Lion of the Blogosphere

Trump should pardon Flynn

Just to demonstrate that he has the Constitutional authority that do that. No one could say that Trump “obstructed justice” when the person being investigated is immune to ever being put in prison for the crime being investigated.

And it’s my opinion that Flynn genuinely doesn’t deserve to be investigated and charged with crimes that no one else in his situation would have been charged with. The Deep State is just out to get him because he’s a friend of Trump.

Trump could point out that Bill Clinton pardoned Mark Rich who was guilty of real crimes and not fake crimes.

* * *

Re-read my February 15, 2017 post about Michael Flynn where I supported Trump firing him, and pointed out that Flynn is “a little bit nutty” and “lacking in managerial competency” and not that smart.

These are the qualities that make him a weak link, and therefore the subject of an investigation whose real objective is to build a case (or rather create a political climate) for the impeachment of Trump.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

June 11, 2017 at 11:13 am

Posted in Law

19 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. And Clinton did it as a quid pro quo for donations to his foundation.

    Biff

    June 11, 2017 at 11:22 am

    • And because Ehud Barack told him to pardon Rich and Ehud would try harder to help Clinton win the Nobel peace prize for helping solve the Israeli/Palestinian issue.

      Rifleman

      June 11, 2017 at 5:48 pm

  2. And President Trump should pardon Flynn via Twitter — and watch the gaystream media go bat-excrement insane. At that point, fakestream media like CNN might openly call for President Trump’s murder.

    hard9bf

    June 11, 2017 at 11:54 am

  3. Trump should offer everyone in his campaign and/or administration immunity in exchange for any testimony relevant to the Russia investigation. That way, they can get to the bottom of this very quickly and move on. And no one can say he’s trying to obstruct anything. In fact, it will be an ultimate act of cooperation and transparency. Of course, anyone who’s done something wrong will have to resign or be terminated. But I think they’ll go for it knowing that there’s a good chance any wrong-doing will be uncovered anyway.

    The longer this goes on the greater chance of something going wrong ie perjury, obstruction or finding some other dirty laundry. It’s better just to drop their drawers, spread their legs and let the investigators have nice, long look.

    destructure

    June 11, 2017 at 11:59 am

  4. While he’s at it, President Trump can go ahead and pardon himself, via Twitter of course.

    hard9bf

    June 11, 2017 at 12:02 pm

  5. It is a very good idea : it shows is the boss, that accusation against him were crazy because he owns what he was accused to steal, and because it s now obvious the special prosecutor is part of Comey’s plot. Simple and clever idea Lion, only if Trump act vey quickly !

    Bruno from Paris

    June 11, 2017 at 12:13 pm

  6. Lost in all this is Comey’s role in closing the corruption investigation of the pardon of fugitive financier and Clinton donor Marc Rich a man whose relatives and associates gave generously to the Clintons for many years thereafter. The pardon was handled outside the typical channels by Eric Holder then a Justice Dept official. Comey later vouched for Holder’s integrity to the predictably cyclist Senate Rs who were concerned about Holder’s confirmation.

    Curle

    June 11, 2017 at 12:39 pm

  7. I believe you have to at least be charged with a crime before you can be pardoned.

    On December 24, 1992 George H. W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger of charges related to the Iran-Contra affair. Weinberger had been indicted but not tried.

    This caused controversy, but Bush had lost the re-election to Clinton and the Iran-Contra affair was history by December 1992. There was no way this could be construed as obstructing the Iran-Contra investigation at that point.

    Trying to pardoning Flynn before he has been charged with anything would open Trump to charges of obstruction of justice. Might not be able to make criminal charge for it, but impeachment is political and this would certainly make for a political impeachment case.

    mikeca

    June 11, 2017 at 12:47 pm

    • The President’s pardon power extends to crimes that haven’t been charged. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/05/opinion/l-constitution-allows-pardons-before-conviction-590688.html

      And yes, a conventional argument is that pardoning Flynn would outrage Congress and lead to impeachment or at least be bad press for Trump. But I am thinking outside the box. If Congress is truly out to get Trump, then it doesn’t matter. A pardon would assert his presidential authority and I think would benefit Trump.

      • I think he’d lose the public because of it. It would look like he had something to hide. If the Democrats are trying to get Americans to believe Trump obstructed justice in firing Comey, then a lot of them who aren’t buying it are going to start believing it once Trump starts issuing pardons to his cronies. That you have to compare it to Marc Rich, as a defense, just underlines how shady it looks.

        And Congress isn’t out to get Trump. The Democrats are. Republicans are lukewarm about defending Trump, but won’t actually move to destroy him unless Trump loses major public support. Trump shouldn’t do stuff that would risk that.

        Richard

        June 11, 2017 at 4:18 pm

      • Oh, and if we want a preview of how liberals would respond to a bunch of Trump pardons, we just have to look at Marc Caplan’s link in another thread to an interview with a leftist Harvard law professor:

        GAZETTE: Could the president intervene?

        GERTNER: This would be a constitutional crisis. The president could actually intervene and pardon his family members and pardon himself. But he couldn’t pardon himself for impeachment. He couldn’t stop an impeachment proceeding by pardoning himself.

        CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. The media and leftists would beat that like a drum until we’re all deaf. And I think it would be seriously damaging. Presidents don’t issue politically controversial pardons until they’re lame ducks.

        Richard

        June 11, 2017 at 4:23 pm

    • “There was no way this could be construed as obstructing the Iran-Contra investigation at that point. ”

      Of course it “could be construed” – if you’re willing to construe anything – which the left obviously is.

      Hillary “could be construed” as having committed multiple murders. Obama can be construed as having been born in Kenya (his literary agent wrote it in his bio), etc.

      Steve Johnson

      June 11, 2017 at 2:12 pm

    • And yes, a conventional argument is that pardoning Flynn would outrage Congress and lead to impeachment or at least be bad press for Trump.

      There won’t be impeachment if there was no collusion with Russia.

      Remember, according to Comey’s latest testimony not even Flynn is being investigated for colluding with the Russians in the election.

      Flynn is being investigated for, in Comey’s words, a “separate” perjury investigation into his discussions with the Russian ambassador during the Presidential transition. The conversation that was monitored by the US was not by itself criminal, but Flynn may have been caught in a perjury trap set by Comey.

      Manafort’s problems likewise do not appear to involve collusion. Instead he’s being looked at for tax records about income he received advising politicians in Ukraine years before Trump ran for President. Manafort’s problems are really something that should be handled by the IRS, not the FBI.

      If the investigation is just chasing “procedural” crimes like tax evasion, registering as a foreign agent, or perjury, but without evidence of collusion, Trump should also fire Mueller and let Congress and his new nominee for FBI Director Christopher Wray close out what’s left of the case.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      June 11, 2017 at 3:06 pm

    • Trump could pardon Flynn for perjuring himself into the joke investigation about his phone call with the Russian ambassador but allow the broader investigation into collusion (which has turned up nothing) proceed.

      Comey had nothing substantive to investigate beside exaggerated procedural crimes anyway. If Trump pardons Flynn and other aides for procedural crimes that will pull the counter-intelligence probe back towards its original purpose instead of the wild goose chase that Comey orchestrated.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      June 11, 2017 at 3:15 pm

  8. What would he be pardoned for? From what I understand Trump fired him not because he did anything wrong/illegal, but because Flynn lied to him about his contact with the Russians. That said contact wasn’t illegal, however it did help feed the leftist Russia conspiracy.

    chris

    June 11, 2017 at 1:34 pm

  9. https://pragmaticallydistributed.wordpress.com/2017/06/09/the-end-of-week-circulars-2/

    Comey – Again

    It’s time to start considering a pardon of Flynn and other former, or current advisers, such as Manafort for any procedural crimes (perjury, tax evasion, registration issues, etc) if the Russian investigation is now focused on a reckless fishing expedition for procedural crimes, not an underlying “collusion” crime with Russia.

    I’m tempted to say Trump should also consider eliminating the special counsel since Comey admitted he manipulated the administration into appointing one in order to convert the original intelligence probe (which is not a criminal investigation) into a criminal investigation.

    However, why would Comey admit empowering a special counsel was his intent?

    By saying this Comey, now exposed as the devious operator I always said he was, must know that his admitting it to the Senate will only risk provoking Trump into firing the special counsel.

    Does Comey actually want Trump to fire Mueller?

    If so, why?

    Dilbertian Persuasion

    In terms of spinning this pointless distraction to his advantage, Trump should continue to undermine Comey’s aura as a subject matter expert by raising more confusion in the minds of voters about what is actually being investigated.

    Something, more or less, along these lines:

    “Comey testified I am innocent of collusion. If there was no collusion, why isn’t the case closed?” “Bizarre/Strange/Weird”!
    “If there was no collusion, what was Comey DOING this whole time?”
    “The investigation is pointless if Comey says there was no collusion. This is a media distraction.”

    Obamacare Repeal

    The odds of the Senate approving a repeal bill are good so long as Trump holds the possibility of ending exchange subsidies over the heads of Senators. The exchanges are imploding. As they fall apart the Senate will calculate, correctly, that they will eventually have to vote on something to fix the exchanges. If actual legislation is inevitable they might as well come to an agreement soon on a partial repeal now that the House has sent them their bill and they have a Republican President eager to sign something.

    Based on reporting it seems the last remaining obstacle to a deal is how to phase out the Medicaid expansion. I recommend breaking the deadlock over this issue by giving a longer phaseout to any state if a Republican Senator wants their own state exempted. The remaining states would have Medicaid phased out more quickly. This may be the best compromise for Conservative Senators who want a more aggressive timeline and Moderate Republicans who worry about their own constituents losing coverage.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    June 11, 2017 at 2:34 pm

  10. Now it is Peet Brahara – the winner prosecutor – who s implying Trump fired him because he didnt want to be close to him ! When he was fired at the same time as all prosecutor . Crazy ….

    Bruno from Paris

    June 11, 2017 at 2:45 pm

  11. I don’t understand why Mueller isn’t recusing himself as we discovered Comey who is a part in the matter has been manoeuvring to gest Mueller nominated. He can’t be impartial. Trump should fire him immediately. And he’s more concentrated on building a legal case than finding the fact as he recruits only lawyers o help him.

    Bruno from Paris

    June 16, 2017 at 2:53 am


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: