Sure. Whatever. A lawyer can make up anything that he wants to. Until a court makes a decision on it -- or until that lawyer has to actually make an actual argument in front of a judge in court (which is where every single Trumpist "election fraud" claim falls immediately falls apart).
Dude! I've been dealing with all kinds of lying creationists since 1981. And all kinds of lying Boy Scouts of America (BSA) professionals practicing religious discrimination since 1990.
To paraphrase that third great American philosopher: "Weasel is as weasel says. "
An interesting thought concerning the four mass murdering mercenaries that Trump pardoned: what if the Iraqi government charged them with murder and demanded that the US extradited them to Iraq to stand trial? The US had a signed agreement at that time with the Iraqi government that crimes committed by US military personnel would be prosecuted by the US in US courts. But did that apply to private contractor personnel, i. e., mercenaries? And even if it did, could Iraq argue that by pardoning those four, the US abrogated that agreement? If they were extradited to Iraq, stood trial there, were found guilty, and were subjected to Iraqi justice, they might decide the pardon was the worst thing that could have happened to them.
She claimed to be setting up a charitable event in North Dakota (which never happened), solicited donations, sold merchandise and kept the money. On top of that she displayed a fake email allegedly from the Bank of North Dakota and used the Coin of the City of Minot to suggest an official connection with the city - even though she was repeatedly told to stop because no such connection existed.
She also falsely claimed - among other things - to be a “22 year veteran of Naval Intelligence”, to be running a medical lab and to be a doctor. None of those were true.
I guess we can see why Sidney Powell would want to keep her identity secret.
On top of all that, accepting a pardon eliminates your Fifth Amendment rights in connection with that particular crime -- you can no longer be prosecuted for that particular crime, so you can no longer use self-incrimination for that crime as an excuse for refusing to answer investigators' questions.
according to a lawyer friend of mine this only partially true. As a pardon is for a federal crime you could still invoke the 5th as protection from self incrimination for a state criminal charge arising from what you were federally convicted of.
I wasn't thinking about issues of charging and retrying a federal pardon recipient under the state law for the crime in question. That does raise questions which I'm sure that are considered and addressed by prosecutors and grand juries.
Rather, I was thinking about federal investigations that have been hindered and even prevented by uncooperative witnesses. In particular, I was thinking of federal investigations into what Trump and the 2016 Trump campaign, etc, that were massively obstructed by witnesses refusing to testify, even ignoring subpoenas, obviously at Trump's orders (either directly or indirectly) along with the implied promise of getting a pardon in the end.
Mainly, I was thinking that the pardon would void the witnesses' 5th Amendment rights regarding questioning about their interactions with other players in the crime for which they have been pardoned. They are now immune to prosecution for that crime, but that immunity does not apply to their co-conspirators. And refusal to answer those question and/or responding with lies would expose them to prosecution for other crimes (namely obstruction and lying). And this time, there will be nobody to dangle yet more pardons in front of them.
Now there's talk of Trump committing more crimes by giving out pardons in order to buy the recipients' silence. The report on that that I heard stated that Trump will most probably never be prosecuted for that, because the prosecutor would have to prove criminal intent and do so with evidence, something that is very rare in such cases. However, it would seem to me that the recipients of those pardons, now stripped of their 5th Amendment rights in these cases, could be motivated into testifying about communications from Trump or his minions promising them that pardon in exchange for their silence.
ABE: Refer to the interview with law professor Laurence Tribe on MSNBC's The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell tonight (indeed, it's running right now several minutes after I had first posted this reply).
Here is the latter part of that interview from YouTube:
In the earlier part of that interview (not in the video below) he covers the same issues that I talk about above, that recipients of those criminal pardons would have lost their 5th Amendment protections and so can be forced to testify against Trump in the matter of their pardon.
Edited by dwise1, : ABE
Edited by dwise1, : Corrected spelling of Laurence Tribe's first name
quote:President Trump urged fellow Republican Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, to “find” enough votes to overturn his defeat in an extraordinary one-hour phone call Saturday that legal scholars described as a flagrant abuse of power and a potential criminal act.
In case you haven't heard the USA is in the midst of a Trump-led right-wing coup.
Thousands of Trump volk stormed the capitol building and halted the electoral college certification. They are occupying the capitol building. This is after Trump addressed his thronging hoard at the white house. He deliberately sent them into a tizzy and ... off they went.
At this time there is an armed mob swarming over the capitol smashing into capitol building offices. DC is in total anarchy.
Looks like the authorities are taking a slow armed-standoff approach without storming the capital building. They are picking out the rebels around the edges of the crowd, one by one.
But this cannot be allowed to stand.
Imagine. An alt-reich coup led by a criminal president happening right now in my home US of A.
The quiet response is the best response but set up exit points where folk get face printed and identified. Then spend the next months pointing out that it was not 70 million voters but a few hundred nutjobs.
Yes, Trump incited them. And they knew that Pence wasn’t going to exercise his imaginary power to throw out votes Trump didn’t like. They may even have known that McConnell wasn’t going along with the steal either. Maybe this is the wake-up call America needed.