Trump's America

[yovargas]

Some have boycotted Fox News out of anger that the network called Biden the election winner and that some of its news anchors - in contrast to its opinion show stars - have been skeptical of Trump’s fraud allegations.

That's the truly scary part of that article.

[N.E. Brigand]

Some have boycotted Fox News out of anger that the network called Biden the election winner and that some of its news anchors - in contrast to its opinion show stars - have been skeptical of Trump’s fraud allegations.

That's the truly scary part of that article.

Even Tucker Carlson, one of Fox's prime-time opinion hosts who has done a lot to stoke these fires, last night said that Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell had refused to provide his program with evidence of her claims. (And today he was being attacked from the right for having sold out.)

[elengil]

McConnel's America, y'all

[RoseMorninStar]

Sing it AOC! Oh.. how did we get here..

[RoseMorninStar]

A friend sent this piece to me from the London Daily. British Writer Pens The Best Description Of Trump I’ve Read

[Impenitent]

Hm, I recall sharing this on social media soon after the 2016 election, so I'm surprised it is ascribed to Nate White as of today.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

[RoseMorninStar]

I saw on the news that Trump is renovating Mar-a-Lago. I'm wondering if there are plans for an oval office and a renaming to 'Southern White House', although I believe he's already given it that title.

[elengil]

The South shall Secede Again?

[N.E. Brigand]

I saw on the news that Trump is renovating Mar-a-Lago. I'm wondering if there are plans for an oval office and a renaming to 'Southern White House', although I believe he's already given it that title.

Wasn't it originally given to the U.S. government (but later sold off) for just such a purpose?

[N.E. Brigand]

The South shall Secede Again?

But not Georgia. Atlanta has decided being burned to the ground once was enough.

[RoseMorninStar]

I saw on the news that Trump is renovating Mar-a-Lago. I'm wondering if there are plans for an oval office and a renaming to 'Southern White House', although I believe he's already given it that title.

Wasn't it originally given to the U.S. government (but later sold off) for just such a purpose?

The property has a complicated history according to this Smithsonian article.

The home was originally one of the homes belonging to the ultra-wealthy Marjorie Merriweather Post who held many galas, etc.. on the property. By the 1950's & 60's such homes were seen as White Elephants and most were razed. It was offered to the US government along with many of Post's other properties, but the offer of Mar-a-Lago was turned down due to unseemly and excessive maintenance costs. Further, as the property is historic, it cannot be used as a private residence. There is a law-suit regarding the status of the home, I'm not sure how that figures into all of this. Trump would like to build a large dock and it is being fought by neighbors. I'm not sure what came of that suit, but there was a story about it in the Washington Post.

I imagine all former presidents homes require some refurbishment once they are no longer in office as they still need the protection of secret service, etc.. but given that Mar-a-lago is a public club and a historical property must the process incredibly complicated. Trump signed a use agreement for the property in 1993.

[N.E. Brigand]

Trump Pardons Michael Flynn, Who Pleaded Guilty to Lying about Russia Contact

As Marcy Wheeler writes: yesterday Donald Trump pardoned a turkey, and today Trump pardoned an agent of Turkey.

I'd love to have a court rule someday on what Pres. Ford claimed about former Pres. Nixon (citing dicta from a Supreme Court ruling decades earlier): that by accepting the pardon, Nixon admitted his guilt. But I have no idea how that question would ever come before a court.

I'd also like to know the specifics of today's move. Trump tweeted that Flynn "has been granted a Full Pardon."

For what? For just the crimes he pleaded guilty to? For other crimes he hasn't been charged with? Flynn was never charged with being an undisclosed agent of the Turkish government. He could have been. Can he now be?

And the judge in Flynn's case has yet to rule on a bunch of matters. One of them concerned whether Flynn ought to be charged with perjury for what he said under oath during the extended court proceedings. Can Flynn now be charged with that?

Finally, there is a possible upside: depending on what the pardon covers, Flynn may not be able plead the Fifth if questioned again about what he and Trump did as regards Russia. And he also can't lie about it, because that's a new crime.

[yovargas]

Presidential pardons are dumb. I would remove that power from the constitution if I could.

[River]

There are non-corrupt ways to use the power. Judges and juries do muck things up and it's nice to have a corrective. This, however, is not one of those cases.

[N.E. Brigand]

Presidential pardons are dumb. I would remove that power from the constitution if I could.

In this case, by issuing this pardon, Donald Trump may have just broken the law.

As others have previously noted, Trump's attorney general, Bill Barr, testified to Congress that it's a crime for a president to issue a pardon to someone in exchange for that person not cooperating with a federal investigation.

And there is evidence suggesting that Flynn stopped cooperating after Trump offered to pardon him.

Flynn is probably now safe from prosecution for his part in that quid pro quo, but Trump is not (and as noted above, Flynn can be compelled to testify about it).

- - - - - - - - - -
One more thing: both Flynn's and Trump's lawyers, and also some attorneys at the Dept. of Justice, may have committed crimes trying to protect Flynn. Is Trump going to pardon all of them too?

[yovargas]

There are non-corrupt ways to use the power. Judges and juries do muck things up and it's nice to have a corrective.

Sure. But our system was built with checks and balances in mind, yet this is a major power with very little check. Far too easy to abuse without consequence.

[N.E. Brigand]

There are non-corrupt ways to use the power. Judges and juries do muck things up and it's nice to have a corrective.

Sure. But our system was built with checks and balances in mind, yet this is a major power with very little check. Far too easy to abuse without consequence.

I agree that recent events show some limitations are needed (only achievable via a Constitutional amendment, I think).

Meanwhile, although the actual text of Michael Flynn's pardon still hasn't been released, the statement issued by the White House only mentions the crimes for which Flynn was charged. It also lies about those crimes, claiming that Flynn never committed them in the first place. But remember Donald Trump's statement in Dec. 2017, nearly a year after Flynn was removed from his position as national security adviser:

"I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies."

- - - - - - - - - -

Edited to add: one defense of Flynn from the left is that it shouldn't be a crime to lie to the FBI in the first place. This defense points to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's concurring opinion in a 1998 case, Brogan v. United States, in which, while she agreed with the majority (and against Brogan) that it was a crime, she argued that it would be better if it wasn't, because lying to the FBI gives the government a chance to create the opportunity for someone to commit a crime that they otherwise wouldn't have, and what's more, a crime that doesn't even have to obstruct justice, which is the reason that it's supposed to be a crime in the first place. In that particular case, the government had evidence of other crimes Brogan had committed, and the FBI interviewed him pretty much hoping to catch him lying about it (he could have declined the interview, but he didn't; you should *always* decline to be interviewed by law enforcement without an attorney), but that didn't actually obstruct their investigation, because they already knew about the crimes he was covering up. Yet the law says the lie can be charged if it only *could* in abstract terms interfere in an investigation.

I agree there is something to that concern. But even so, were Ginsburg alive now and faced with Flynn's case, she would presumably again vote against him, because that law hasn't changed (and lots of less privileged people than Flynn get charged with it). But there's more to it in this case.

The FBI did know what Flynn had said to the Russian ambassador, because the U.S. regularly records calls made by and to foreign officials. What they *didn't* know is whether Flynn was acting on behalf of the incoming Trump administration or whether he was going rogue. The FBI had only just been in the process of closing down a previous investigation of Flynn on suspicion of his being an undisclosed foreign agent for Russia, and here he was having a suspicious call with the Russian ambassador. It would have been a dereliction of duty for them not to investigate. And he never did come clean about what Trump directed him to do. So these lies were material.

On top of that, as I previously mentioned, Flynn was also an undisclosed foreign agent of Turkey. While he was the top national security adviser to the Trump campaign, while he was sitting in with candidate Trump on government security briefings, Flynn was being paid $600,000 by the Turkish government. For that fee, among other things, he published a pro-Turkey op-ed in The Hill, supposedly written in his capacity as a neutral U.S. foreign policy expert, that appeared on Election Day 2016. In fact, he didn't even write it. Other Turkish agents wrote it and he just signed his name to it. And he could very easily have been charged with that, but the FBI repeatedly went out of its way to make it easy for him.

And don't forget that Flynn was in discussions about possibly kidnapping a Turkish-born cleric who lives in Pennsylvania and shipping that man back to Turkey (which had tried and failed to get the man extradited).

It's all of this combined that led the judge in the case to tell Flynn that he had betrayed his country and to ask prosecutors whether they had considered charging Flynn with treason. The judge later retracted the latter comment, but he was incensed for a reason!

[RoseMorninStar]

It seems 'checks and balances' is code for 'we shall find a way to run right over that'. There is a history of forgiving high ranking persons 'for the good of the country'. While I can see where that may be the case sometimes I often beg to differ. It only seems to set things up for bigger crimes, outrages, and misdeeds.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Regarding what the effect of Flynn's pardon (which some will recall I predicted a few days ago) I think we need to see the actual pardon documents before knowing how wide-ranging it is. Trump's tweet is just a tweet.

[N.E. Brigand]

Regarding what the effect of Flynn's pardon (which some will recall I predicted a few days ago) I think we need to see the actual pardon documents before knowing how wide-ranging it is. Trump's tweet is just a tweet.

Here you go.

Trump pardons Flynn for anything he was charged with, anything he admitted to in his plea deal, anything that happened during the legal proceedings arising from the charges (that gets him off the hook for lying to the judge), anything he admitted to in grand jury testimony (e.g., in the Bijan Kian case), and anything he did that could have been investigated by Robert Mueller's office.

I can't remember: did he have to surrender the $600,000 that he was paid by the Turkish government when he was secretly working for them as an unregistered foreign agent, and thus selling out his country (as the judge in the case rightfully said two years ago)? And if so, does he get it back now?