But he wasn't hired to look into campaign finance violations with porn starts...I feel like his questions will pertain to actual political crimes. Even Stormy Daniels relates to campaign finance.
But he wasn't hired to look into campaign finance violations with porn starts...I feel like his questions will pertain to actual political crimes. Even Stormy Daniels relates to campaign finance.
WASHINGTON — A lawyer for President Trump broached the idea of Mr. Trump pardoning two of his former top advisers, Michael T. Flynn and Paul Manafort, with their lawyers last year, according to three people with knowledge of the discussions.
The discussions came as the special counsel was building cases against both men, and they raise questions about whether the lawyer, John Dowd, who resigned last week, was offering pardons to influence their decisions about whether to plead guilty and cooperate in the investigation.
The talks suggest that Mr. Trump’s lawyers were concerned about what Mr. Flynn and Mr. Manafort might reveal were they to cut a deal with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, in exchange for leniency. Mr. Mueller’s team could investigate the prospect that Mr. Dowd made pardon offers to thwart the inquiry, although legal experts are divided about whether such offers might constitute obstruction of justice.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/28/...on=top-news&WT.nav=top-news#commentsContainer
It is unclear whether Mr. Dowd discussed the pardons with Mr. Trump
“There were no discussions. Period,” Mr. Dowd said. “As far as I know, no discussions.”
Legal experts are divided about whether a pardon offer, even if given in exchange for continued loyalty, can be considered obstruction of justice. Presidents have constitutional authority to pardon people who face or were convicted of federal charges.
slam dunk.
Well, I'm not sure an article based on anonymous sources, that everyone involved with denies (which, granted, you'd expect them to), and that legal experts are divided on whether is a crime at all, is necessarily a "slam dunk". What, exactly, makes it a "slam dunk"? It's slam dunk what?
But OK. The newest slam dunk, since the "Trump shouting that someone should fire Mueller is slam dunk obstruction" slam dunk. This case has had more supposed "slam dunks" than a Harlem Globetrotters game, and has uncovered more smoking guns than Miss Marple.
It's an important development, but hardly a "slam dunk." More like another brick in the wall.
All I’ve said is obstruction. That’s a slam dunk.
You must be confusing me with all your Resistance friends.
The charge and the case for obstruction of justice are slam dunks.
Mr. Keating needs a gun.
Nonsense...all he needs are the slings & arrows of rhetorical wit!
The only thing that’s ever stopped a bad man with slings and arrows is a good man with slings and arrows.
The only thing that’s ever stopped a bad man with slings and arrows is a good man with slings and arrows.
The real question facing America in 2018 is whether or not it’s ethical to watch the new Roseanne.