Quotes ethically dubious while ignoring that Trump would have to pardon his lackeys/family/self first. Not sure if trolling?
I’m not trolling at all. It would be ethically dubious if Trump pardons anyone that violates national security interests. That would violate the oath of office he took and should lead to impeachment.
Can't argue with that, I just don't see anything wrong with helping the states with their prosecutions, especially if federal punishment can't be used as leverage for non cooperating witnesses.
I see. So the Federal Justice Department should collude with states that did not want to see a president elected to find ways to bring him down? Nice. The State of New York has full, full jurisdiction over the Clinton Foundation. Is it using the state powers that are being touted to also go after and investigate the Crime Foundation? Didn't think so.
You make a good point about non cooperating witnesses. And I don’t know if he is running into stone walling either.
It's pretty clear that the Republican Party is more concerned with having a republican registered president than national security or even their core values.
It is pretty clear that Obama clearly had clear intelligence about Russian interference before the election but clearly was okay with it until Hillary clearly lost and then he clearly became greatly concerned and clearly kicked the Russian diplomats out. What is clear is that the Demotard Party had not concern about national security threats until they became a threat to the Democratic Party.
Trump might have another problem if he tries to pardon his way out of this.I read that if Trump pardons Manafort,Manafort losses his 5th amendment rights since his guilt has been established for the pardon.He will than have to answer all questions in any legal proceedings.I remember they did something similar to this to Aaron Hernandez's girlfriend to make her testify in court.
Heh. well that is where you get tangled up in your underwear trying to play amateur lawyer or being a media matters robot who just passes information along. Actually it is the opposite. It is absolutely true that you can compel testimony form someone who has been given immunity from prosecution and is not able to argue that they are at risk. But the courts have ruled that they still have the right to assert their fifth amendment rights if they can still demonstrate that their testimony can be used against them in another court. ie. you get immunity from the feds but the state has not given you immunity. So compelling their testimony may required the state to give them immunity as well.