Stone, Manafort, Kushner Senior among the next round of pardonpalooza

[cow451]

>oops old news<

Benton is now charged with funneling Russian money in Trump's 2016 election.

Russian money to Trump's campaign? What a shock. I need to go have a cold beverage and process that.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Once a campaign fraudster, always a campaign fraudster.

A Republican political operative pardoned by President Donald Trump after his conviction in a 2012 bribery plot has been charged again with campaign-related crimes, this time involving a 2016 illegal campaign contribution scheme and a Russian national.

GOP operative found guilty of funneling Russian money to Donald Trump​

A Republican political strategist was convicted of illegally helping a Russian businessman contribute to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016.

Jesse Benton, 44, was pardoned by Trump in 2020 for a different campaign finance crime, months before he was indicted again on six counts related to facilitating an illegal foreign campaign donation. He was found guilty Thursday on all six counts.

 

[Brihaha]

GOP operative found guilty of funneling Russian money to Donald Trump​

A Republican political strategist was convicted of illegally helping a Russian businessman contribute to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016.

Jesse Benton, 44, was pardoned by Trump in 2020 for a different campaign finance crime, months before he was indicted again on six counts related to facilitating an illegal foreign campaign donation. He was found guilty Thursday on all six counts.

I don't know how Trump kept up with all the criminality in which he surrounded himself. He sure seemed to know who needed his pardons. I still think pardons from criminals to other criminals should be invalid. I'm glad this guy was convicted.

 

[disciple Clint]

They did, they were just unable to indict him for it since he's the President.

That excuse fails, one it was never an issue and two Trump is no longer president he can be served any time and yet he has not been that should tell us something, there isn't anything to charge him with, simple isn't it?

 

[disciple Clint]

I am glad you finally admitting that Trump is so incompetent in his job that under his administration JD and FBI became a rogue political weapon for opposition party.. That kind of incompetent person should not be POTUS.

Yes his incompetance was not using those agencies like the liberals use them.

 

[SimplyMe]

That excuse fails, one it was never an issue and two Trump is no longer president he can be served any time and yet he has not been that should tell us something, there isn't anything to charge him with, simple isn't it?

Yes, I'm sure they appointed a Special Prosecutor because Trump is completely innocent and they have no evidence to indict him for anything. It will be interesting to see what happens when the Special Master completes his review and documents are given to the Special Prosecutor.

 

[Pommer]

Yes his incompetance was not using those agencies like the liberals use them.

If you’re suggesting that President Trump wasn’t a “dirty” enough politician, could you expound on how him being “dirtier” would have “helped”?
Thanks.

 

[disciple Clint]

Yes, I'm sure they appointed a Special Prosecutor because Trump is completely innocent and they have no evidence to indict him for anything. It will be interesting to see what happens when the Special Master completes his review and documents are given to the Special Prosecutor.

It is never safe or prudent to assume that just because a person in being investigated they are guilty of something, I would that that after all the times in the past that an attempt has failed to produce evidence against Trump some people would learn.

 

[disciple Clint]

If you’re suggesting that President Trump wasn’t a “dirty” enough politician, could you expound on how him being “dirtier” would have “helped”?
Thanks.

No I am saying that he was not anywhere close to as dirty as some who were trying everything possible to persecute him.

 

[DaisyDay]

It is never safe or prudent to assume that just because a person in being investigated they are guilty of something, I would that that after all the times in the past that an attempt has failed to produce evidence against Trump some people would learn.

If you mean the impeachments, evidence was produced. In the second one, the senate outright refused to hear it.

 

[disciple Clint]

If you mean the impeachments, evidence was produced. In the second one, the senate outright refused to hear it.

Looking at the facts and not the talking points provides no evidence that Trump did anything wrong.

 

[DaisyDay]

Looking at the facts and not the talking points provides no evidence that Trump did anything wrong.

Sure, as long as you keep your eyes shut and ears plugged. Do you really believe that the phone call was perfect and that Trump had no part in the insurrection attempt?

 

[disciple Clint]

Sure, as long as you keep your eyes shut and ears plugged. Do you really believe that the phone call was perfect and that Trump had no part in the insurrection attempt?

Can anyone explain to me how they can consider that phone call criminal but at the same time think that Biden threating to withhold funding unless the prosecuting attorney investigating his son is terminated is just fine and not an abuse of his power? Is there one standard for Trump and another for Biden?

 

[DaisyDay]

Can anyone explain to me how they can consider that phone call criminal but at the same time think that Biden threating to withhold funding unless the prosecuting attorney investigating his son is terminated is just fine and not an abuse of his power? Is there one standard for Trump and another for Biden?

If the facts were as you stated, then it would have been an abuse of power, but they are not. The Ukraine prosecutor Shokin was known to be corrupt. He was not investigating Hunter Biden as there was nothing about that to investigate; in fact, one of the reasons for getting him removed was for his failure to investigate Burisma. Biden was doing what the Obama administration and its allies wanted him to do - he was not acting on his own behalf as a rogue player. Trump, on the other hand, was refusing to release funds that had been appropriated by Congress for Ukraine on the condition that Zelenskyi give Giuliani, the president's personal attorney (he was working for Trump, not the USA) dirt on the son of Trump's political rival.

So yes, apparently you do have two standards.

 

[disciple Clint]

If the facts were as you stated, then it would have been an abuse of power, but they are not. The Ukraine prosecutor Shokin was known to be corrupt. He was not investigating Hunter Biden as there was nothing about that to investigate; in fact, one of the reasons for getting him removed was for his failure to investigate Burisma. Biden was doing what the Obama administration and its allies wanted him to do - he was not acting on his own behalf as a rogue player. Trump, on the other hand, was refusing to release funds that had been appropriated by Congress for Ukraine on the condition that Zelenskyi give Giuliani, the president's personal attorney (he was working for Trump, not the USA) dirt on the son of Trump's political rival.

So yes, apparently you do have two standards.

While there are talking points and cover stories the fact remain that there are two standards of justice in our nation, much will come to light in the new year. Those talking points fall apart when the facts can no longer be ignored.

 

[Belk]

Looking at the facts and not the talking points provides no evidence that Trump did anything wrong.

Mitch McConnell disagrees.

“There is no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the event of that day,”

 

[DaisyDay]

While there are talking points and cover stories the fact remain that there are two standards of justice in our nation, much will come to light in the new year. Those talking points fall apart when the facts can no longer be ignored.

There are two standards, one for rich, famous and politically connected and another for ordinary people. If you think the charges against Donald are mere talking points then you look with open eyes at the facts.

 

[essentialsaltes]

On May 11, 2022, the House Committee on Natural Resources (Committee) presented evidence of likely bribery involving former U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary David Bernhardt and Villages at Vigneto developer Mike Ingram, in the Committee’s first-ever criminal referral to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).1 The Committee has now uncovered another potential incident of bribery involving Ingram and senior Trump administration officials through its review of documents obtained in that investigation.

In 2012, ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond were convicted of arson on federal lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

Documents obtained in the Committee’s Vigneto investigation indicate that Mike Ingram used his unique access to high-ranking Trump administration officials to advocate for these pardons.

On Sunday, July 1, 2018, a vocal proponent for pardoning the Hammonds shared in a tweet that “President Trump called me to say he is 'seriously considering' pardoning Dwight and Steven Hammond.”9 This was the first public acknowledgement that a pardon was under consideration.10

On Monday, July 2, 2018, the next business day, the Federal Election Commission database shows that Mr. Ingram made a $10,000 out-of-cycle donation to the America First Action, Inc. Super PAC.11 The America First Action, Inc. Super PAC describes itself as “dedicated to supporting President Trump | We are the only Official Pro-Trump Super PAC.”12 On Tuesday, July 10, 2018, President Trump signed Executive Grants of Clemency (Full Pardons) for both Hammonds.13

Mr. Ingram made only one other $10,000 donation during the 2017–2018 non-presidential election cycle.14 That donation was the subject of the Committee’s criminal referral regarding the Villages at Vigneto development.

This could be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, but it's worth investigating, and so they are.

 

[Always in His Presence]

This could be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, but it's worth investigating, and so they are.

It is a definite possibility of a could be maybe, they should spend millions investigating.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It is a definite possibility of a could be maybe, they should spend millions investigating.

Shouldn't cost very much to turn over the requested documents.