- 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 10/21/19 at 4:09 pm to DeathAndTaxes
Posted on 10/21/19 at 4:09 pm to DeathAndTaxes
This is from the federal bribery statute but it’s very on point for this as well, particularly from an textualist perspective
“Value” means the face, par, or market value, whichever is the greatest, and the aggregate value of all goods, wares, merchandise, etc
I concede the foreign election contribution statute doesn’t define “thing of value” in that provision but surely someone who isn’t the most liberal judge of all-time wouldn’t reach to interpret “thing of value” as anything different than that which I provided, no?
“Value” means the face, par, or market value, whichever is the greatest, and the aggregate value of all goods, wares, merchandise, etc
I concede the foreign election contribution statute doesn’t define “thing of value” in that provision but surely someone who isn’t the most liberal judge of all-time wouldn’t reach to interpret “thing of value” as anything different than that which I provided, no?
1
Posted on 10/21/19 at 4:15 pm to DeathAndTaxes
A foreign leader is not considered a public official. So I'm not sure 201 would work or apply, but nice try. There was no talk of witholding of funds to the Ukraine and it was never mentioned on the call and Ukrainian officials were unaware that the disbursement was even delayed. So the quid pro quo argument that is so integral for "bribery" is not there. I mean I guess we would have to read between the lines and use a Little Orphan Annie code breaker to interpret to come maybe to the basis of an attempt to think about bribery, . But here is what you are fighting against, The contention that a President strongarming a foreign leader is unacceptable....it's not and you have to prove an explicit bribe by Trump to Zelensky directly.
The DOJ has stated that what Trump did did not constitute any violation. The transcript provides the proof. What you are asking is that we somehow contort disparate acts as being linear and direct as the whistle blower memo suggests. Why am I believing the whistle blower who does not provide evidence of the act with Trump's release of the actual phone call that does not show any threats of something for something. I'm not seeing the actual bribery and the FEC violation is thin as well because the President making requests of a foreign leader is not applicable. Plus he requested to share the info not with Trump but with Barr and Giuliani and not with him, Trump
If I were Trump, I would sue Congress and shut this all down and move to the courts......see if the Democrats have the stomach to really play THE GAME
The DOJ has stated that what Trump did did not constitute any violation. The transcript provides the proof. What you are asking is that we somehow contort disparate acts as being linear and direct as the whistle blower memo suggests. Why am I believing the whistle blower who does not provide evidence of the act with Trump's release of the actual phone call that does not show any threats of something for something. I'm not seeing the actual bribery and the FEC violation is thin as well because the President making requests of a foreign leader is not applicable. Plus he requested to share the info not with Trump but with Barr and Giuliani and not with him, Trump
If I were Trump, I would sue Congress and shut this all down and move to the courts......see if the Democrats have the stomach to really play THE GAME
Posted on 10/21/19 at 4:20 pm to TommyStGeorge
That is correct, but Volunteerism is specifically exempted from the definition of "contribution", including when applied to foreign nationals, as referenced by the FEC Opinion HERE
That same opinion goes on to reference their desire to use Canadian Campaign materials that are provided without charge. The FEC states that would be a violation, saying:
They go on to point out a similar finding from a previous FEC opinion:
That same opinion goes on to reference their desire to use Canadian Campaign materials that are provided without charge. The FEC states that would be a violation, saying:
quote:
Although the value of these materials may be nominal or difficult to ascertain, they have some value. The provision of these items without charge would relieve your campaign of the expense that it would otherwise incur to obtain such materials. Thus, the provision of such items without charge would constitute a contribution and, as such, would be prohibited, particularly in light of the broad scope of the prohibition on contributions from foreign nationals.
They go on to point out a similar finding from a previous FEC opinion:
quote:
The situation presented here is similar to that considered by the Commission in Advisory Opinion 1981-51 (Metzenbaum). In that opinion, the Commission concluded that the provision of an original work of art by a foreign national artist to a political committee for use by the committee in fundraising was a contribution and, hence, prohibited by 2 U.S.C. 441e.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 4:29 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
There was no talk of witholding of funds to the Ukraine and it was never mentioned on the call and Ukrainian officials were unaware that the disbursement was even delayed. So the quid pro quo argument that is so integral for "bribery" is not there.
Of course not, it's the most innocuous thing of all-time. All the ACTUAL EVIDENCE OUT THERE EXCLUDING THE COMPLETELY INCORRECT AND FELONIOUS "WHISTLEBLOWER" COMPLAINT SPECIFICALLY DISPROVES THE QUID PRO QUO ARGUMENT. So that contention dies immediately at least relating PEOPLE WITH ACTUAL BRAINS.
The election law violation? Gimme a break.
1. Everything a President does relating to foreign policy could be construed as such a violation with this bizarre interpretation bc doing right by the country typically gets someone re-elected.
2. Negotiating and dealing with foreign countries IS THE PRESIDENT'S JOB PER ARTICLE II, criminalizing something like this particularly since it likely implicates a massive and consequential abuse of power by a former VP and therefore the Executive Branch creates a chilling effect on the President's ability to conduct foreign policy.
3. JOE BIDEN ADMITTED TO BLACKMAILING UKRAINE OVER HIS SON'S CORRUPT UKRAINIAN COMPANY AND PUTTING WORLD SECURITY AT STAKE and it's pretty established the Ukrainians colluded with Hillary and interfered in the election, the President wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't strive to coordinate his branch with the Ukrainian govt in the investigation.
Agree with everything you just said, Kiwi.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 4:31 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:there really doesn’t have to be a broken law to impeach. They could impeach him because they don’t like his hair if they really wanted to as long as they have the votes
If the house cannot identify any specific provision of the US code he violated, they MUST NOT IMPEACH!
Posted on 10/21/19 at 4:37 pm to DeathAndTaxes
How is this thread 7 fricking pages?
WTF have you guys possibly been arguing?
Look, if you don't get that this was yet another manufactured attempt to frick over Trump by the Dems, then you're an idiot. It's that simple.
He didn't do shite wrong and ALL YOU MOTHER frickERS know it. Even you pussy arse TDS afflicted retards know it.
Now get fricked.
WTF have you guys possibly been arguing?
Look, if you don't get that this was yet another manufactured attempt to frick over Trump by the Dems, then you're an idiot. It's that simple.
He didn't do shite wrong and ALL YOU MOTHER frickERS know it. Even you pussy arse TDS afflicted retards know it.
Now get fricked.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 4:44 pm to KiwiHead
Jesus, for someone who says they paid attention in class, you are really good at missing the facts. 201 states:
The fact that a foreign leader is not a public official is irrelevant, as, unless I am gravely mistaken, the POTUS IS a public official.
The quid pro quo argument one might hold up, and may in fact be one that is used by the White House. The problem with that, as I have already stated, is that the first Federal bribery statutes appear in the code in 1853, long after the introduction of Article II. There are very good arguments that suggest the framers held a broader view of bribery, such as this article LINK That may end up being up to Congress to decide.
No, all that has to be proven is said "strongarming" was done for political gain, not to advance US interests. Payments to third parties are considered bribes all the time. I can provide cases if you would like.
I'm not suggesting they will be able to prove any such thing, as I agree that the call memo (not a transcript, as the memo itself states), doesn't provide such evidence. But again, your argument that "Article II gives him the power to bribe foreign officials" was incorrect, and you stipulated yourself you felt he committed bribery when you said if he had done it outside the White House he could be "nailed for it, and rightly so."
Now you are changing your argument to that it wasn't bribery to begin with. Maybe you should just give up.
quote:
(2)being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
The fact that a foreign leader is not a public official is irrelevant, as, unless I am gravely mistaken, the POTUS IS a public official.
The quid pro quo argument one might hold up, and may in fact be one that is used by the White House. The problem with that, as I have already stated, is that the first Federal bribery statutes appear in the code in 1853, long after the introduction of Article II. There are very good arguments that suggest the framers held a broader view of bribery, such as this article LINK That may end up being up to Congress to decide.
quote:
But here is what you are fighting against, The contention that a President strongarming a foreign leader is unacceptable....it's not and you have to prove an explicit bribe by Trump to Zelensky directly.
No, all that has to be proven is said "strongarming" was done for political gain, not to advance US interests. Payments to third parties are considered bribes all the time. I can provide cases if you would like.
I'm not suggesting they will be able to prove any such thing, as I agree that the call memo (not a transcript, as the memo itself states), doesn't provide such evidence. But again, your argument that "Article II gives him the power to bribe foreign officials" was incorrect, and you stipulated yourself you felt he committed bribery when you said if he had done it outside the White House he could be "nailed for it, and rightly so."
Now you are changing your argument to that it wasn't bribery to begin with. Maybe you should just give up.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 4:45 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
Death and Taxes joined on 10/14...
I'm smelling a paid agitator or an alter.
Well done Kiwi in blowing past all of his spin doctoring. A lesser person may have been kowtowed by his onslaught of posts. Me thinks he is on the clock.
Just my .02 of course.
I'm smelling a paid agitator or an alter.
Well done Kiwi in blowing past all of his spin doctoring. A lesser person may have been kowtowed by his onslaught of posts. Me thinks he is on the clock.
Just my .02 of course.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 4:46 pm to ThePTExperience1969
quote:
What crime do they think TRUMP committed? Need a specific provision of the US Code.
This is from the federal bribery statute but it’s very on point for this as well, particularly from an textualist perspective
“Value” means the face, par, or market value, whichever is the greatest, and the aggregate value of all goods, wares, merchandise, etc
Going to need a citation, because the statute as listed HERE says no such thing.
This post was edited on 10/21/19 at 5:22 pm
Posted on 10/21/19 at 4:53 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
But again, your argument that "Article II gives him the power to bribe foreign officials" was incorrect
Of course it gives him the power to "bribe" foreign officials, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE ARTICLE II POWER TO CONDUCT FOREIGN DIPLOMACY AND NEGOTIATION. NEGOTIATION IN ITSELF IS "BRIBERY" BY DEFINITION BECAUSE OF ITS TRANSACTIONAL NATURE, you really can't construct an intelligent constitutional argument against that. JFK "bribed" the Soviets to remove their Cuban missiles by removing US missiles from Turkey. Could it arise to "abuse of power" perhaps? Maybe, but abuse of power isn't against the law, pure political impeachable offense.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 5:02 pm to BeefDawg
This prolonged conversation started because of this (and similar) statements by Kiwi:
I pointed out the fact that this is patently untrue. No official, President or otherwise, no matter who they are speaking to, can wield public assets for private benefit. I am not spin doctoring anything. If you believe the President made the request to investigate the DNC server and Biden because it would benefit him, not because it is in the best interests of the Republic, then he broke the law. Kiwi tried to say that was not the case because he is protected by Article II, and that is wrong.
If your argument is that it is impossible to prove what his motive was from the call memo, I agree with you. If your argument is that Biden should be investigated for his role in getting the Ukrainian prosecutor canned, I agree with you.
If you are going to make shite up with no evidence to back it up, and then change your argument midstream, I can't agree with you.
I guess my point is that everyone should think for themselves, and not just parrot talking points they heard to sound smart, like throwing around Article II like it gives the President carte blanche to do whatever he wants. If that was the case, the WH would have told everyone to frick off from the beginning, and wouldn't have bothered defending the call at all. And if you are going to say something, be willing to provide where you got that information from.
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
I pointed out the fact that this is patently untrue. No official, President or otherwise, no matter who they are speaking to, can wield public assets for private benefit. I am not spin doctoring anything. If you believe the President made the request to investigate the DNC server and Biden because it would benefit him, not because it is in the best interests of the Republic, then he broke the law. Kiwi tried to say that was not the case because he is protected by Article II, and that is wrong.
If your argument is that it is impossible to prove what his motive was from the call memo, I agree with you. If your argument is that Biden should be investigated for his role in getting the Ukrainian prosecutor canned, I agree with you.
If you are going to make shite up with no evidence to back it up, and then change your argument midstream, I can't agree with you.
I guess my point is that everyone should think for themselves, and not just parrot talking points they heard to sound smart, like throwing around Article II like it gives the President carte blanche to do whatever he wants. If that was the case, the WH would have told everyone to frick off from the beginning, and wouldn't have bothered defending the call at all. And if you are going to say something, be willing to provide where you got that information from.
This post was edited on 10/21/19 at 5:20 pm
Posted on 10/21/19 at 5:07 pm to SoulBrotha91
Jesus tap-dancing Christ. Negotiation isn't bribery. Trump negotiated with North Korea, he is negotiating with China. Both of those were/are done in his capacity as President, for the good of its' citizens.
Asking a foreign entity, that receives large amounts of aid from the US, to investigate a political rival, because you want to use any findings against him, is bribery. If that is what occurred, that is against the law. I didn't say that is what occurred, Kiwi did.
If you can't see how negotiation and bribery are different, I don't know what to tell you.
Asking a foreign entity, that receives large amounts of aid from the US, to investigate a political rival, because you want to use any findings against him, is bribery. If that is what occurred, that is against the law. I didn't say that is what occurred, Kiwi did.
If you can't see how negotiation and bribery are different, I don't know what to tell you.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 5:21 pm to DeathAndTaxes
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.
quote:
I pointed out the fact that this is patently untrue.
THE HELL IT IS, it's pretty easy for laymen to distinguish whether the President or other public official does stuff in campaign mode or in their official capacity, it happens LITERALLY ALL THE TIME in American politics, this isn't fricking rocket science. The conflation of two distinct roles is completely retarded and anti-textualist from a legal standpoint.
quote:
No official, President or otherwise, no matter who they are speaking to, can wield public assets for private benefit
1. Ukraine didn't know anything was withheld for a month
2. Ukraine Premier averred he wasn't pressured or anything
3. The TRANSCRIPT (let's call it what it truly is, it features both parties and it features their conversation, case closed)
4. 45 resolved he was withholding aid based on cleaning up corruption
YOU CAN'T HAVE A QUID PRO QUO UNLESS THE OTHER PARTY KNOWS THE AID OR WHATEVER IS WITHHELD UNTIL THEY TAKE OFFICIAL ACTION
quote:
If you believe the President made the request to investigate the DNC server and Biden because it would benefit him, not because it is in the best interests of the Republic, then he broke the law.
EVERYTHING A PRESIDENT DOES RELATING TO FOREIGN NEGOTIATION serves to benefit both him personally (from an election standpoint) and the country at-large and that's not illegal, the Constitution doesn't require intent as an element when the President acts in his official capacity for something that serves the public interest like this Ukraine-Biden investigation does.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 5:34 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
Volunteerism is specifically exempted from the definition of "contribution", including when applied to foreign nationals
I understand this is an exemption. Logic would dictate that if this request by Trump was an official request on behalf of his campaign (which it is not), then one can assume that the Ukrainian government would volunteer their services to them for free, since they (I assume) don't charge anyone for this kind of service. They volunteer their services to everyone for free, so why should they charge the Trump campaign.
In other words, if one can assume this service is for the purpose of influencing the election, then I can very well assume this is a voluntary service, since they always volunteer it for free.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 5:36 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
Asking a foreign entity, that receives large amounts of aid from the US, to investigate a political rival
Let's go over some simple facts here:
1. BIDEN BLACKMAILED A FOREIGN ALLY OVER HIS SON'S CORRUPT COMPANY AND PUT WORLD SECURITY AT RISK
2. HUNTER BIDEN (a complete incompetent by any measure) RECEIVED $1 BILLION FROM CHINA THEREFORE IMPLYING THE VP OFFICE IS COMPROMISED
Trump's doing the country a service by innocently asking them to do this and the TRANSCRIPT (bc that's what it factually is) doesn't even come close to proving a bribery occurred. Negotiation is bribery/quid pro quo by definition: you're using leverage to receive concessions from another side and vice versa. The fact you can't make the logical connection speaks volumes.
quote:
Asking a foreign entity, that receives large amounts of aid from the US, to investigate a political riva
quote:
is bribery
THE HELL IT IS, he's serving the country by asking them to do this, YOU WANT VPs BLACKMAILING FOREIGN ALLIES OVER HIS CONFLICT OF INTEREST?? We gotta drain the swamp with this stuff, man. HE'S ABDICATING HIS DUTY IF HE DOESN'T PURSUE THIS.
One final point, Trump has more than enough ammo to go after Biden on Ukraine per the media reports over the last few years, HE DOESN'T NEED THIS TO HELP HIM FROM AN ELECTORAL PERSPECTIVE (Biden's bad enough inherently). Criminalizing the investigation of corruption is a very bad precedent to set in America.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 5:38 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
Negotiation isn't bribery. Trump negotiated with North Korea, he is negotiating with China.
Is he conditioning concessions on official action by the other side? If so, then it's "bribery." You lose.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 5:47 pm to TommyStGeorge
quote:
I understand this is an exemption. Logic would dictate that if this request by Trump was an official request on behalf of his campaign (which it is not), then one can assume that the Ukrainian government would volunteer their services to them for free, since they (I assume) don't charge anyone for this kind of service. They volunteer their services to everyone for free, so why should they charge the Trump campaign. In other words, if one can assume this service is for the purpose of influencing the election, then I can very well assume this is a voluntary service, since they always volunteer it for free.
I think the definition of volunteerism is restricted by the FEC, and the issue here is that opposition research, if that was what was actually being sought, is normally paid for, making at in in-kind contribution, and that it was being sought in exchange for aid that has been given in the past, and aid expected in the future. I see what you are saying though.
Thank you for the respectful discourse.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 5:48 pm to Eurocat
quote:
opposition research
He is head of state...it is a law enforcement action in the execution of his duties,
That is ridiculous to propose otherwise
Posted on 10/21/19 at 5:51 pm to SoulBrotha91
He's retarded if he thinks he's some political agent...
Dude is the head of state, acting within the realm of his duties...
If he wants to give our arch-enemies 100s of millions of laundered cash...he has the levity to do so...
Dude is the head of state, acting within the realm of his duties...
If he wants to give our arch-enemies 100s of millions of laundered cash...he has the levity to do so...
Posted on 10/21/19 at 5:58 pm to SoulBrotha91
quote:
Let's go over some simple facts here: 1. BIDEN BLACKMAILED A FOREIGN ALLY OVER HIS SON'S CORRUPT COMPANY AND PUT WORLD SECURITY AT RISK 2. HUNTER BIDEN (a complete incompetent by any measure) RECEIVED $1 BILLION FROM CHINA THEREFORE IMPLYING THE VP OFFICE IS COMPROMISED
none of those things are facts
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News