by Pa Rock
Citizen Journalist
The New York Times, the venerable "Old Gray Lady" of journalism and certainly one of Donald Trump's least favorite news sources, is running a story today that claims Trump's former attorney, John Dowd, contacted lawyers for former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and talked to them about the possibility of presidential pardons for their clients. Both men, Flynn and Manafort, have since been indicted as a result of Mueller's investigation.
Presidential pardons are clearly one way that Trump has of derailing and neutering the Mueller investigation, and it's not far-fetched to suppose that someone who would stoop to pardoning Joe Arpaio would have no qualms about issuing a slew of pardons to high profile criminals, con-artists, relatives, and in-laws in order to save his own skin. The pardons would float down on Washington, DC, like confetti on steroids, and suddenly Trump's once-loyal lieutenants no longer have a legal motivation to turn on their former boss. In fact, they would have cause to protect their benefactor.
Pardons. That's option one.
Option two would be to cut the head off the snake by firing Mueller. This option, like the first option, would create a firestorm of public outrage. Trump, of course, relishes the attention and noise that come from pissing off (or "on") the masses, and he would likely not hesitate to employ either measure to keep his luxury-class weekend trips to Florida and the continuous use of his businesses for Republican Party shindigs and rest stops for foreign dignitaries. The Trump organization is making big money off of this presidential gig, and it would sorely hate to lose that income stream.
Option two works because, with Republican control of both houses of Congress, there is little realistic chance of him being impeached. That situation could change, however, come November. As the fall elections approach and Mueller continues to draw his noose tighter and tighter, a cornered Trump is almost certain to go on the offensive.
Option three would involve Trump sitting back and not doing anything to impede the course of justice. He has repeatedly said that he would welcome the opportunity to testify in the Mueller probe - and while most regard that as meaningless braggadocio, his lawyers, well aware of their client's proclivity for lying, have strongly advised against it.
Trump leaving the investigation alone or stepping forward to defend himself before Mueller's team? Clearly option three is not an option.
So the two likely scenarios are that presidential pardons will begin falling from the sky like the spring showers - or he will fire Mueller. Those are tough choices, but Trump is a tough guy who has been spanked by rougher characters than Robert Mueller.
My money is on the pardons.
Citizen Journalist
The New York Times, the venerable "Old Gray Lady" of journalism and certainly one of Donald Trump's least favorite news sources, is running a story today that claims Trump's former attorney, John Dowd, contacted lawyers for former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and talked to them about the possibility of presidential pardons for their clients. Both men, Flynn and Manafort, have since been indicted as a result of Mueller's investigation.
Presidential pardons are clearly one way that Trump has of derailing and neutering the Mueller investigation, and it's not far-fetched to suppose that someone who would stoop to pardoning Joe Arpaio would have no qualms about issuing a slew of pardons to high profile criminals, con-artists, relatives, and in-laws in order to save his own skin. The pardons would float down on Washington, DC, like confetti on steroids, and suddenly Trump's once-loyal lieutenants no longer have a legal motivation to turn on their former boss. In fact, they would have cause to protect their benefactor.
Pardons. That's option one.
Option two would be to cut the head off the snake by firing Mueller. This option, like the first option, would create a firestorm of public outrage. Trump, of course, relishes the attention and noise that come from pissing off (or "on") the masses, and he would likely not hesitate to employ either measure to keep his luxury-class weekend trips to Florida and the continuous use of his businesses for Republican Party shindigs and rest stops for foreign dignitaries. The Trump organization is making big money off of this presidential gig, and it would sorely hate to lose that income stream.
Option two works because, with Republican control of both houses of Congress, there is little realistic chance of him being impeached. That situation could change, however, come November. As the fall elections approach and Mueller continues to draw his noose tighter and tighter, a cornered Trump is almost certain to go on the offensive.
Option three would involve Trump sitting back and not doing anything to impede the course of justice. He has repeatedly said that he would welcome the opportunity to testify in the Mueller probe - and while most regard that as meaningless braggadocio, his lawyers, well aware of their client's proclivity for lying, have strongly advised against it.
Trump leaving the investigation alone or stepping forward to defend himself before Mueller's team? Clearly option three is not an option.
So the two likely scenarios are that presidential pardons will begin falling from the sky like the spring showers - or he will fire Mueller. Those are tough choices, but Trump is a tough guy who has been spanked by rougher characters than Robert Mueller.
My money is on the pardons.
1 comment:
Pardons really don't make any sense for the defense of Trump. To accept a pardon is to acknowledge, legally, guilt. Having acknowledge guilt a pardoned person cannot claim to have a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination regarding the crime for which they have already been pardoned. Trump can pardon to his little heart's desire. Each pardon is a gift to Mueller and his team, and several state's Attorneys Generals, as they assemble the case(s) against Trump.
Post a Comment