InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 72
Posts 103083
Boards Moderated 3
Alias Born 08/01/2006

Re: PegnVA post# 287129

Tuesday, 08/21/2018 7:43:51 PM

Tuesday, August 21, 2018 7:43:51 PM

Post# of 494325
PegVA. top notch. "Mr. Manafort’s conviction cannot be diminished by arguing, as Mr. Trump and his coterie are fond of doing, that the misconduct was unrelated to the Trump campaign or Russian “collusion.” On the contrary, the trial evidence included Mr. Manafort’s close ties to pro-Russia forces and his desperate financial straits as he “volunteered” his time for the next president. The trial revealed how willing Mr. Manafort was to corruptly leverage his position of influence over Mr. Trump during the campaign for his own personal benefit. He offered briefings to a pro-Russia Ukrainian oligarch and dangled a position in the Trump administration in front of a banker who provided him a loan for which he would not otherwise have qualified.

The conviction also shows the caliber of the foe that President Trump is facing as he decides whether or not to sit for an interview with Mr. Mueller focusing on obstruction of justice. While we had already believed that Mr. Trump was unlikely to voluntarily sit for an interview, Tuesday’s verdict makes that interview even less probable. We should now prepare for a potential extended legal battle about the scope and power of a possible Mueller-issued subpoena for the president’s testimony.

It is unknown whether Mr. Mueller will go that route. If he does, however, his win in the Manafort case sends Mr. Trump the message that the special counsel and his team have the will and the ability to win a battle over a subpoena. Like in the Manafort case, the law is on their side. In United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a president cannot use executive privilege to withhold tape recordings of his words. There is no reason that the same principle should not also apply to their live utterance.
"

[...]

"A pardon for Mr. Manafort could also end up inflicting more harm on the Trump presidency than any of the other allegedly obstructive acts Mr. Trump has so far undertaken. The Constitution and the laws of our country do not allow Mr. Trump to dangle the possibility of, or explicitly offer, pardons with corrupt intent.

If his fawning statements about Mr. Manafort during the jury deliberations were part of an effort to impede or harm the investigation, that could be used to support the obstruction of justice case against him. If he or his representatives had gone further and actually promised or offered pardons to Mr. Manafort or other potential Mueller witnesses to prevent or change their testimony, as some reports suggest, that could support bribery charges as well.
"
.. your link ..
WHAT THE MANAFORT VERDICT MEANS
It’s Robert Mueller’s biggest victory yet, in one of the most successful special counsel investigations in history.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/opinion/guilty-verdict-paul-manafort.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Staring in the face.

There are always extensions of reason which some of us hadn't thought of before, nor read, Just sitting plain as day. Right there.





It was Plato who said, “He, O men, is the wisest, who like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing”

Join InvestorsHub

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.