- 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 10/17/19 at 2:59 pm to ThePTExperience1969
Posted on 10/17/19 at 2:59 pm to ThePTExperience1969
quote:
Ridder you do realize Ukraine was reopened the investigation A MONTH BEFORE Trump’s phone call? Surely your stubborn idiotic brain acknowledges that.
Aside from the fact that Solomon didn't give a specific source for his claim, why would Trump be asking Zelensky to look into Biden if there was already an ongoing investigation?
1
Posted on 10/17/19 at 5:33 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
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
So, you are saying even if he couldn't use public funds and his influence as President to coerce a foreign leader to give him information he desired for political gain, he escapes any liability because he is the President and did it from the White House? That if he had done it somewhere else that would be a problem?
This post was edited on 10/17/19 at 8:23 pm
Posted on 10/17/19 at 5:41 pm 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.
The House Committee on Oversight and Reform and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs are both participating.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 10:45 am to texridder
Who cares why? He has every right to do it as POTUS besides Solomon showed the docs on Hannity and cited his sources as open-source US govt intelligence FROM FEBRUARY as well as the Prosecutor General’s notice of suspicion. Bring heavier artillery next time you step to DA KANG, dumbass. Hope your party nominates one of the dumbass frontrunners so Trump can kick yalls arse even worse than last time.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 10:51 am to LSUTigersVCURams
He kept Hilary from the WH.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 11:19 am to DeathAndTaxes
quote:[quote]
The House Committee on Oversight and Reform and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs are both participating.
Show me where they are running point on all of this. Thus far this has all benn done under Schiff's Intel Committee
Posted on 10/21/19 at 11:43 am to KiwiHead
That isn’t what you said, you remarked that bribery for personal gain is not a problem for a sitting President, as evidenced by the Oversight committee not being involved. That is simply not accurate. All interviews have been conducted by joint sessions of the Intel, Oversight, and Foreign Affairs committees.
I assume you have chosen to ignore the request for language in Article II that gives him the authority to bribe (using your own words), foreign leaders for any and all purposes. And you have don't intend to respond to my question posed earlier:
in response to your statement:
I assume you have chosen to ignore the request for language in Article II that gives him the authority to bribe (using your own words), foreign leaders for any and all purposes. And you have don't intend to respond to my question posed earlier:
quote:
So, you are saying even if he couldn't use public funds and his influence as President to coerce a foreign leader to give him information he desired for political gain, he escapes any liability because he is the President and did it from the White House? That if he had done it somewhere else that would be a problem?
in response to your statement:
quote:
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
This post was edited on 10/21/19 at 11:52 am
Posted on 10/21/19 at 1:03 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
So, you are saying even if he couldn't use public funds and his influence as President to coerce a foreign leader to give him information he desired for political gain, he escapes any liability because he is the President and did it from the White House? That if he had done it somewhere else that would be a problem?
Yep because he was acting in his capacity as President of the United States....and the bribery statutes flow the onther way. If the Ukrainian initiated the offer and Trump accepted, then he would be guilty of bribery. Might have paid a little more attention in contracts and criminal law and procedure before you ask certain questions
Posted on 10/21/19 at 1:05 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
You will never get that. They will make something up to justify themselves.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 1:46 pm to AubieinNC2009
My guess is they're waiting for one final ridiculous push 10-14 days out from the election, looking back at 2016 when the thing with Hillary was reopened, thinking this will be the one that finally sinks him.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 1:47 pm to KiwiHead
Interesting. You are suggesting that because he is the President, and performed this solicitation in the Oval Office, he is immune from any wrong doing. But 18 U.S. Code 607 specifically states BECAUSE he performed that act from the Oval Office, rather than the executive residence, he would have committed a crime. I will quote it for you here, just in case you aren't as familiar with the law as you think you are.
There is also the issue of Contributions and Donations by foreign nationals, addressed in 52 U.S. Code 30121
Now, someone could still argue that opposition research does not qualify as an item of value or, that he wasn't soliciting an investigation into Biden for political gain, but as an overarching investigation into corruption in Ukraine. Well, someone other than you could, because you have stipulated that if he had done this somewhere other than the Oval Office, he would have been in trouble.
Both of those are valid arguments worth investigating. The statement that "Article II protects him from any wrong doing while dealing with foreign leaders" is not, that is stupid arse bull-shite that you can't back up.
Maybe you should have paid more attention in criminal law, and it is a damn good thing you aren't his attorney.
Edit: Also, I don't know where you got this idea that bribery statutes only flow one way regarding the Executive branch. In fact, it specifically mentions bribery in Article II, Section 4:
No where, in that Article, the Constitution, or anywhere else in the criminal code does it suggest that statement doesn't apply to the President, when dealing with foreign leaders or anyone else. If you would like to refute this, I would think some sort of citation will be necessary, as "I listened real gud in class" won't cut it.
quote:
U.S. Code §?607.Place of solicitation
(a) Prohibition.—
(1) In general. — It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of value in connection with a Federal, State, or local election from a person who is located in a room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an officer or employee of the United States. It shall be unlawful for an individual who is an officer or employee of the Federal Government, including the President, Vice President, and Members of Congress, to solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of value in connection with a Federal, State, or local election, while in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an officer or employee of the United States, from any person.
(2 Penalty. - A person who violates this section shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.
There is also the issue of Contributions and Donations by foreign nationals, addressed in 52 U.S. Code 30121
quote:
U.S. Code §?30121.Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition - It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C)an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
Now, someone could still argue that opposition research does not qualify as an item of value or, that he wasn't soliciting an investigation into Biden for political gain, but as an overarching investigation into corruption in Ukraine. Well, someone other than you could, because you have stipulated that if he had done this somewhere other than the Oval Office, he would have been in trouble.
Both of those are valid arguments worth investigating. The statement that "Article II protects him from any wrong doing while dealing with foreign leaders" is not, that is stupid arse bull-shite that you can't back up.
Maybe you should have paid more attention in criminal law, and it is a damn good thing you aren't his attorney.
Edit: Also, I don't know where you got this idea that bribery statutes only flow one way regarding the Executive branch. In fact, it specifically mentions bribery in Article II, Section 4:
quote:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
No where, in that Article, the Constitution, or anywhere else in the criminal code does it suggest that statement doesn't apply to the President, when dealing with foreign leaders or anyone else. If you would like to refute this, I would think some sort of citation will be necessary, as "I listened real gud in class" won't cut it.
This post was edited on 10/21/19 at 2:06 pm
Posted on 10/21/19 at 1:56 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
What crime do they think TRUMP committed? Need a specific provision of the US Code.
Constitution, Article 2, Sections 2 and 4.
18 U.S.C. 1501-1521
Posted on 10/21/19 at 2:09 pm to Eurocat
quote:
Federal law makes it illegal to “solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation” from a foreign national.
95% of our congress is in bed with SA and Israel.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 2:58 pm to DeathAndTaxes
18 USC 607 does not apply here. The President would have to be doing this as a matter of fundraising in the context of the campaign. Even if Trump explicitly offered 250 million in military aid in exchange for an investigation into Biden's son that wouldn't fit the federal bribery statute. You cannot cherry pick certain provisions of the US Code to make your case.....because I could cite you three instances in the code and case law(I count 5 citations,on the Nexus) that support my contention.
The President of the United States can absolutely use coercion and browbeating of a foreign head of state when it comes to the execution of the delivery of monies to a foreign country. We do this all the time, it's nothing new. An administration has considerable flexibility about how exactly it spends the allocated budget, especially when there is no explicit Congressional direction.
quote:
"Article II protects him from any wrong doing while dealing with foreign leaders" is not, that is stupid arse bull- shite that you can't back up.
The President of the United States can absolutely use coercion and browbeating of a foreign head of state when it comes to the execution of the delivery of monies to a foreign country. We do this all the time, it's nothing new. An administration has considerable flexibility about how exactly it spends the allocated budget, especially when there is no explicit Congressional direction.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 3:25 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
U.S. Code §?30121.Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
I see two arguments against this US code from being violated by the President. One is a moral argument, and the other is a legal argument.
MORAL ARGUMENT: It is absurd to consider an investigation into an alleged crime to be a contribution or donation to an election. Think of it. You are trying to make it a crime of corruption to look into another alleged crime of corruption. It is hard to believe the courts would find seeking justice via a request to authorities to be a crime no matter what the circumstances.
LEGAL ARGUMENT: The code says any "thing of value" can be a contribution or donation. But, before a "thing of value" can have a value, you must first calculate its fair market value. In instances like this, there would be no fee charged to the requestor when he/she asks a government to look into an alleged crime. For a similar 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.
Additionally, even if you somehow twist this law so much that this becomes a contribution or donation, the presidents campaign could simply pay the hypothetical fee to avoid it being prohibited. But such a fee is only hypothetical, not real.
Show me where I'm wrong.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 3:27 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
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
That is a quote, from you. If what he did rise to the level of bribery outside the oval office, it would rise to the level INSIDE the office. No where does it state that an elected official can use the use of political influence or public funds for personal gain, and again I challenge you to supply the statute instead of "I could show you, but I won't."
Many Constitutional scholars argue that Federal Bribery statutes can't be applied to Article II, Section 4, as no Federal statutes regarding bribery existed until 1853, but we can play that game too. U.S. Code 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses, is too long to quote in its' entirety, but I will link it HERE so people can check it out.
The important piece being:
quote:
(c)Whoever—
(1)otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty—
(A)directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or
(B)being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;
Of course the President exercises considerable influence on the distribution of US funds to foreign countries, often to solicit a reaction or outcome that has been deemed in the public good. Of course THAT happens all the time. As the poster you responded to with the quote above alluded to, the issue here is whether the president used his power to withhold those funds to gain something he wanted for personal political use. That would be against the law. You said that because he did it while being the President, everything was fine. That it patently false, and you have presented zero evidence to the contrary.
The only argument that holds any water is that he did not encourage the investigation into Joe Biden because Biden is a political rival, but because an investigation was already ongoing. You gave up that argument when you said it would have been improper if he had made the call outside the oval office.
You are dumber than Mick Mulvaney, and should give up.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 3:36 pm to TommyStGeorge
quote:
I see two arguments against this US code from being violated by the President. One is a moral argument, and the other is a legal argument.
MORAL ARGUMENT: It is absurd to consider an investigation into an alleged crime to be a contribution or donation to an election. Think of it. You are trying to make it a crime of corruption to look into another alleged crime of corruption. It is hard to believe the courts would find seeking justice via a request to authorities to be a crime no matter what the circumstances.
LEGAL ARGUMENT: The code says any "thing of value" can be a contribution or donation. But, before a "thing of value" can have a value, you must first calculate its fair market value. In instances like this, there would be no fee charged to the requestor when he/she asks a government to look into an alleged crime. For a similar 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. Additionally, even if you somehow twist this law so much that this becomes a contribution or donation, the presidents campaign could simply pay the hypothetical fee to avoid it being prohibited. But such a fee is only hypothetical, not real. Show me where I'm wrong.
This is a reasonable argument.
First, if the stance is (as it should be, and has been by the WH), that the request was made out of a desire to root out corruption, and not because Biden is a political rival, then the request stands on its' own merits, without issue. So I agree, if that is how you view the request, it was perfectly legitimate.
The counter argument I have seen used to the legal argument, is that because the investigation would have a cost borne by the Ukrainian government, it constitutes something of value. Again, not a problem, unless one feels the request was made for political gain, not for the good of country.
The ONLY argument to make is that the request was one made in effort to combat corruption. And it would be hard to suggest otherwise based on the contents of the call memo. That's why the WH has taken this line, and not some stupid "He can do anything he wants because he is President." My issue is with that train of thought.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 3:52 pm to DeathAndTaxes
You do realize the US Code specifically defines “thing of value” as something that has a fair market, par, flat value that’s measured right? So that element fails immediately bc it’s impossible to measure something like that. Moreover, everything Presidents do relating to foreign policy with other countries plausibly makes an impact on re-election and qualifies as “thing of value” connected to an election, it’s a dumb argument especially in light of all the corrupt shite Biden did, will fail immediately.
This post was edited on 10/21/19 at 3:54 pm
Posted on 10/21/19 at 4:02 pm to ThePTExperience1969
quote:
You do realize the US Code specifically defines “thing of value” as something that has a fair market, par, flat value that’s measured right?
No it doesn't. Again, I would challenge you to show me that provision.
quote:
Moreover, everything Presidents do relating to foreign policy with other countries plausibly makes an impact on re-election and qualifies as “thing of value” connected to an election, it’s a dumb argument especially in light of all the corrupt shite Biden did, will fail immediately.
I don't even know what this means.
Regarding Biden, I believe there should be/should have already been an investigation in to him as well to determine if he was actually under direction from Obama/the State department to tell the Ukrainian government to fire that prosecutor.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 4:04 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
The counter argument I have seen used to the legal argument, is that because the investigation would have a cost borne by the Ukrainian government, it constitutes something of value.
I thought the value of the "thing of value" is what is normally charged by the service provider, not what it actually would cost if it were not a free service. For example, foreign nationals are actually allowed to volunteer in US elections despite not being a US citizen. Volunteerism is normally not charged for, therefore it is never considered a donation, even by a foreign national.
I'm talking about US election law here, not bribery.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News