- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What crime do they think TRUMP committed? Need a specific provision of the US Code.
Posted on 10/16/19 at 4:24 pm to KiwiHead
Posted on 10/16/19 at 4:24 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
That treaty describes cooperation in existing investigations by the requesting country.
quote:
Do you actually read what you write? I'm not sure your reading comprehension is up to par
You need a diagram?
For example, if the U.S. had an existing investigation (e.g., Mueller) the U.S. could ask Ukraine to cooperate with that investigation, and, under the Treaty, Ukraine would be obligated to cooperate.
1
Posted on 10/16/19 at 4:36 pm to texridder
Are you literally retarded?
Posted on 10/16/19 at 10:47 pm to Strannix
quote:
Are you literally retarded?
No. And I have actually read the Treaty, which, from your response, I can tell you have not.
It is telling that you feel no compunction to post crap about things you know nothing about.
Posted on 10/17/19 at 1:05 am to texridder
Sorry you don’t actually comprehend the President can classify and declassify whatever he wants under his Article II powers, suck a dick, libtard. THIS IS ALL A PLOY TO COVER UP FOR BIDEN AND THE SWAMP. BIDEN ADMITTED ON CAMERA TO BLACKMAILING A FOREIGN COUNTRY AND PUTTING WORLD SECURITY AT RISK OVER HIS SON’S CORRUPT COMPANY. Why you like Biden so much, Ridder? Dude’s probably a Chinese agent.
Posted on 10/17/19 at 1:08 am to texridder
Ridder you do realize Ukraine was reopened the investigation A MONTH BEFORE Trump’s phone call? Surely your stubborn idiotic brain acknowledges that.
Posted on 10/17/19 at 2:34 am to Eurocat
Didn’t Clinton accept info, the trump dossier, or was that all from a domestic source?
Posted on 10/17/19 at 2:37 am to ThePTExperience1969
I believe you but link?
Posted on 10/17/19 at 6:50 am to Eurocat
quote:
"thing of value"
This alone is where you lose your legal argument. Before a "thing of value" can have a value, you must first calculate its fair market value. Well, there is no fee charged to the requestor when he/she asks a government to look into an alleged crime. For example, when you call the police to report a crime, they don't charge you a fee to open an investigation. Therefore, since this free service has no market value, it cannot be a contribution or donation according to the campaign finance law you referenced. CASE CLOSED!
This post was edited on 10/17/19 at 7:59 am
Posted on 10/17/19 at 8:31 am to Hiyoka
Posted on 10/17/19 at 10:03 am to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
Can you provide any backup at all to the statement that bribery does not apply to the executive branch
Bribery does not apply to the President in terms of dealing with a foreign leader in matters of foreign policy. This can be construed as such that is why you did not see ethics or government oversight or judiciary involved in this matter.
We bribe foreign leaders all the time when it comes to the disbursement of foreign aid. You want my money or guns?????? I need X from you. If Trump had done this from outside the White House he could be in big doo doo legally
Posted on 10/17/19 at 10:33 am to KiwiHead
quote:
Bribery does not apply to the President in terms of dealing with a foreign leader in matters of foreign policy. This can be construed as such that is why you did not see ethics or government oversight or judiciary involved in this matter.
We bribe foreign leaders all the time when it comes to the disbursement of foreign aid. You want my money or guns?????? I need X from you. If Trump had done this from outside the White House he could be in big doo doo legally
This.
Was thinking about this this morning. The directional arrows bribery in the impeachment clause can only be interpreted to point from the outside into the White House, not the other way around.
How future presidents will be able to conduct foreign policy if asserting pressure on foreign governments, including using financial enticements, is beyond me.
Posted on 10/17/19 at 11:06 am to Eurocat
What is the statute of limitations on that?
Asking for Hillary and the DNC.
Asking for Hillary and the DNC.
Posted on 10/17/19 at 11:09 am to PhDoogan
quote:
This.
Was thinking about this this morning. The directional arrows bribery in the impeachment clause can only be interpreted to point from the outside into the White House, not the other way around.
How future presidents will be able to conduct foreign policy if asserting pressure on foreign governments, including using financial enticements, is beyond me.
I believe the key difference is the Biden being a political opponent angle. I don't believe there is any issue withholding funds for a specific foreign policy reason. I think the "election interference" is the only reason this is taken differently.
Posted on 10/17/19 at 11:12 am to Mickey Goldmill
Well, that is bullshite. Is the sitting President not supposed to investigate corruption just because criminal is running a failed campaign?
Posted on 10/17/19 at 11:15 am to Janky
quote:
Well, that is bullshite. Is the sitting President not supposed to investigate corruption just because criminal is running a failed campaign?
I don't have the energy to argue through this again. Just pointing out that I believe that is the angle as to why this ins't a "normal course of business" type of thing.
Posted on 10/17/19 at 11:16 am to Janky
quote:
Well, that is bull shite. Is the sitting President not supposed to investigate corruption just because criminal is running a failed campaign?
I guess it’s ok to endlessly investigate a sitting president, but don’t dare investigate someone running for president.
Posted on 10/17/19 at 11:16 am to Mickey Goldmill
Well, you haven't been right yet so we shall see.
Posted on 10/17/19 at 11:17 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
ere is any issue withholding funds for a specific foreign policy reason.
I know a lot of people think this and onb its face and probably in reality this is the truth, but Donald Trump essentially has two roles in the election. He's the President of the United States and he is a candidate....two different and distinct roles. As President, Trump can do what he did. The call was to a head of state and initiated from the White House itself.
If Trump had done this from his campaign HQ, he could be nailed and rightfully so. Location and role is key as is the person he was asking
Posted on 10/17/19 at 1:34 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
This.
Was thinking about this this morning. The directional arrows bribery in the impeachment clause can only be interpreted to point from the outside into the White House, not the other way around.
How future presidents will be able to conduct foreign policy if asserting pressure on foreign governments, including using financial enticements, is beyond me.
quote:
I believe the key difference is the Biden being a political opponent angle.
I don't believe there is any issue withholding funds for a specific foreign policy reason. I think the "election interference" is the only reason this is taken differently.
Weird, it's like KiwiHead and doogan could see into today's presser where Mulvaney literally confirmed this.
Posted on 10/17/19 at 1:59 pm to PhDoogan
Thanks........paid attention in Constitutional Law and Criminal Law.....
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News