Would you accept full pardon for Trump in exchange for his resignation?

[pcgeek11]

Now you're talking about different scenarios.

No knock warrants come to mind

I'm not talking about anything different than I stated in the first place.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Sure you are. And refusing to see any variance to situations where pleas are effective is foolish.

 

[Jaskalas]

I just read through this !@#$ of a topic, and NO ONE bothered to ask...

A pardon for what?

 

[Chiropteran]

I just read through this !@#$ of a topic, and NO ONE bothered to ask...

A pardon for what?

Some people are dumb, and don't understand that an investigation doesn't mean a crime has been committed.

 

[Meghan54]

Some people are dumb, and don't understand that an investigation doesn't mean a crime has been committed.

True, an investigation doesn't necessarily mean a crime has been committed. But that's why investigations are done....to determine if crimes have been committed.

 

[Commodus]

I just read through this !@#$ of a topic, and NO ONE bothered to ask...

A pardon for what?

Well, right now it seems to be an on-the-record admission of obstruction of justice.

 

[Jaskalas]

Well, right now it seems to be an on-the-record admission of obstruction of justice.

You think firing Comey was an obstruction of justice.
What you may find in the end, is that the actual investigation has not been infringed.
Trump might be pleased if you tie impeachment to something as flimsy.

 

[alien42]

You think firing Comey was an obstruction of justice.
What you may find in the end, is that the actual investigation has not been infringed.
Trump might be pleased if you tie impeachment to something as flimsy.

so if you try and rob a bank, but you don't succeed in actually getting any money, it is no longer a crime?

when there are several instances of obstruction of justice, it adds up and doesn't look so flimsy, not unlike Trump's own words stopping his travel ban.

 

[Commodus]

You think firing Comey was an obstruction of justice.
What you may find in the end, is that the actual investigation has not been infringed.
Trump might be pleased if you tie impeachment to something as flimsy.

He explicitly said he fired Comey in a bid to take pressure off of him in the Russia investigation. Not only that, but the initial reason given for the firing (how Comey handled the Clinton investigation) is now known to be a blatant lie. That's the opposite of flimsy -- the only way it could be more damning is if Trump confessed to a crime that motivated the attempt to hinder the investigation.

And like alien42 said, it's the intent that matters, not the amount of damage done.

 

[jackstar7]

You think firing Comey was an obstruction of justice.
What you may find in the end, is that the actual investigation has not been infringed.
Trump might be pleased if you tie impeachment to something as flimsy.

Worth noting that impeachment doesn't require anything more than Congress to say it is warranted.

The terms are vague.

 

[jackstar7]

I am not talking about the men and women of law enforcement. I am taking about the crooks making the deals to finger their counterparts who may be innocent to save their own skin.

Someone has to offer and accept said deal. Those people are the law enforcement agents.

You flatly disregard their expertise and judgment. That's a rather big part of the equation to exclude.

 

[pcgeek11]

Sure you are. And refusing to see any variance to situations where pleas are effective is foolish.

I never said ALL were bad. Just that in general I am against them.

 

[pcgeek11]

Someone has to offer and accept said deal. Those people are the law enforcement agents.

You flatly disregard their expertise and judgment. That's a rather big part of the equation to exclude.

OK. I agree I don't generally think plead bargains are a good idea. Results vary.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I never said ALL were bad. Just that in general I am against them.

And I never claimed all were good.

My opinions are typically case by when they hit the news. The ones that are bad in my mind are when people plea out even though innocent, for whatever reason, or when people aren't being truthful, which is far more likely from a drug addict than a whistle blower.

 

[pcgeek11]

And I never claimed all were good.

My opinions are typically case by when they hit the news. The ones that are bad in my mind are when people plea out even though innocent, for whatever reason, or when people aren't being truthful, which is far more likely from a drug addict than a whistle blower.

Then we agree. Why are you being argumentative?

 

[ch33zw1z]

You took a stand, I challenged it. Isn't that what this is? If you see the gray areas, put it in your posts man.

Started with this, not much room for wiggle

https://forums.anandtech.com/index.php?posts/38903237

 

[pcgeek11]

You took a stand, I challenged it. Isn't that what this is? If you see the gray areas, put it in your posts man.

Started with this, not much room for wiggle

https://forums.anandtech.com/index.php?posts/38903237

There are Always gray areas in everything.

Edit:


"I believe that deals and plea bargains only lead to crooks stabbing their enemies in the back and is rife with lies to save their own skin."

What I said is exactly what I meant and I still do. I said it leads to... nowhere did I say always. Why do you think people agree to a plea bargain?

Reading without reading into I guess is an art.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Only, only was the word you used. Leaving no room to variance. And the statement as whole is nonsense.

Only leading to crooks stabbing enemies in the back? Really. So it's never lead to crooks stabbing accomplices, partners in crimes, friends in the back? I'm to assume you have such a vast knowledge of the topic that there's no variance and it ONLY happens on your specific scenario?

Innocent people have never been talked into a plea?

I submit you can't see the gray areas, so dig in.

You should try answering your own question. Why do people take deals or pleas?

 

[pcgeek11]

Only, only was the word you used. Leaving no room to variance. And the statement as whole is nonsense.

Only leading to crooks stabbing enemies in the back? Really. So it's never lead to crooks stabbing accomplices, partners in crimes, friends in the back? I'm to assume you have such a vast knowledge of the topic that there's no variance and it ONLY happens on your specific scenario?

Innocent people have never been talked into a plea?

I submit you can't see the gray areas, so dig in.

You should try answering your own question. Why do people take deals or pleas?

You are reading into what I said only to argue.I done with that.

No, I asked you. I guess I should define it better for you.

Why do you think criminals take plea deals?

 

[ch33zw1z]

No, I'm really not.

Thesaurus.com - look up the word only.

 

[Meghan54]

No, I'm really not.

Thesaurus.com - look up the word only.

I'm sorry, you thought glenn used "ordinary" dictionary definitions?

HAHAHAHA!!!!

He specializes in using the Weasel Word edition of anything.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I'm sorry, you thought glenn used "ordinary" dictionary definitions?

HAHAHAHA!!!!

He specializes in using the Weasel Word edition of anything.

Yea, how reckless of me.

 

[werepossum]

<Psst> trial.

Lol Quiet, you!

 

[werepossum]

I just read through this !@#$ of a topic, and NO ONE bothered to ask...

A pardon for what?

Winning. Because half the nation simply cannot process the concept that he could win without some great mass of Spandex-clad nefarity.

 

[ch33zw1z]

62 million is half?