Near Identical Crime: Democrat Immunity for Testimony Against Republican?

Let us ASSuME this is true. Let us assume democrat, Tony Podesta, close friend and big fundraiser for the Clintons, is being granted immunity for crimes committed, in exchange for testifying against republican, Paul Manafort. The alleged crimes are “nearly identical.”

What say you democrats? Do you have issues with this? Why or why not?

How do we know it’s a near identical crime or number of crimes?

You know you guys might look a little less cultish and capable of independent thinking if so many of you did not start similar threads on the same subject.

Adam … We do not. We do not know if ANY of this is true. Hence, my opening sentence.

I’ve seen no similar thread. It may be here but I’ve not seen it - and I looked. Feel free to ask mods to merge with other thread and/or provide a link here.

In the meantime, what are your thoughts on this?

If we assume it’s true then it’d be a problem. However, I very seriously doubt it’s even close to true.

Well, I do not unconfirmed stories and “anonymous” sources and that’s why I input the caveat.

However, if this proves to be true do you agree this will give credence to President Trumps and Republcan claims that this is a “witch hunt?”

Thank you for the link. What I see there is an unproductive and disruptive thread that democrats would rather distract and attack the poster.

Maybe we can keep this one uncluttered and on track.

Care to respond to the question posted in the OP.

It’s really hard to speculate on then. It could be immunity for misdemeanors. We don’t know. It could be immunity for filing an incorrect bank loan application which can be probationary. But if he gets immunity I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t be for near identical crimes. If that were the case Mueller would probably get a plea deal then testimony. Like Gates and Papadopoulos.

Calling it a witch hunt implies that Manafort is innocent.

Which also seems extremely unlikely.

So no. It would not equate to a witch hunt.

No, calling it a “witch-hunt” implies that President Trump is innocent against the allegations leveled at him and the entire premise of the “investigation” was to overturn an duly elected presidential election AND confirms the existence of and abuse by the “deep state.”

The Mueller investigation has not leveled any allegations against Trump so I disagree with your characterization. It cannot be a witch hunt against a person it has not accused as being a “witch” so to speak.

1 Like

The entire premise of the investigation - Candidate Trump colluded with Russia… This entire fiasco has cast a shadow over his entire presidency and has lead to calls for impeachment from before he was even sworn into office.

The premise of the investigation is to follow up leads suggesting some individuals were cooperating with Russian activity during the election.

It makes no judgments as to whether that occurred until the day they file indictments to that effect.

If Trump feels like it casts a shadow over his presidency, that’s his problem. It’s not my problem and not Mueller’s problem.

Have you read the Mueller directive? It specifically lays out crimes potentially committed by specific individuals for which he is to investigate. One of those being Paul Manafort. Which he did, determined crimes were committed, and is now doing what any good Prosecutor does, playing his hand to secure a conviction.

Only in the ranks of the conspiracy theorists is this out of the ordinary. So to your question of whether this hypothetical you posit would support the claims of a witch hunt, the answer is emphatically no. But I do expect the right wing media complex to lie to everyone and attempt to gaslight them all into believing it is just that. Through absence of context, conjecture posed as fact, and over the top hyperbole.

Nope, larger scope than that including obstruction of justice.

The question remains … IF what is alleged in the OP proves to be true do you personally find it problematic? What would that mean to you - if anything?

Asked and answered already.

Not by you.