Manafort Breached Plea Deal by Repeatedly Lying, Mueller Says


bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Since serious stuff. I don't buy into conspiracy theories, but if I were to make one up.. I'd say that all the players are going to lie and change stories so many times that the truth will be obfuscated and Trump will just pardon them...


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/us/politics/mueller-paul-manafort-cooperation.html
Which then begs the question.. What if that was the ultimate goal, in which Trump makes a deal with them that they would automatically get pardons should they get caught for anything?

Would the POTUS conspiring with others for the purpose of giving a pardon be considered an obstruction of justice? In other words, if the POTUS knows they will be breaking the law and he knows that they will be doing it anyway, commits the crime, and then in holding his end of the bargain, the POTUS pardons, would the conspiracy be considered an obstruction of justice?

We know that the POTUS can pardon, but that isn't the question. The question here is that if the POTUS conspired for acts above the law to be made, could the conspiracy charge be handed down?

BL.
 

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,439
United Kingdom
Which then begs the question.. What if that was the ultimate goal, in which Trump makes a deal with them that they would automatically get pardons should they get caught for anything?

Would the POTUS conspiring with others for the purpose of giving a pardon be considered an obstruction of justice? In other words, if the POTUS knows they will be breaking the law and he knows that they will be doing it anyway, commits the crime, and then in holding his end of the bargain, the POTUS pardons, would the conspiracy be considered an obstruction of justice?

We know that the POTUS can pardon, but that isn't the question. The question here is that if the POTUS conspired for acts above the law to be made, could the conspiracy charge be handed down?

BL.
Beyond the realms of fantasy given Paul Manafort's crimes are entirely unrelated to Donald Trump and the election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vanilla Ice

samcraig

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,006
USA
Beyond the realms of fantasy given Paul Manafort's crimes are entirely unrelated to Donald Trump and the election.
Once again, irrelevant.

ETA: If we play the conspiracy out - Trump's goal is to discredit the investigation. So the more convoluted it seems, the more he would win. And in the end, the players get a pardon for playing their role.
 
Last edited:

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Beyond the realms of fantasy given Paul Manafort's crimes are entirely unrelated to Donald Trump and the election.
As already said, irrelevant. And you aren't even addressing the question.

Trump has been known, and well documented at that, to pursue acts that are above the law. And when called out on it, he tries as much as he can to plea bargain out of it so he doesn't become a criminal.

The point I have here is that it would not be beyond the realm of others to play on Trump's missives and also, by association, believe that they are above the law. Additionally, by extension, if given carte blanc by Trump, with the promise that he would pardon them for any crimes, they could do whatever they want. If they conspired to commit any crime as they see fit knowing full well that Trump will pardon them, Trump can be deemed a co-conspirator, and as such, be subject to indictment.

So I ask the question again, seeing that so far you've returned with irrelevance, could Trump be charged with conspiracy for any crime, regardless of if he has pardoning power?

Once again, irrelevant.

ETA: If we play the conspiracy out - Trump's goal is to discredit the investigation. So the more convoluted it seems, the more he would win. And in the end, the players get a pardon for playing their role.
Exactly. And if that plays out, Trump would basically be a co-conspirator to those crimes, hence my question.

BL.
 

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,439
United Kingdom
It would be an impossibility if "the POTUS conspired for acts above the law to be made" because Paul Manafort's crimes occurred long before he worked for Donald Trump. He couldn't have conspired with Paul Manafort to break the law because Mr Manafort had already done so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vanilla Ice

jerwin

macrumors 68020
Jun 13, 2015
2,457
4,451
Which then begs the question.. What if that was the ultimate goal, in which Trump makes a deal with them that they would automatically get pardons should they get caught for anything?
Would the POTUS conspiring with others for the purpose of giving a pardon be considered an obstruction of justice? In other words, if the POTUS knows they will be breaking the law and he knows that they will be doing it anyway, commits the crime, and then in holding his end of the bargain, the POTUS pardons, would the conspiracy be considered an obstruction of justice?
The 1925 case Ex parte Grossman, 267 US 87 contends that abuse of the pardon power is impeachable.

Certain powers of the president can be checked by Congress, if it chooses to act. But other powers of the president cannot be curtailed, even by an aggrieved and unanimous Congress. The sole remedy is impeachment.

If it be said that the President, by successive pardons of constantly recurring contempts in particular litigation, might deprive a court of power to enforce its orders in a recalcitrant neighborhood, it is enough to observe that such a course is so improbable as to furnish but little basis for argument. Exceptional cases like this, if to be imagined at all, would suggest a resort to impeachment, rather than to a narrow and strained construction of the general powers of the President.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Grossman
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,006
USA
It would be an impossibility if "the POTUS conspired for acts above the law to be made" because Paul Manafort's crimes occurred long before he worked for Donald Trump. He couldn't have conspired with Paul Manafort to break the law because Mr Manafort had already done so.
No one said Trump conspired with Manafort about that crime.

He could have easily conspired with Manafort about covering it up, his testimony or [fill in the blank]. You lack the bigger picture thinking of the original premise. Trump would love nothing better than to discredit the Mueller investigation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: niji

samcraig

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,006
USA
The 1925 case Ex parte Grossman, 267 US 87 contends that abuse of the pardon power is impeachable.

Certain powers of the president can be checked by Congress, if it chooses to act. But other powers of the president cannot be curtailed, even by an aggrieved and unanimous Congress. The sole remedy is impeachment.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Grossman
He'd have to piss off the senate even more than he had already. So far very few conservatives have shown any backbone.
 

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,439
United Kingdom
No one said Trump conspired with Manafort about that crime.

He could have easily conspired with Manafort about covering it up, his testimony or [fill in the blank]. You lack the bigger picture thinking of the original premise. Trump would love nothing better than to discredit the Mueller investigation.
Why would Trump conspire with Manafort to cover up Manafort’s crimes from between 2004 and 2014, which he had nothing to do with, to discredit Mueller? It doesn’t even make any sense. How could he “easily” have pulled it off?

It all sounds like a desperate attempt to pin anything and everything on Trump.

Most likely scenario given Manafort’s trial? He already committed bank fraud and tax evasion. Why is lying to Mueller hard to believe without some plan masterminded by Donald Trump?
 

Solomani

macrumors 68040
Sep 25, 2012
3,702
6,182
Alberto, Canado

samcraig

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,006
USA
Why would Trump conspire with Manafort to cover up Manafort’s crimes from between 2004 and 2014, which he had nothing to do with, to discredit Mueller? It doesn’t even make any sense. How could he “easily” have pulled it off?

It all sounds like a desperate attempt to pin anything and everything on Trump.

Most likely scenario given Manafort’s trial? He already committed bank fraud and tax evasion. Why is lying to Mueller hard to believe without some plan masterminded by Donald Trump?
First of all, if you read my first post, I don't believe in conspiracy theories. However I was laying one out.

Second, as I said, the purpose would be a way to try an discredit the Mueller investigation.

Since you can't seem to even imagine how or why Trump might want to cast doubt on the investigation, we're done here.
 

DearthnVader

macrumors 6502a
Dec 17, 2015
893
4,862
Red Springs, NC
First of all, if you read my first post, I don't believe in conspiracy theories. However I was laying one out.

Second, as I said, the purpose would be a way to try an discredit the Mueller investigation.

Since you can't seem to even imagine how or why Trump might want to cast doubt on the investigation, we're done here.
Laying out a conspiracy theory, then proceeding as if it where true.:rolleyes:

@zin questioned your theory, you can tell because "he" used no less than 4 ?.

I suppose you don't want your theory questioned, and you just want us all to take your word for it and proceed as if it were true, because instead of addressing his points "we're done here".

That's not how reasoned debate works, it's point and counter point, not that anyone would ever concede anything here at PRSI.

It's funny how fast each party's members turn to "Conspiracy theory" when they are not the party in power.
 

GermanSuplex

macrumors 6502a
Aug 26, 2009
963
9,910
We will know what he lied to them about during sentencing, which won't be long, as both sides have agreed to have the sentencing pushed up.

Still lots of moving pieces here and when you are dealing with Russia, Ukraine, international money launderers and the Trump family, it will take a long time to put the pieces - whatever there are - together. And if there is no puzzle, Mueller's report will say that. Either way, Trump is playing a simple game of heads up I win, tails up you lose. The constant bashing of Mueller and the investigation is all meant to discredit anything Mueller finds. Of course, if he's exonerated or the investigation is inconclusive, he'll just say "see, told you so".
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,006
USA
Laying out a conspiracy theory, then proceeding as if it where true.:rolleyes:

@zin questioned your theory, you can tell because "he" used no less than 4 ?.

I suppose you don't want your theory questioned, and you just want us all to take your word for it and proceed as if it were true, because instead of addressing his points "we're done here".

That's not how reasoned debate works, it's point and counter point, not that anyone would ever concede anything here at PRSI.

It's funny how fast each party's members turn to "Conspiracy theory" when they are not the party in power.
Huh?

Zin has failed to understand that it's not something I actually believe in but rather a supposition. One that was built around Trump's behavior towards the investigation. The issues Zin raised are and were irrelevant. What does it matter if Manafort's crime took place before Trump? For the reason I stated.

You can question the theory all you want. But at least bring something to the table that's logical.

I stand by my original post. I don't believe in conspiracy theories. I don't believe Trump is orchestrating some massive subterfuge like what I illustrated. I don't believe he's that organized.
 

DearthnVader

macrumors 6502a
Dec 17, 2015
893
4,862
Red Springs, NC
We will know what he lied to them about during sentencing, which won't be long, as both sides have agreed to have the sentencing pushed up.

Still lots of moving pieces here and when you are dealing with Russia, Ukraine, international money launderers and the Trump family, it will take a long time to put the pieces - whatever there are - together. And if there is no puzzle, Mueller's report will say that. Either way, Trump is playing a simple game of heads up I win, tails up you lose. The constant bashing of Mueller and the investigation is all meant to discredit anything Mueller finds. Of course, if he's exonerated or the investigation is inconclusive, he'll just say "see, told you so".
Why wouldn't Trump say "I told you so"?

Mueller was tasked with investigating Russian interference in the US elections, and pretty much immediately started trying to link Donald J. Trump or his campaign to Russian election interference. Even tho, the investigation has said a few times that they were unable to find any link, where anyone in the Trump campaign knowingly conspired with Russia.

Liberals have lost all objectivity, because it reinforces what they want to believe.
[doublepost=1543335307][/doublepost]
Huh?

Zin has failed to understand that it's not something I actually believe in but rather a supposition. One that was built around Trump's behavior towards the investigation. The issues Zin raised are and were irrelevant. What does it matter if Manafort's crime took place before Trump? For the reason I stated.

You can question the theory all you want. But at least bring something to the table that's logical.

I stand by my original post. I don't believe in conspiracy theories. I don't believe Trump is orchestrating some massive subterfuge like what I illustrated. I don't believe he's that organized.
If you don't believe your own hypothesis why should anyone else indulge you?

@zen questioned you theory on it's face, asked questions you didn't address, we can only assume because you have no answer for them.

Liberals are in full denial, and they are losing their grip on reality.
 
Last edited:

GermanSuplex

macrumors 6502a
Aug 26, 2009
963
9,910
Why wouldn't Trump say "I told you so"?

Mueller was tasked with investigating Russian interference in the US elections, and pretty much immediately started trying to link Donald J. Trump or his campaign to Russian election interference. Even tho, the investigation has said a few times that they were unable to find any link, where anyone in the Trump campaign knowingly conspired with Russia.

Liberals have lost all objectivity, because it reinforces what they want to believe.
[doublepost=1543335307][/doublepost]
If you don't believe your own hypothesis why should anyone else indulge you?

@zen questioned you theory on it's face, asked questions you didn't address, we can only assume because you have no answer for them.

Liberals are in full denial, and they are losing there grip on reality.
Because we know Trump and his family have lied about contacts with Russians during the campaign. We don't know what is in Mueller's report, they have prosecuted Russians...

These blinders you accuse liberals of having seem to indicate we all may have much in common, because conservatives tried to discredit all of this from the gate. What if Mueller's report is largely about Russian interference and little to do with Trump? What then? Was it all still a witch hunt?

Sad as it is, Trump is President, and should at least try to set the tone here. His denials of interference, sucking up to Putin and making things up on a whim hurts his credibility and further drives the narrative.

Trump will say "I told you so" because he was always going to say that. He takes blame for nothing, takes credit for everything, and none of it has any basis in truth or reality.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,006
USA
Why wouldn't Trump say "I told you so"?

Mueller was tasked with investigating Russian interference in the US elections, and pretty much immediately started trying to link Donald J. Trump or his campaign to Russian election interference. Even tho, the investigation has said a few times that they were unable to find any link, where anyone in the Trump campaign knowingly conspired with Russia.

Liberals have lost all objectivity, because it reinforces what they want to believe.
[doublepost=1543335307][/doublepost]
If you don't believe your own hypothesis why should anyone else indulge you?

@zen questioned you theory on it's face, asked questions you didn't address, we can only assume because you have no answer for them.

Liberals are in full denial, and they are losing there grip on reality.
Only your assertions above are wrong. What are liberals in denial about? Losing grip on what reality? Such a general statement. Full of sound and fury - signifying nothing. Just an opportunity to slam liberals?

Zin and anyone else can poke as many holes in the theory laid out. Why should *I* indulge those that are irrelevant other than to point out that they are so.

As with Zin in this thread - we're done here.
 

DearthnVader

macrumors 6502a
Dec 17, 2015
893
4,862
Red Springs, NC
I don't believe that Mueller or anyone on his team has said that.
Sorry, it was Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, tho he drew his conclusion with the facts from the first indictments that came from Mueller.

"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime," Rosenstein said at a news conference. "There is no allegation that the conspiracy altered the vote count or changed any election result."
 

DearthnVader

macrumors 6502a
Dec 17, 2015
893
4,862
Red Springs, NC
Only your assertions above are wrong. What are liberals in denial about? Losing grip on what reality? Such a general statement. Full of sound and fury - signifying nothing. Just an opportunity to slam liberals?

Zin and anyone else can poke as many holes in the theory laid out. Why should *I* indulge those that are irrelevant other than to point out that they are so.

As with Zin in this thread - we're done here.
Were it only to work that way, you're pumping out pure mind garbage and asserting as truth, then saying even you don't believe it.

To get back to reality, last i heard Mueller was in the process of writing his report, so those of us that can remain objective will see how this thing plays out.

Seems to me it could go three ways.

1. Mueller finds a link to Trump or the Trump campaign in the furtherance of Russian election meddling.

2. Mueller finds no link that he can prosecute.

3. Mueller lays down indictments or accusations of Trump law breaking, not related to Russian election meddling.

If three is the case, as it often is in these sort of investigations, then the whole thing was exactly what a bunch of us have said it was from the word go, a political witch hunt.
 

BoxerGT2.5

macrumors 68000
Jun 4, 2008
1,929
11,121
1. You don't know what Manafort lied about.
2. You'd have to have at least one person indicted in all of this flip and claim Trump extended a pardon offer to them in exchange for false testimony.