Trump Pardons Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and Jared Kushner’s Father Before Christmas Eve
Manafort might still face legal troubles in New York.
President Donald Trump pardoned 26 people along with three commutations before he left for Florida for Christmas.
The main three are Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and Jared Kushner’s father Charles.
About Manafort:
“Today, President Trump has issued a full and complete pardon to Paul Manafort, stemming from convictions prosecuted in the course of Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation, which was premised on the Russian collusion hoax,” the White House said. “Mr. Manafort has already spent two years in prison, including a stretch of time in solitary confinement – treatment worse than what many of the most violent criminals receive. As a result of blatant prosecutorial overreach, Mr. Manafort has endured years of unfair treatment and is one of the most prominent victims of what has been revealed to be perhaps the greatest witch hunt in American history.”
In 2018, Manafort ended up getting a jail sentence mostly on charges not affiliated with the Trump-Russia collusion case:
Manafort was convicted in Virginia in 2018 on five counts of tax fraud, one count of concealing his foreign bank accounts, and two counts of bank fraud while the judge declared a mistrial on 10 other charges. Manafort had also been charged in a separate case with failing to register as a foreign lobbyist, money laundering, making false statements to investigators, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and witness tampering, and he pleaded guilty to just the final two charges in Washington, D.C., a month and a half after his trial conviction.
Then in early 2019, Manafort received a 47-month prison sentence from Judge T.S. Ellis and 43 months from Judge Amy Berman.
Manafort left prison in May due to the COVID-19 pandemic. He is currently under home confinement.
Manafort might still have some legal trouble in New York:
The Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., charged Mr. Manafort with mortgage fraud and more than a dozen other state felonies in March 2019 in an effort to ensure that he would still face prosecution should Mr. Trump eventually pardon him. Presidential pardons only apply to federal, not state, laws.
But in December of that year, a New York trial judge ruled that the indictment violated the state’s double jeopardy law, a decision that was upheld by an appeals court in October of this year.
Mr. Vance’s office, which has sought leave to appeal that ruling to the state’s highest tribunal, the court of appeals, said in a statement Wednesday night that the president’s pardon of Mr. Manafort makes clear that the state charges should be upheld.
Trump already commuted Stone’s 40-month sentence after he was “convicted on seven counts of lying to Congress, witness tampering and obstructing the House inquiry into possible Trump campaign coordination with Russia.”
A lot of people wondered if Trumo would take action on Kushner, the father of his son-in-law Jared.
In 2004, Kushner pled guilty “to 16 counts of tax evasion, a single count of retaliating against a federal witness and one of lying to the Federal Election Commission in a case that was also a lurid family drama.”
Kushner left prison in 2006. But the “family drama” is pretty gross:
The witness he was accused of retaliating against was his brother-in-law, who along with his wife, Mr. Kushner’s sister, was cooperating with federal officials in a campaign finance investigation into Mr. Kushner.
In his plea agreement, Mr. Kushner acknowledged that he arranged to have a prostitute seduce his brother-in-law in a motel room in New Jersey where video cameras were installed. Mr. Kushner then had the videotape sent to his sister.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Far too often, Federal prosecutions are used as a form of political retribution. State Attorney’s General are joining in with a mob like fervor to hurt the President.
This development coupled with the deliberate suppression of important news unfavorable to one political party endangers the core foundations of freedom.
This is more than retribution. Any future conservative candidate who inadvertently runs for office can expect that every friend, relative and/or associate will be targeted and ruined.The message from the libs is loud and clear.
How does one inadvertently run for office?
Fuck off rags. You know perfectly well what he means so don’t be tge ignorant fuck most people believe you are ??
No need for that
Drop dead, you worthless piece of excrement. No, I have no idea what he meant. How could I? You can’t run for office by mistake. It’s not possible.
Well, milhouse, Try to imagine someone in the current climate actually running on purpose? Did I have to put in /s/ for you to get it? Merry Christmas!
Liberty can be subverted without openly defying the law. If good men fail to protect liberty the Constitution will become a meaningless set of words.
Could not agree more. Fed charges tend to be dumped on those who have miffed off the most high. Therefore if Trump loses his attempts to retain the presidency, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I would propose he do two things:
– Pardon Joe Biden for any and all federal charges related to using Hunter as a channel for foreign influence during the last twelve years.
– Pardon Hillary Clinton for any federal charges involving using an insecure server to store classified State Department email.
That ought to do it. The popping sounds you hear will be heads exploding.
For the best as they will get hounded like Gen Flynn.
And trolling the Left is always fun to see.
I don’t remember all this pearl-clutching when Clinton or Obama pardons all their crooked pals.
Which pals are you referring too? I’m not aware of any.
Mr. mark, how about Mark Rich, or the puerto rican cop killers? If you need a list, you are as bad as milhouse.
Yes I need a list, I simply asked a question on something I know nothing about. I have standards , that is to say I don’t just believe everything I’m told and as such I want to form my opinion based on research and evidence. That’s not unreasonable.
“mark311 | December 25, 2020 at 10:35 am
Yes I need a list, I simply asked a question on something I know nothing about. I have standards , that is to say I don’t just believe everything I’m told and as such I want to form my opinion based on research and evidence.”
Ah, so that is what you were doing in this comment?!
“mark311 | December 24, 2020 at 5:32 pm
It would appear that if you support Trump you can commit any crime you want. This is not a good use of the pardon power.
“
@felixrigidus
You are conflating two separate points. I’m not aware of the pardons carried out by clinton and obama. Roger stone and Manafort I’m much more familiar with
I believe in rule of law, most of the time. When rule of law is subverted, it might be necessary for the public to had out summary judgments.
When one researches Trumps latest pardons, almost all of these people were the victims of targeted prosecutions and/or received sentences way out of line with normal sentencing trends. And, some were obviously tainted by political bias. Considering some of the pardons handed down by Clinton and Obama, these are pretty run of the mill normal.
Nope I don’t agree. Manafort and Stone were guilty as hell. I know nothing about Kushner so no comment with respect to him.
With regard to Obama, his pardons were hardly controversial. He just did lots of them. Did you have any particular pardons in mind when you say they were controversial?
Again, Mr. mark, the obamster turned loose hundreds of convicted felons who were almost immediately re-arrested for violent crimes. Again, do you need a list?
I’ve never heard of that, and I doubt it’s true. Have you got such a list? If so I’d like to see it. Because those hundreds of drug offenders he pardoned or commuted were all convicted of non-violent crimes, and had all served long sentences already, so it would be kind of surprising to hear that after getting out they would have turned to violent crime. A few, maybe, but not hundreds. I’d be surprised at as many as ten.
Even the terrorist hasn’t returned to active terrorism, probably because he’s older and terrorism is mostly a young man’s activity.
They only became “significant” after their association with Trump. Both Manafort and Stone were considered not worth pursuing until they worked for Trump. But their crimes were not related to Trump nor his campaign. Obama had no “significant” prosecutions to pardonbecause the then AG was well known as Obama’s “wingman” and democrats NEVER convict their own.
Manafort was guilty, but the US Attorney had already decided long ago not to prosecute him. The investigation was over. A prosecution was not in the public interest. And then suddenly it became in the public interest, why? For one reason only — because of his association with Trump. If he hadn’t worked for Trump nothing would have been done. That makes his conviction corrupt, and that is why he deserves this pardon. Penalizing someone for his political connections violates the first amendment.
Huh? How about the Puerto Rican terrorist? A man who is to this day an avowed enemy of the United States, who publicly says he does not regret any of his crimes, which were acts of war against the USA, and would do them again in a second if he had the opportunity. How can you get much more controversial than that?
Stone was probably guilty of lying to Congress, but Congress had no business asking him those questions in the first place. The whole investigation was phony and without foundation, so I don’t think he deserves a conviction for having treated Congress with the same contempt they were treating him, not to mention the President.
@Millhouse,
Thank you for replying with some reasonable arguments.
I wasn’t aware of the puerto rican example, I’ll look at that at some point (not going to lie won’t be spending Xmas looking up a terrorist!) So that’s a debate for another day. In the meantime therefore I’ll take you at your word. Good points about the drug related nature of his other pardons .. that was my view point and the basis of my ‘uncontroversial’ comment.
As for Roger Stone, appreciate your point but he was also convicted of trying to witness tamper. The man is thoroughly dodgy to say the least.
With regard to Manafort. I’m not sure I see your point. It doesn’t address whether he was guilty or not. It sounds like you think he is guilty of a crime and as such shouldn’t he face the appropriate punishment for it? His investigation wasn’t corrupt, the trial wasn’t corrupt. If someone goes after another person for a criminal offence which is genuine that cannot be corrupt it’s perverse to call it such surely? As far as I’m concerned the swamp is the swamp is the swamp, Manafort was part of that swamp and should stay in jail.
I recall a legal axiom that current US law is so convoluted that the average citizen commits multiple felonies every year. This holds even more true if you are some sort of businessman. In effect – EVERYONE could face prison and financial ruin – if the Powers That Be chose to follow the letter of all laws on the books. As a work-around many technical “crimes” are left hanging like chads from a Florida voting punch card – rather than imprison everyone. Which means political prosecution is available if a prosecutor is willing to abandon reasonableness and fairness.
In the case of trying to find SOMETHING dirty on Trump, prosecutors were so willing. Sooooo willing. If you were within one or even two degrees of separation from Orange Man – formally abandoned or dropped matters became Priority One – if they even suspected you could give testimony damaging to the Big T. “Violations” which normally were ignored or required paying a fine became max jail time items instead. You didn’t (or couldn’t without perjury) “roll over”? Nice family member you have over there, be a shame if he/she went to jail too.
When penalties are maxed out beyond normal bounds for political goals, when any misstep talking to investigators is regarded as purposeful perjury even when the interviewers didn’t believe it was, when investigations are instigated and only maintained by deliberate lying to a federal court, it’s not the investigated who should lose jobs and freedom, it’s the investigators.
Manafort’s crimes were real enough, but it is corrupt and unlawful to prosecute even a guilty person for the reason that he is associated with the prosecutor’s political enemy. The sole purpose of his prosecution was to punish him for associating with the President, and so send a signal to everyone else who might do the same that they should think twice about it. That is not only corrupt but a direct attack on our democracy, and is sufficient reason why even a guilty person should escape punishment.
Further, there had already been a determination that — for whatever reason — it was not in the public interest to prosecute him; whatever lay behind that determination did not change, so the determination must still be valid. In my opinion the prosecution should have been forced to explain to the court exactly why it was reversed.
While Presidents have the constitutional right to pardon and commute sentences, granting a pardon to a scumbag like Charles Kushner is yet another example of how power corrupts.
He did it for his SIL and it seems he has made restitution
Forgiveness is a wonderful for the soul
Kushner Sr. was convicted, sentenced to 2 years, and served his time – the last few months on probation as per normal non violent sentencing. Given it’s been several years without further charges, in a normal case you would expect no further charges.
Trump likely felt (as I do) that failing Trump outraging the Swamp by becoming Prez, Kushner never would have faced rigorous (or any) prosecution for the original charges, hence never witness tampered et alia.
And it’s no outlier that the judge declared mistrials on 10 other charges citing prosecutorial misconduct and overreach.
By pardoning Kushner AFTER his release, Trump issued a pro forma pardon. He did not come out in favor of K’s illegal attempts to kibosh the investigation – but he did come out in favor of treating K like any other felon who served his time and leaving him the hell out of any further prosecutions based on Orange Man Bad.
Huh? This makes no sense at all. At the time all this happened Trump had not only not become prez, he had not even become a Republican! He was still a liberal Democrat and a BFF of the Clintons.
1. Could see these coming a mile away.
2. Who cares?
It would appear that if you support Trump you can commit any crime you want. This is not a good use of the pardon power.
Given the political nature of Vance’s prosecution, his comments aren’t wholly unexpected, but they are profoundly ignorant. The double jeopardy principle is not premised on two punishments or even two convictions, but rather two “jeopardies.” Manafort’s victor in NY would be exactly the same if he had been acquited and never spent a day in jail. The notion that his conviction and subsequent many months in jail somehow does not trigger double jeopardy under NY law is nonsense.
This is truly “but we hate him” legal theory.