(12-02-2020 12:06 AM)banker Wrote:  This should get Trump impeached.

Think that already happened

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Finally!!!! Truth and righteousness is on the way back.

Again democrats want to investigate a republican for something they actually did. Scumbags.

Off topic but I find it amusing that for the last 4 years there have been 3, maybe 4, leftist commie pinko fegs with balls enough to regularly post here. Now all of a sudden they are crawling out of their snake pits and howling at the moon and flexing their soy muscles.

I just want the Tiger King pardoned. That would be the most 2020 ending ever.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

(12-01-2020 09:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 08:56 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

Quote:(Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department is investigating a potential crime related to funneling money to the White House in exchange for a presidential pardon, according to court documents unsealed in federal court.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell on Tuesday released a heavily redacted order that described what she called a “bribery-for-pardon” investigation.

About half of the 18-page document was blacked out, with the publicly available version providing few details of the alleged scheme, and naming none of the people potentially involved.

It said federal prosecutors in Washington said they had obtained evidence of a bribery scheme in which someone “would offer a substantial political contribution in exchange for a presidential pardon or reprieve of sentence.”

The order said prosecutors were also investigating a “secret lobbying scheme” in which two unidentified individuals “acted as lobbyists to senior White House officials, without complying with the registration requirement of the Lobbying Disclosure Act.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-e...SKBN28C00H

You realize that appears to be two completely unrelated investigations. The first would appear to involve people with no connection to the White House who were cooking up a scheme to bribe an official in exchange for a pardon. The other sounds like a nothing burger where somebody didnt properly file proper disclosures for what they apparently asked for (a donation). We now know from the NY Times editorial staff that "a senior White House official" can mean little more than a temporary consultant to an assistant of a cabinet member.

I did realize it appears to be two different investigations.

However, with regards to the bribery allegation, isn't it at least worth looking into to seeing whether or not someone tried to bribe the president with a "significant financial contribution" into giving them a pardon? Apparently the DOJ thinks so. Last I checked, that was still a pretty serious crime.

The Trump Administration's hands might be completely clean on this one. Hypothetically, if it did occur, shouldn't they have alerted authorities?

(12-01-2020 10:46 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  The source is a partially unsealed federal court document. You can see the redacted original here:

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/sen...on-scheme/

Federal court documents don't have any bearing on anything. I think the phrase is, "No evidence."

(12-02-2020 10:21 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 10:46 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  The source is a partially unsealed federal court document. You can see the redacted original here:

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/sen...on-scheme/

Federal court documents don't have any bearing on anything. I think the phrase is, "No evidence."

The opinion is literally about evidence. The judge is issuing an opinion on if the federal prosecutor can use communication seized during the execution of a search warrant, or if it is covered under Attorney client privilege.

(12-01-2020 10:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  How embarrassing for you guys again.

Embarrassing? Heck, they relish this kind of fake news. You don't believe me and see how many Commies will use it in their posts. Stupid will be stupid and believe it though. That's how the Commie Demoncrapped have been doing it for four years. They throw Schiff out there and see what sticks.

(12-02-2020 10:43 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 10:21 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 10:46 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  The source is a partially unsealed federal court document. You can see the redacted original here:

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/sen...on-scheme/

Federal court documents don't have any bearing on anything. I think the phrase is, "No evidence."

The opinion is literally about evidence. The judge is issuing an opinion on if the federal prosecutor can use communication seized during the execution of a search warrant, or if it is covered under Attorney client privilege.

I think too many Commies in here watch a LOT of judge programs on tv. They think they're lawyers now. LOL

(12-02-2020 10:22 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 10:43 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 10:21 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 10:46 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  The source is a partially unsealed federal court document. You can see the redacted original here:

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/sen...on-scheme/

Federal court documents don't have any bearing on anything. I think the phrase is, "No evidence."

The opinion is literally about evidence. The judge is issuing an opinion on if the federal prosecutor can use communication seized during the execution of a search warrant, or if it is covered under Attorney client privilege.

I think too many Commies in here watch a LOT of judge programs on tv. They think they're lawyers now. LOL

I can read. You should try it. Left to right, try not to move your lips.

From Wikipedia... let's see if Trump can out sleaze Clinton...

"Former U.S. President Bill Clinton was criticized for some of his pardons and acts of executive clemency. Pardoning or commuting sentences is a power granted by the U.S. Constitution to sitting U.S. Presidents.

While most presidents grant pardons throughout their terms, Clinton chose to make nearly a third of them on January 20, 2001, his last day in office. This came to be known as Pardongate. While Clinton pardoned a large number (450) of people compared with his immediate one-term predecessor Republican George H. W. Bush, who pardoned only 75, the number of people pardoned by Clinton was comparable to that pardoned by two-term Republican Ronald Reagan and one-term Democrat Jimmy Carter, who pardoned 393 and 534 respectively.[4]

Federal prosecutor Mary Jo White was appointed to investigate the pardon of Marc Rich. She was later replaced by Republican James Comey, who found no illegality on Clinton's part."

Several of the Clinton pardons made donations to the Rodham family...

(12-01-2020 11:02 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 10:50 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

The source for this being debunked is “an unnamed justice department official”

Don’t you guys ***** about unsourced news all the time?

Anyway, Rudy isn’t a government official...

Seems like some folks might have approached someone who is a WH employee trying to bribe them relative to help with a pardon(s)...and the WH employee turned them in to the authorities. Why did you mention Rudy G? Do you have an evidence to support that he is under investigation for this?

(12-02-2020 11:23 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 10:22 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 10:43 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 10:21 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 10:46 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  The source is a partially unsealed federal court document. You can see the redacted original here:

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/sen...on-scheme/

Federal court documents don't have any bearing on anything. I think the phrase is, "No evidence."

The opinion is literally about evidence. The judge is issuing an opinion on if the federal prosecutor can use communication seized during the execution of a search warrant, or if it is covered under Attorney client privilege.

I think too many Commies in here watch a LOT of judge programs on tv. They think they're lawyers now. LOL

Left to right, try not to move your lips.

While on your knees.

(12-03-2020 02:22 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 11:23 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 10:22 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 10:43 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 10:21 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  Federal court documents don't have any bearing on anything. I think the phrase is, "No evidence."

The opinion is literally about evidence. The judge is issuing an opinion on if the federal prosecutor can use communication seized during the execution of a search warrant, or if it is covered under Attorney client privilege.

I think too many Commies in here watch a LOT of judge programs on tv. They think they're lawyers now. LOL

Left to right, try not to move your lips.

While on your knees.

Your homoerotic fantasies are leaking into your writing again. Go back on your meds. Good luck with your search for a good man.