Dezarae's Politics & More
March 28, 2024, 02:10:42 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: We Welcome Democrats, Republicans and Independents for Discussions.
Many things are not viewable by guests, so sign up today using a valid email address, "from your server". We have a arcade with tons of games and word games etc. for your enjoyment if politics isn't your thing. We try to have something for everyone!

 
  Home Help Search Arcade Gallery Links MusicPlayer Jukebox Emoticons Emoticons2 Staff List Login Register  

Roger Stone says he won't testify against Trump after Mueller indictment

Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Roger Stone says he won't testify against Trump after Mueller indictment  (Read 314 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
A159
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

My Mood: Cautious
Posts: 5270



Badges: (View All)
Nineth year Anniversary Level 6 Eighth year Anniversary Seventh year Anniversary 5000 Posts Sixth year Anniversary
« on: January 28, 2019, 03:22:42 pm »

This Nixon Republic voice, Roger Stone, stated that he'll not finger Trump. I do wonder if a sizable prison term might change his tune. He was being charged with conspiracy to (?). He also stated that he wasn't seeking any pardon from Trump. Yeah, right.   Evil

My question is, being that he's charged with conspiracy, and, or also treason …… would these charges prevent one from getting a presidential pardon? I need schooled.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/25/roger-stone-trump-ally-arrested-on-seven-charges

Jon Swaine in New York, Sabrina Siddiqui in Washington and Paul Owen
Fri 25 Jan 2019 11.37 EST

Stone, a veteran Republican operative, appeared in federal court in Fort Lauderdale charged by special counsel Robert Mueller with obstruction, lying to Congress and witness tampering. He was released on $250,000 bail and denies wrongdoing.

Mueller alleged in a long-anticipated indictment that Stone, 66, was asked by Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign to get inside information about emails that were stolen from Democrats by Russian government hackers and passed to WikiLeaks.
Advertisement

A senior campaign official “was directed” to tell Stone to find out what damaging information WikiLeaks had about Hillary Clinton even after it was reported that the material being published by the group came from Russia, the indictment said.

.
.

The indictment also said Stone made false statements when questioned by the intelligence committee of the House of Representatives. When asked if he had no emails or other communications relating to WikiLeaks and the hacked Democratic documents, Stone allegedly said: “That is correct. Not to my knowledge.”
Report Spam   Logged

As assistant Admin, I serve to improve this board's existence to the best of my ability. Keep in mind that, at my age, my abilities are slightly fuzzy.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

countryguy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2604




Badges: (View All)
Eighth year Anniversary Level 6 Seventh year Anniversary 2500 Posts Sixth year Anniversary Fifth year Anniversary
« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2019, 11:24:17 am »

"The President shall ... have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment" (Article II, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution).  Since treason is a federal crime (note that the offences must be against the United States -- state and local offences not being included), and it is not specifically excepted from this provision, it would appear that the president does, indeed, have the power to pardon someone convicted of it.  The idea of a president pardoning anyone convicted of actually being a traitor to the U.S., however, would involve virtual political suicide, which makes it extremely unlikely that Trump would even consider it.  In his mind, his political survival would be far more important than the fate of anyone else.  Loyalty isn't, exactly, one of his strong suits.  At this time, the charges (obstruction, lying to Congress and witness tampering) have been filed in federal court, which would seem to indicate that they're all federal charges, and which would make it possible (but, I believe, unlikely) that Trump could pardon him.

A charge of treason is unlikely.  While speculation about such a charge is a popular subject of discussion, treason is an especially serious charge, and is rarely used, even in the most egregious of cases.  Looking back through history, it hasn't been used except in a very few cases of espionage and spying.  Benedict Arnold is famous, as being one of the few people ever found guilty of it.  There are any number of other charges that can be used.  Prosecutors always seem to be able to come up with something we've never even heard of before.  I've always been surprised with how many different charges some people are charged with, for the same thing.  Again, the article you cited does say he has, already, been charged with "... obstruction, lying to Congress and witness tampering" -- but it does not say anything about treason. 

Stone's "I'll never finger President Trump" (sic) statement sounds an awfully lot like what Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen both said.  I guess we'll just have to wait and see, just how this one plays out.  In that crowd, "loyalty up" is almost as rare as "loyalty down".
Report Spam   Logged

In this world, a person can DEMAND respect ........ or COMMAND it.

The former will seldom - if ever - achieve the latter.
A159
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

My Mood: Cautious
Posts: 5270



Badges: (View All)
Nineth year Anniversary Level 6 Eighth year Anniversary Seventh year Anniversary 5000 Posts Sixth year Anniversary
« Reply #2 on: January 29, 2019, 03:38:14 pm »

Thanks for your in depth explanation to my question. I knew that I was reaching a bit adding a possible charge of treason to Stone's bad boy list of charges. I heard today that Stone has also threatened to kill a witness. That alone should tack on some extra time to his future jailhouse blues.


One would think that Trump wouldn't wish to go own pardon road for Stone, but we both know that Trump doesn't walk the same paths as many of the rest of us do. He's a natural born hair trigger with no conscience or thought borne of common sense.


So, if I read your quoted research correctly (except in Cases of Impeachment) if impeachment proceedings have been started on his sorry azz, he can't pardon any of his stooges currently behind bars. Is that correct?
Report Spam   Logged

As assistant Admin, I serve to improve this board's existence to the best of my ability. Keep in mind that, at my age, my abilities are slightly fuzzy.
countryguy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2604




Badges: (View All)
Eighth year Anniversary Level 6 Seventh year Anniversary 2500 Posts Sixth year Anniversary Fifth year Anniversary
« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2019, 02:09:59 am »

That would be one way to interpret it.  I'm sure that, down thru the years, different people have interpreted it in other ways.  I can't think of what they might be, but that doesn't mean someone else hasn't come up with one.  Pretty much anything written can be interpreted in many ways.  Just look at religion.  There are hundreds of different sects, synods, branches, or whatever, of Christianity.  Every single one of them has different beliefs than the others.  Nearly all, if not all, claim to be the only one, true religion.  Everyone else is wrong.

Yet, every single one of them bases their beliefs on the exact same words -- the Bible.  Hundreds of churches, using the same words, each come up with different interpretations.  Millions of people, down thru history, were brutally murdered, because their interpretation was different from someone else's.  The U. S. Constitution has, pretty much, the same problem.  (Fortunately, it hasn't [yet ??] resulted in the wholesale slaughter part.)  The most well-known example, is the 2nd amendment.  The phrase "... except in cases of impeachment" is another which could lend itself to a number of different interpretations.  Who's to say, what it was meant to mean?  It's not like we can ask the guy who wrote it, to clarify his intentions.  So, we rely on the Supreme Court to interpret it for us.  Their one and only purpose, is to decide matters of constitutionality.  And, they generally can't agree on the right interpretation, either -- which why unanimous decisions are the exception, rather than the rule.  And why political parties believe one of the most important issues, in a presidential election, is who the candidate is likely to appoint, to fill any vacancies that may arise, during his/her term in office.

Who knows?  It's entirely possible that the Supremes will have a chance to interpret "... except in cases of impeachment" for us, someday soon.
Report Spam   Logged

In this world, a person can DEMAND respect ........ or COMMAND it.

The former will seldom - if ever - achieve the latter.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy