Among many pardons and commutations for people serving long sentences for minor crimes, President Trump is also issuing pardons and commutations for many of the people convicted of crimes related to the Russia Hoax.  Had the hoax not been initiated in the first place, it's doubtful any of the people would have been charged with a crime, especially those charged with procedural crimes, like lying to the FBI.

Roger Stone, Paul Manafort and others were pardoned by Trump.  Most logical people see this as a rational decision.  In courts, if a crime is uncovered as part of an illegal investigation, that evidence is "fruit of the poisonous tree" and is not admissible.  Even though the Durham report isn't done, it's obvious from Congressional testimony that the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was illegal, because it was predicated on a stack of verified lies.  Every single top official at the FBI and DOJ who testified before Congress said UNDER OATH that if they'd known then what they know now, they would have never certified the FISA warrants.  That's a fact, not an opinion.  It's debatable whether or not they actually knew the facts at the time, or whether they were simply incompetent -- rubber-stamping FISA warrants with no consideration as to the implications.

Of course, the Leftist MSM is spinning the pardons as "Trump is running scared."  They are saying he is afraid those people might flip on him after he leaves office, exposing him to criminal charges.  Pardons now eliminate the leverage law enforcement may have in the future to get them to testify.

LOL!  Too bad there's no herd immunity for TDS!   

Cohen ratted and doesnt get 1. Keep ur mouth shut and give them nothing.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Cohen ratted and doesnt get 1. Keep ur mouth shut and give them nothing.

Yeah.  He had nothing to offer the DOJ in terms of evidence against Trump regarding any crimes or Russia collusion.  What evidence he had only proved that Cohen himself is an unethical lawyer who recorded his clients' privileged conversations.

What evidence he had only proved that Cohen himself is an unethical lawyer

From NYC??
Say it ain't so.

INOKEA 

From NYC??
Say it ain't so.

I know.  Lots of redundancies and painfully obvious facts in that comment.   

He's a lawyer and a liar.  But, I repeat myself.

Presidential pardons, as long as I have been alive, seem to always include a number of unethical pardons, pardons of friends, family, associates, and people they might owe favors to. Trump's pardons appear in line with that. I wish we had higher standards but alas this has become the norm.

Among many pardons and commutations for people serving long sentences for minor crimes, President Trump is also issuing pardons and commutations for many of the people convicted of crimes related to the Russia Hoax.  Had the hoax not been initiated in the first place, it's doubtful any of the people would have been charged with a crime, especially those charged with procedural crimes, like lying to the FBI.

While this is true, it could still be avoided by simply not lying to the FBI. Doesn't really absolve them of their crimes.

Manafor was convicted of bank and tax fraud, nothing directly tied to the Russia story.

While this is true, it could still be avoided by simply not lying to the FBI. Doesn't really absolve them of their crimes.

Manafor was convicted of bank and tax fraud, nothing directly tied to the Russia story.

Flynn didn't lie (do the research).  That fact didn't prevent him from being charged and eventually coerced into pleading guilty to lying, did it?  "Simply not lying to the FBI" didn't work in his case, huh? 

You can't hold someone accountable for a procedural "crime" using an illegal search/interview.  In fact, the FBI had the tapped conversations they asked him about, so the questions they asked related to the calls (and his charges) were facts the FBI already knew.  So, there was no purpose for the interview OTHER THAN to catch Flynn in a procedural "crime". 

If we allow the FBI to charge people with lying no matter the predicated investigation, what's to stop the FBI from initiating bogus accusations they have no evidence of to begin with, just to create perjury traps?  This is exactly what he FBI did to General Flynn.  In fact, they admit in their documentation there was no basis for the interview, and Flynn had in their opinion not lied.  Didn't stop them from coercing him into pleading guilty to a lying charge. 

By they way, we know HRC lied to the FBI, but no charges were ever brought.  I guess some people can lie to the FBI, but others can't?  Not so simple, is it?

Your "advice" doesn't hold water.  If they want to charge you, telling the truth won't stop them.

And actually, a pardon does absolve them of their crimes.  They could be 100% guilty of murder, but a pardon absolves them of the crime.

According to the legal dictionary, "absolve" and "pardon" are synonyms.

absolve (əbˈzɒlv)
vb (tr)
1. (usually foll by from) to release from blame, sin, punishment, obligation, or responsibility
2. to pronounce not guilty; acquit; pardon

So, they ARE in fact absolved of any stated crikmes.  They cannot be prosecuted for that crime, and their civil rights are restored.

Flynn didn't lie (do the research).  That fact didn't prevent him from being charged and eventually being coerced into pleading guilty to lying -- only to then have the charges dismissed by the DOJ, and the judge REFUSED to allow the dismissal, did it?  "Simply not lying" didn't work in his case, huh? 

You can't hold someone accountable for a procedural "crime" using an illegal search/interview.

If we allow the FBI to charge people with lying no matter the predicated investigation, what's to stop the FBI from initiating bogus accusations they have no evidence of to begin with, just to create perjury traps?  This is exactly what he FBI did to General Flynn.  In fact, they admit in their documentation there was no basis for the interview, and Flynn had in their opinion not lied.  Didn't stop them from coercing him into pleading guilty to a lying charge. 

Your "advice" doesn't hold water.  If they want to charge you, telling the truth won't stop them.

Like how the fbi has a suspect ready from nashville, but hunters laptop for many months and prob didnt even log in.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Like how the fbi has a suspect ready from nashville, but hunters laptop for many months and prob didnt even log in.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I mean the dude used his own rv.... made no attempt to hide and left his dna all over the streets.  Doesn't take the fbis best to figure that mystery out. 

.

He's a lawyer and a liar.  But, I repeat myself.

And, from NYC.

Get a rope!

Flynn didn't lie (do the research).  That fact didn't prevent him from being charged and eventually coerced into pleading guilty to lying, did it?  "Simply not lying to the FBI" didn't work in his case, huh? 

You can't hold someone accountable for a procedural "crime" using an illegal search/interview.  In fact, the FBI had the tapped conversations they asked him about, so the questions they asked related to the calls (and his charges) were facts the FBI already knew.  So, there was no purpose for the interview OTHER THAN to catch Flynn in a procedural "crime". 

If we allow the FBI to charge people with lying no matter the predicated investigation, what's to stop the FBI from initiating bogus accusations they have no evidence of to begin with, just to create perjury traps?  This is exactly what he FBI did to General Flynn.  In fact, they admit in their documentation there was no basis for the interview, and Flynn had in their opinion not lied.  Didn't stop them from coercing him into pleading guilty to a lying charge. 

By they way, we know HRC lied to the FBI, but no charges were ever brought.  I guess some people can lie to the FBI, but others can't?  Not so simple, is it?

Your "advice" doesn't hold water.  If they want to charge you, telling the truth won't stop them.

And actually, a pardon does absolve them of their crimes.  They could be 100% guilty of murder, but a pardon absolves them of the crime.

According to the legal dictionary, "absolve" and "pardon" are synonyms.

absolve (əbˈzɒlv)
vb (tr)
1. (usually foll by from) to release from blame, sin, punishment, obligation, or responsibility
2. to pronounce not guilty; acquit; pardon

So, they ARE in fact absolved of any stated crikmes.  They cannot be prosecuted for that crime, and their civil rights are restored.

Except that Flynn did lie and he admitted to it and he pleaded guilty. 
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/michael-flynn-investigation/

When I said absolve I was not referring to the pardon. I was pointing out that an improper investigation by the FBI doesn't absolve one of their choice to lie by the FBI. Sure, you can say the pardon absolves him but that is not what I was talking about.

Except that Flynn did lie and he admitted to it and he pleaded guilty. 
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/michael-flynn-investigation/

When I said absolve I was not referring to the pardon. I was pointing out that an improper investigation by the FBI doesn't absolve one of their choice to lie by the FBI. Sure, you can say the pardon absolves him but that is not what I was talking about.

No, he plead guilty because he could (1) stop going into deeper debt trying to fight it, and (2) prevent his son from being dragged through the same legal quagmire as agents threatened to do.

Innocent people plead guilty every day when they think the gov't has a winnable case against them.  Admitting you lied to stop the bleeding and get a more favorable outcome than letting it go to a verdict is a calculated choice.  So, while he plead to the charge, it doesn't hold water as an honest admission. 

In fact, the DOJ dropped all charges after dragging their feet for almost 2 years avoiding sentencing, because they KNEW the truth would come out sooner or later, and they didn't want to be hit with a false imprisonment charge on top of the civil suits.

You can point to the plea deal as evidence he committed the crime, but once the FBI documents were uncovered saying otherwise, the DOJ dropped charges, and Flynn's attorney withdrew Flynn's plea.

There's the truth, and then there's what the system offers the accused.  Not always a simple innocent vs. guilty outcome.  You should know all of this.

Elusive Government Memo Shows FBI
Did Not Think Michael Flynn Intentionally Lied

he Justice Department this week provided Michael Flynn’s lawyers with a long-rumored
government memo which shows that FBI officials did not believe that the former national
security adviser intentionally lied in a White House interview at the center of his legal battle.

The memo, dated Jan. 30, 2017, and published Friday, also said that FBI investigators did
not believe that Flynn was working as an agent of Russia.

Two FBI agents interviewed Flynn on Jan. 24, 2017, regarding his phone calls weeks earlier
with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Flynn pleaded guilty on Dec. 1, 2017, in the special counsel’s probe to making false statements
to the FBI regarding his conversation with Kislyak. He sought to retract his plea on Jan. 29,
saying that he did not intentionally lie to investigators and that he pleaded guilty because of intense
pressure from the special counsel’s office.

https://dailycaller.com/2020/07/10/michael-flynn-fbi-russian-agent-lied/

Proves my point.  "Simply not lying" isn't enough if they really want to get you.

I mean the dude used his own rv.... made no attempt to hide and left his dna all over the streets.  Doesn't take the fbis best to figure that mystery out.

It flew over his head again!

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

No, he plead guilty because he could (1) stop going into deeper debt trying to fight it, and (2) prevent his son from being dragged through the same legal quagmire as agents threatened to do.

Innocent people plead guilty every day when they think the gov't has a winnable case against them.  Admitting you lied to stop the bleeding and get a more favorable outcome than letting it go to a verdict is a calculated choice.  So, while he plead to the charge, it doesn't hold water as an honest admission. 

In fact, the DOJ dropped all charges after dragging their feet for almost 2 years avoiding sentencing, because they KNEW the truth would come out sooner or later, and they didn't want to be hit with a false imprisonment charge on top of the civil suits.

You can point to the pea deal as evidence he committed the crime, but once the FBI documents were uncovered saying otherwise, the DOJ dropped charges, and Flynn's attorney withdrew Flynn's plea.

There's the truth, and then there's what the system offers the accused.  Not always a simple innocent vs. guilty outcome.  You should know all of this.

Elusive Government Memo Shows FBI
Did Not Think Michael Flynn Intentionally Lied

https://dailycaller.com/2020/07/10/michael-flynn-fbi-russian-agent-lied/

Proves my point.  "Simply not lying" isn't enough if they really want to get you.

Chosen aside, point is mute.

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

It flew over his head again!

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

Hard to "attempt to hide DNA" when they say he blew himself up.  Guess he needed to cover himself with flex seal prior to.

Hard to "attempt to hide DNA" when they say he blew himself up.  Guess he needed to cover himself with flex seal prior to.

Not who I had in mind!

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

No, he plead guilty because he could (1) stop going into deeper debt trying to fight it, and (2) prevent his son from being dragged through the same legal quagmire as agents threatened to do.

Innocent people plead guilty every day when they think the gov't has a winnable case against them.  Admitting you lied to stop the bleeding and get a more favorable outcome than letting it go to a verdict is a calculated choice.  So, while he plead to the charge, it doesn't hold water as an honest admission. 

Agree to disagree.

In fact, the DOJ dropped all charges after dragging their feet for almost 2 years avoiding sentencing, because they KNEW the truth would come out sooner or later, and they didn't want to be hit with a false imprisonment charge on top of the civil suits.

Or maybe because Trump's the boss and told them not to?

You can point to the plea deal as evidence he committed the crime, but once the FBI documents were uncovered saying otherwise, the DOJ dropped charges, and Flynn's attorney withdrew Flynn's plea. There's the truth, and then there's what the system offers the accused.  Not always a simple innocent vs. guilty outcome.  You should know all of this.

If it were the plea deal alone I would be more inclined to agree.