Jump to content


The First Trump Impeachment Thread

knapplc

By knapplc,
in Politics & Religion

Recommended Posts

Notre Dame Joe Backup

Notre Dame Joe

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Nebfanatic said:

People don't donate to campaigns to get White House meetings. Presidents aren't leveraging donations out of people simply with a WH meeting. The President can however leverage a newly elected President of a foreign country with simply a WH meeting because that newly elected President is looking for legitimacy with the US. The argument you are presenting is intellectually dishonest and you know it. 

 

Yes he can do that if he wants.  What are you arguing?

 

12 hours ago, QMany said:

 

They found the jury instructions in that case erroneous and the Government's interpretation overbroad. SCOTUS held: "Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event—without more—does not fit that definition of “official act.” Pp. 13–24. They then went on to include my quote above showing applicable examples of illegality.

 

Funny, they also noted, "Section 201 prohibits quid pro quo corruption—the exchange of a thing of value for an 'official act.' " And Trump's Ambassador testified to "quid pro quo," those exact words, at his direction.

 

We have now gone full turn:

  • Deny;
  • Proven wrong;
  • Admit, but claim no QPQ;
  • Proven wrong;
  • Claim QPQ is okay. 

 

Yes they said having a meeting could be used as evidence that an illegal act took place.  The illegal act is something different from the meeting itself.  You don't have that. Even the idea that there was a QPQ of US Aid $ for an investigation into Biden's own QPQ is now laughable.  

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

knapplc Legend

knapplc

Posted
  • Author
Posted
6 hours ago, Landlord said:
15 hours ago, knapplc said:

Do you want to have an intellectually honest conversation or not?

 

15 hours ago, knapplc said:

What do you think is going on there?

 

15 hours ago, knapplc said:

What do you think is going on with Ukraine?

 

15 hours ago, knapplc said:

What do you think is going on with Ukraine?

 

15 hours ago, knapplc said:

But now you're just talking in circles. Understandable.  But unhelpful.

 

15 hours ago, knapplc said:

More insults.  Great!

 

15 hours ago, knapplc said:

Heh.

 

I just want to point out how awesome of an intellectually honest conversation this is. 

 

This is a bad take. Did you even follow those conversations, and see the reason why I asked those questions?

 

And the insults - how do you expect a person to respond to that.

 

I'm having a hard time understanding where you're coming from here.

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment
Nebfanatic Heisman Winner

Nebfanatic

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

Yes he can do that if he wants.  What are you arguing?

 

 

Yes they said having a meeting could be used as evidence that an illegal act took place.  The illegal act is something different from the meeting itself.  You don't have that. Even the idea that there was a QPQ of US Aid $ for an investigation into Biden's own QPQ is now laughable.  

I'm arguing he can but it is bribery. A WH meeting isn't leverage over campaign donors but it is certainly leverage over a newly elected President of Ukraine and using that leverage to gain something of personal value is in fact bribery.

Link to comment

Nebfanatic Heisman Winner

Nebfanatic

Posted
Posted

@Notre Dame Joe this might answer some of your questions

 

Cornell Law definition of bribery

 

"Bribery refers to the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty. This type of action results in matters that should be handled objectively being handled in a manner best suiting the private interests of the decision maker."  The WH meeting was the thing of value, the investigations were the official act. Notice soliciting a bribe is also a crime

 

"Proof of bribery requires demonstrating a “quid pro quo” relationship in which the recipient directly alters behavior in exchange for the gift. Because the relationship does not occur directly enough, campaign donations from corporations or individuals to political candidates do not constitute bribery."

Campaign donations don't constitute bribery under the legal definition so that clears up your donor question.

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

QMany Heisman Winner

QMany

Posted
Posted

Like everyone else, Trump is going to throw Rudy under the bus:

Like everything else, Trump is a liar.

 

Quote

The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

...

The President: Well, she's going to go through some things. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot of assets. It's a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, their incredible people.

...

The President: Good. Well, thank you very much and I appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call. Thank you. Whenever you would like to come to the White House, feel free to call. Give us a date and we'll work that out. I look forward to seeing you.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
FrankWheeler Scout Team

FrankWheeler

Posted
Posted

Nunes: We won't hear "what actually happened" with the aid because Democrats won't release the testimony or call the OMB staffer to testify in public.

 

 

OMB Staffer Testimony is Released: The Office of the White House Chief of Staff and the Associate Director of National Security (appointed by Trump) both directed the OMB to withhold aid to Ukraine at the direction of the President, but did not provide a reason why the aid should be withheld.  The Associate Director also soon took control of the apportionment authority of the funds away from the OMB staffer. 

 

So two different Trump appointed positions would not clarify to the OMB why the aid was to being withheld and ultimately took authority of releasing the funds at the direction of the President.

 

Both Trump appointees that provided the direction to OMB have refused to testify.

 

Oh and two OMB staffers resigned over concerns about the hold on aid.

 

 

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
knapplc Legend

knapplc

Posted
  • Author
Posted
5 minutes ago, FrankWheeler said:

Nunes: We won't hear "what actually happened" with the aid because Democrats won't release the testimony or call the OMB staffer to testify in public.

 

 

OMB Staffer Testimony is Released: The Office of the White House Chief of Staff and the Associate Director of National Security (appointed by Trump) both directed the OMB to withhold aid to Ukraine at the direction of the President, but did not provide a reason why the aid should be withheld.  The Associate Director also soon took control of the apportionment authority of the funds away from the OMB staffer. 

 

So two different Trump appointed positions would not clarify to the OMB why the aid was to being withheld and ultimately took authority of releasing the funds at the direction of the President.

 

Both Trump appointees that provided the direction to OMB have refused to testify.

 

Oh and two OMB staffers resigned over concerns about the hold on aid.

 

 

 

 

Any citizen who supports the Constitution must understand that this is why Trump must be impeached.

Link to comment
ActualCornHusker Scout Team

ActualCornHusker

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

I too find this post odd. Particularly given you posting this earlier:

 

Screen Shot 2019-11-26 at 1.52.56 PM.png

 

Given this, you appear to believe our politics is choking under the stranglehold of massive corporations and the incredibly wealthy who can both afford to buy politicians and policy. We agree on this.

 

I just disagree with your solution. The solution isn't to tear down the government as much as possible to scale back their influence. It's to unf#ck the government and break their chokehold so the government can get back to working for regular people again.

 

If the wealthy already have too much control, and we dismantle the government in response, who fills the void of power that's created? I'm guessing the same people who run things now.

 

Interesting. Question for you: How do corporations go about expressing their power over a populace?

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...