carries or does not carry, but it's generally agreed that the notion arose in a very specific and unusual circumstance (trying to force a pardon on an unwilling recipient) and at a minimum doesn't apply in all situation (e.g., where someone was wrongly convicted).

in the ford/nixon case, that wasn't so much of a legal conclusion as it was the desire of a president (ford) to know that the recipient (nixon) was willing to accept some measure of guilt before he would grant him the pardon.

[uponit7771]

29. Trump openly talked about being sexually attracted to his daughter multiple times, he's shameless

... he doesn't care what stinky poor people think

[SonofDonald]

21. Another point (I think)

Is that there should be no way that dumpf can contact him now without it being monitored by the FBI and he knows that.

I would think any conversation between these two traitors would degenerate into a screaming match full of threats and counter threats.

You would think dumpf would use a cut out to send a message but then again he is dumber than a box of rocks, it's got to be too late for any new "deal" between the two to keep paulie out of prison now without it being known instantly.

Both of these traitors are sweating bullets today wondering what will happen next, the only way they can communicate secretly is via their lawyers I'd think.

It's backstabbing time, this is going to be so fun to watch unfold.

[nature-lover]

27. But he barely worked for the campaign (according to trump) so why should he bother?

No loyalty here.

[lapislzi]

28. We have SDNY waiting in the wings

Paulie isn't escaping to Uncle Oleg's dacha-by-the-sea anytime soon. When it comes, yam's pardon will have no effect on state-level prosecution.

[leftynyc]

31. Southern District is a federal court

It would take the NY AG to make state charges.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

61. New York needs to change their very defendant friendly double jeopardy system

Not sure what is taking so long but if Trump pardons Manafort he may not even be able to be prosecuted in NY.

No Pardon for You, Michael Cohen
Why the state should amend its double jeopardy law to defend against corrupt Trump pardons.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/new-york-should-amend-its-double-jeopardy-law-to-make-sure-trump-cant-bail-out-michael-cohen.html

[leftynyc]

65. Working on it

But I'd imagine that's why some charges have been held back - remember that Cohen hasn't been charged with anything yet. This is why. The Feds know what they're doing and they will be making sure some charges are held back so the state can make their own case. But changing that law is a no brainer.

[Honeycombe8]

39. The other charges are in Virginia. I'd forgotten about those.

Last edited Fri Jun 15, 2018, 06:55 PM - Edit history (1)

But I think those are federal, too.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/manafort-charges-virginia-dismissed-calls-mueller-probe-blank/story?id=54055041

[Vinca]

32. The pardon power for Trump and Russia is a lose lose situation.

If he doesn't promise a pardon, the felons flip. If he does pardon, they can't take the fifth when put on the stand to testify about him. Don's screwed either way.

[Honeycombe8]

35. I see. This is complicated. nt

[gulliver]

55. Yep. Trump may have to pardon himself and hope Pence keeps his end of the deal.

I don't think Trump can pardon Manafort if Manafort has the goods on Trump.

[OliverQ]

42. Giuliani just told the NY Daily News

that Trump will probably clean this up with some pardons soon in reference to Manafort.


We're in trouble.

[Honeycombe8]

57. I thought I heard that on tv...

I was doing something else. I think the show then said that Ghouliani has tried to clean his statement up, and take it back. Not sure if I heard right, though. That was on Chris Hayes, I think.

[anarch]

45. perhaps he'll just pardon everyone who worked on his campaign, in advance

Just a blanket pardon for whatever they may ever be accused of...and include himself and his family in that pardon. Republicans would be totally fine with that.

Then they can cancel elections due to "national security concerns" or something...perhaps because of all the "illegal" brown people everywhere; just go ahead and declare martial law, and machine gun down any crowds that gather in protest. Republicans would be cool with that too.

And just unilaterally cancel term limits, so he and his family can rule for all eternity. Who's going to stop it? Not the fucking Republicans....

[Honeycombe8]

46. A year ago I would've laughed at that.

Now, I'm not so sure that's out of the question.

[madville]

50. He is going to pardon everyone after the midterms

In order to "put this all behind us" and save them from "unjust political prosecution". It already all set up, it will be after the midterms and after the second FBI IG report concerning the FBI/Russia investigation.

[Honeycombe8]

58. That makes sense. I wonder if the House of Rep can do anything about it?

I guess not. But just in case the Dems win back the House....

[Historic NY]

56. Manforts nuts are in a vice, too many charges....

and more in the works. He also faces state charges which Trump has no pardon power over. If Trump shoots him a pardon too soon there is a good chance future charges will appear, especially ones they didn't anticipate.