Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 106

Thread: WOW, BAM... This is insane testimony.

  1. #91 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    6,969
    Thanks
    267
    Thanked 2,634 Times in 1,887 Posts
    Groans
    167
    Groaned 442 Times in 418 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    The CONSTITUTION; READ it.

  2. #92 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,730
    Thanks
    5,352
    Thanked 5,555 Times in 3,632 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,725 Times in 1,560 Posts

    Default

    Hello Cypress,

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    When you tally up the number of indicted and convicted administration officials from the the Nixon, Trumpf, Reagan, George Dumbya Bush regimes, and then compare them to the number of convicted administration officials from the Carter, Clinton, Obama eras, it does beg the question >

    Is there something about the Republican Party that just generally attracts more criminals and people of dubious ethical character?
    What a starkly phenomenal point.

    Makes it easier to see how these guys can see all this evidence and not see any of it.

    It's getting ludicrous. Interviewers ask these guys if they think it is OK for a President to bribe a small country with the military aide they have already been granted by the USA in return for a political favor. The answer never even addresses it, OK? They ALWAYS go off on some tangent about Biden and Burisma. It's like they are incapable of acknowledging a simple question. They pretend it was never asked. You ask about oranges, they talk about apples. They simply refuse to acknowledge that oranges even exist on the planet!

    Then they blame the Democrats for not letting them bring this unrelated unproven conspiracy theory into it. And somehow they don't get that they are playing right into Putin's hand. This is exactly what Putin wants them to do, this is exactly what Trump wants them to do, and they just do it without question. Putin was the one who started this conspiracy theory. And it has worked fabulously. Putin got Trump elected, and now Putin is protecting Trump from being impeached and removed. And he is doing it by spoon-feeding this propaganda right into the brains of Trump fans.

    And if he is able to do this I have to wonder if he is going to be able to pull off a Trump reelection in 2020 despite the popular sentiment being against Trump.

    Election after election is going against Trump, but just barely. It is amazing his support remains high even as he is being impeached on the ground of very solid evidence of attempted bribery.

    Putin wants to expand his influence over Ukraine. Anything Putin can do to drive a wedge between Ukraine and the USA is to Putin's advantage.

    A rock solid good relationship between Ukraine and the USA is the LAST thing Putin wants to see.

    It is sad to see the Republicans so obviously manipulated in this way.

    And it is tragic how it is tearing our country apart.

    Again, exactly what Putin wants to see. A dysfunctional and weakened USA.

    Wake up, Republicans. You have been duped. What is your duty to your country? That is what you should be asking yourselves.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  3. The Following User Groans At PoliTalker For This Awful Post:

    Earl (11-22-2019)

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PoliTalker For This Post:

    Cypress (11-22-2019), ThatOwlWoman (11-22-2019)

  5. #93 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    16,311
    Thanks
    162
    Thanked 7,807 Times in 5,308 Posts
    Groans
    2,923
    Groaned 1,573 Times in 1,467 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    this thing ended yesterday. there is no crime, and now we know there is no quid either
    Need your ears cleaned.

  6. #94 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,730
    Thanks
    5,352
    Thanked 5,555 Times in 3,632 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,725 Times in 1,560 Posts

    Default

    Hello ThatOwlWoman,

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    Yep. And in their black shriveled little hearts, our Reichwing friends know the truth as well. That's why they are thrashing and wailing and writhing like a dying creature whose time is done.
    No, they don't. And no, they are not. They are in complete denial. They refuse to really look at the evidence. They have plenty to distract themselves with. They are being asked to convict their savior. They simply refuse to believe he is capable of any wrongdoing. They are determined to not see it. They may be quiet as the words are spoken but they don't hear them. They may have their eyes open as the testimony and exhibits are in front of them but they don't see anything. Their eyes just glaze over and they pretend they are watching Perry Mason and what they are seeing is all a trick, that 'the truth' will come out in the end, of course, 'the truth' for them being the predetermined conclusion that Trump either did no wrong or did but it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment and removal.

    I just have to SMH at the remark that the way to deal with presidential bribery is to simply wait until the next election and let the voters decide. (Despite the Constitution saying otherwise.)

    They refuse to acknowledge the facts established in the hearings. And just as soon as they get the chance they are going to drag this whole conspiracy theory into it as a giant distraction and an excuse to acquit.

    This is really a battle for that 15% or so in the middle that could go either way.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to PoliTalker For This Post:

    ThatOwlWoman (11-22-2019)

  8. #95 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    24,985
    Thanks
    44,159
    Thanked 17,706 Times in 11,068 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,502 Times in 1,424 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    I just have to SMH at the remark that the way to deal with presidential bribery is to simply wait until the next election and let the voters decide. (Despite the Constitution saying otherwise.)
    They refuse to acknowledge the facts established in the hearings. And just as soon as they get the chance they are going to drag this whole conspiracy theory into it as a giant distraction and an excuse to acquit.
    This is really a battle for that 15% or so in the middle that could go either way.
    The problem with that is, of course, is that when you let one criminal walk, it emboldens the rest. How would they feel when/if the next (D) POTUS pulls this shit, and then denies it and/or claims that "that's not an impeachable offense, look at Trump!"?

    The trouble with many Reichwingers is that they seem incapable of that kind of extrapolation.
    Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever.” -- Gandhi

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to ThatOwlWoman For This Post:

    PoliTalker (11-22-2019)

  10. #96 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    26,263
    Thanks
    10,420
    Thanked 13,622 Times in 6,931 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,099 Times in 1,015 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello ThatOwlWoman,



    No, they don't. And no, they are not. They are in complete denial. They refuse to really look at the evidence. They have plenty to distract themselves with. They are being asked to convict their savior. They simply refuse to believe he is capable of any wrongdoing. They are determined to not see it. They may be quiet as the words are spoken but they don't hear them. They may have their eyes open as the testimony and exhibits are in front of them but they don't see anything. Their eyes just glaze over and they pretend they are watching Perry Mason and what they are seeing is all a trick, that 'the truth' will come out in the end, of course, 'the truth' for them being the predetermined conclusion that Trump either did no wrong or did but it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment and removal.

    I just have to SMH at the remark that the way to deal with presidential bribery is to simply wait until the next election and let the voters decide. (Despite the Constitution saying otherwise.)

    They refuse to acknowledge the facts established in the hearings. And just as soon as they get the chance they are going to drag this whole conspiracy theory into it as a giant distraction and an excuse to acquit.

    This is really a battle for that 15% or so in the middle that could go either way.
    A Republican congress would have already impeached and removed Obama,Hillay Clinton or Bill Clinton if they had done half of what Trumpf has done.
    And everyone here knows it

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cypress For This Post:

    PoliTalker (11-22-2019), ThatOwlWoman (11-22-2019)

  12. #97 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    12,670
    Thanks
    22,330
    Thanked 5,884 Times in 4,608 Posts
    Groans
    11,491
    Groaned 757 Times in 712 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Yes, the needle isn't moving...except with independents... a ten (10) point swing against impeachment.

    Poll: Opposition by independents to impeachment inquiry jumps 10 points
    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4...points-in-last

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Earl For This Post:

    Truth Detector (11-22-2019)

  14. #98 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    24,985
    Thanks
    44,159
    Thanked 17,706 Times in 11,068 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,502 Times in 1,424 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Wake up, Republicans. You have been duped. What is your duty to your country? That is what you should be asking yourselves.
    Maybe I'm not the right person to answer this. Not a Republican, never have been, never will be... although I have voted for (R) candidates from time to time, if they were the best choice for the office sought.

    "It's the economy" is the answer. All these Trumpanzees care about is the perception of a booming economy. Maybe it is not benefiting them personally, but you just never know when it might. That's why we must lower taxes on the uber wealthy, you know. We could be one of them one day.

    An observation: They have been bleating about the ACA and soaring health insurance premiums for nearly a decade now. Their Mango Messiah promised to fix that. Why aren't they holding his feet to the fire to make it so? They had two years of an (R) majority yet still failed to pass reform. There's no Wall paid for by Mexico, or by us. There's no peace in the Mideast. There's no immigration reform. Abortion is still legal. Why aren't they holding the Tangerine Tyrant's feet to the fire about these issues?

    Answer: We must never question our Glorious Cult Leader. And that's what this adoration for the Mango Messiah is: A cult.
    Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever.” -- Gandhi

  15. #99 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,730
    Thanks
    5,352
    Thanked 5,555 Times in 3,632 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,725 Times in 1,560 Posts

    Default

    Hello ThatOwlWoman,

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    The problem with that is, of course, is that when you let one criminal walk, it emboldens the rest. How would they feel when/if the next (D) POTUS pulls this shit, and then denies it and/or claims that "that's not an impeachable offense, look at Trump!"?

    The trouble with many Reichwingers is that they seem incapable of that kind of extrapolation.
    They seem only capable of thinking in the moment and of themselves. No consideration for others or for the nation or world.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to PoliTalker For This Post:

    ThatOwlWoman (11-22-2019)

  17. #100 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,730
    Thanks
    5,352
    Thanked 5,555 Times in 3,632 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,725 Times in 1,560 Posts

    Default

    Hello Cypress,

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    A Republican congress would have already impeached and removed Obama,Hillay Clinton or Bill Clinton if they had done half of what Trumpf has done.
    And everyone here knows it
    Absolutely true. Their one and only goal is to win at all costs.

    They will never admit it when they are wrong (incapable) and will never take the valuable lesson from being defeated. They fool themselves far more easily than anyone else.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  18. #101 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,730
    Thanks
    5,352
    Thanked 5,555 Times in 3,632 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,725 Times in 1,560 Posts

    Default

    Hello ThatOwlWoman,

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    Maybe I'm not the right person to answer this. Not a Republican, never have been, never will be... although I have voted for (R) candidates from time to time, if they were the best choice for the office sought.

    "It's the economy" is the answer. All these Trumpanzees care about is the perception of a booming economy. Maybe it is not benefiting them personally, but you just never know when it might. That's why we must lower taxes on the uber wealthy, you know. We could be one of them one day.

    An observation: They have been bleating about the ACA and soaring health insurance premiums for nearly a decade now. Their Mango Messiah promised to fix that. Why aren't they holding his feet to the fire to make it so? They had two years of an (R) majority yet still failed to pass reform. There's no Wall paid for by Mexico, or by us. There's no peace in the Mideast. There's no immigration reform. Abortion is still legal. Why aren't they holding the Tangerine Tyrant's feet to the fire about these issues?

    Answer: We must never question our Glorious Cult Leader. And that's what this adoration for the Mango Messiah is: A cult.
    Well you never heard anyone say "It's the debt, stupid!"

    Any concern for the debt or the trillion dollar deficit, only surfaces when it can be used to further their own goals and power lust.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  19. #102 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    24,985
    Thanks
    44,159
    Thanked 17,706 Times in 11,068 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,502 Times in 1,424 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Well you never heard anyone say "It's the debt, stupid!"

    Any concern for the debt or the trillion dollar deficit, only surfaces when it can be used to further their own goals and power lust.
    Yep, and to fire up fear in the base (which is a perfect word for them) if a (D) lands in the WH, as we saw with the ridiculous and now defunct Teatards.
    Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever.” -- Gandhi

  20. #103 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    land-locked in Ocala,FL
    Posts
    18,538
    Thanks
    20,126
    Thanked 11,424 Times in 7,920 Posts
    Groans
    227
    Groaned 759 Times in 721 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarod View Post
    EVERYONE, POMPEO, PENCE, and others were in the loop on the demand for an investigation into Biden in exchange for the money and a meeting.
    I did not expect that direct or explicit testimony or that Pence and Pompeo were in the loop.
    ^^^Ignorant and uneducated on the U.S. Constitution^^^

    Understanding Adam Schiff’s ‘Bribery’ Theory
    By Andrew C. McCarthy

    November 21, 2019 2:19 PM

    Even assuming Trump's intent was corrupt, this is not the bribery the Framers had in mind in the impeachment clause.

    The Constitution makes bribery a predicate for impeaching and removing a president. Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff is pushing the theory that President Trump has committed impeachable bribery because, as Schiff sees it, the president’s conduct violates a subsection of the federal bribery statute.

    As in most criminal statutes, Congress includes several crimes in the bribery law. The offenses have gradations of seriousness, ranging from directly paying a public official a lavish bribe, to a public official’s indirectly agreeing to receive (but not ultimately receiving) some “thing of value” to be influenced in some official act. Like some of the lesser bribery offenses, the one Schiff is homing in on does not require an actual bribery (in the sense of an actual payoff).

    Specifically, he is accusing the president of making a “corrupt demand.”

    Under the law, if a public official, with corrupt intent, demands that someone provide him a bribe (a “thing of value”) as a condition for performing an “official act,” that is enough to prove guilt, even if the official drops the demand before something of value is exchanged. The Democrats’ theory is that Trump, intending nothing other the advancement of his own political interests (i.e., improving his 2020 reelection chances), corruptly demanded that Ukraine conduct investigations of his political rivals in exchange for two official acts — viz., granting a White House visit for Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and transferring $400 million in military aid authorized by Congress to help Ukraine defend against Russian aggression.

    Schiff theorizes that this statutory bribery crime was complete when the demand was made; it makes no difference that the demand was dropped, and the Ukrainians got their aid. (Zelensky has not yet visited the White House, but Trump did meet him publicly at a session attendant to the annual U.N. festivities in September.)

    To be clear, I do not believe Trump could be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of bribery because there are significant proof problems, on the issues of both (a) corrupt intent and (b) the causal connection between the purported demand and the official acts. (On the latter, I’ve argued that it is foolish for Republicans to deny the existence of a quid pro quo; that does not mean the proof is strong enough to convict in court — so far, the circumstantial evidence that Trump ordered the defense aid to be withheld is not airtight.)

    For present purposes, though, I want to focus on bribery — specifically, on what the Framers had in mind when they wrote bribery into the Constitution as a predicate for impeachment.

    Hint: It was not the above-described federal bribery statute, the current version of which was enacted in 1962, some 175 years after the Constitution was written.

    The Framers made “Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” the triggers for impeachment. Obviously, they were referring to bribery of a high order, on the scale of treason. The latter offense involves making war on the U.S., including giving the enemy aid and comfort. Enemies are foreign powers with which we are at war. The Framers, however, were worried that other foreign powers — even ones with which we are at peace — could corrupt an American president. Bribery was meant to fill that gap. It made impeachment available if a president was bribed by a foreign power to put the might of the United States in the service of the foreign power at the expense of the American people.

    Schiff and the Democrats would reject this construction of bribery in the Constitution. Their position is that if it’s bribery under the federal statute, that’s good enough to impeach a president.

    But is that really what they think?


    On Wednesday, Ambassador Gordon Sondland testified about the two afore-described “official acts” that the Ukrainians sought from President Trump. Sondland said he could only be sure about one of them: the White House visit. As for the second, Sondland could only “deduce” that Trump was holding back on the defense aid to nudge Ukraine into announcing the investigations. Over time, Sondland inferred that the aid was being delayed and worried that it might not be transferred. He directly asked President Trump, who exclaimed that there was “no quid pro quo” — though this was less than convincing: Trump continued to insist that he wanted to Zelensky to do what was “right,” and Sondland understood that the aid was caught in a “stalemate” that could be undone only if it announced it would do the investigations.

    Democrats spent most of Sondland’s hours of testimony pushing him very hard on this second official act, the provision of defense aid. Schiff and majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, repeatedly walked Sondland through the timeline and got him to agree that he’d “put two and two together.” Why the vigorous effort to induce an admission (which Sondland could not give) that the aid was absolutely conditional on the investigations?

    Because Schiff knows that not all bribery is created equal. He knows the first official act is not good enough for impeachment, even if it’s good enough for the federal bribery statute. That is: No one in America except the most ardent anti-Trumpers is going to support the impeachment of the president of the United States over the mere denial of a White House visit to a foreign politician.

    Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that all the facts were as the Democrats claim, including that the president’s intent was corrupt. That would indeed establish a corrupt demand under the bribery statute, just as Schiff theorizes. But Schiff knows, like everyone knows, that that would not be close to the bribery needed to justify impeaching and removing a president.

    And that’s because the Democrats’ theory is simply wrong. A violation of the federal bribery statute is not the bribery the Framers had in mind in the impeachment clause.

    Schiff is anxious to tie the defense aid to the quid pro quo, too, because it’s clearly more serious than denying the White House visit. But that betrays his real problem: A statutory bribery offense is not necessarily enough. Even if he can prove one, there’s a big leap to impeachment and removal.

    As we’ve said several times, impeachment is political, not legal. Congress does not need to prove a statutory crime; and no court can tell the House what an impeachable offense is — the brute fact is that Democrats are the majority, and they have the raw power to cite any alleged misconduct that can win a simple majority vote.

    Yet, in the GOP-controlled Senate, a two-thirds’ supermajority is necessary to convict and remove a president from power. If House Democrats go down their bribery road, the Senate will have the opportunity to consider what the Framers had in mind when they put bribery in the impeachment clause. Here’s betting the senators will not conclude that a “corrupt demand” makes the cut.
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...d-impeachment/
    Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
    empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
    pain in abortion.

    Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
    which has begun. To abort life is to end it.



  21. #104 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    59,058
    Thanks
    4,144
    Thanked 16,278 Times in 10,884 Posts
    Groans
    245
    Groaned 2,212 Times in 2,038 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stretch View Post
    ^^^Ignorant and uneducated on the U.S. Constitution^^^

    Understanding Adam Schiff’s ‘Bribery’ Theory
    By Andrew C. McCarthy

    November 21, 2019 2:19 PM

    Even assuming Trump's intent was corrupt, this is not the bribery the Framers had in mind in the impeachment clause.

    The Constitution makes bribery a predicate for impeaching and removing a president. Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff is pushing the theory that President Trump has committed impeachable bribery because, as Schiff sees it, the president’s conduct violates a subsection of the federal bribery statute.

    As in most criminal statutes, Congress includes several crimes in the bribery law. The offenses have gradations of seriousness, ranging from directly paying a public official a lavish bribe, to a public official’s indirectly agreeing to receive (but not ultimately receiving) some “thing of value” to be influenced in some official act. Like some of the lesser bribery offenses, the one Schiff is homing in on does not require an actual bribery (in the sense of an actual payoff).

    Specifically, he is accusing the president of making a “corrupt demand.”

    Under the law, if a public official, with corrupt intent, demands that someone provide him a bribe (a “thing of value”) as a condition for performing an “official act,” that is enough to prove guilt, even if the official drops the demand before something of value is exchanged. The Democrats’ theory is that Trump, intending nothing other the advancement of his own political interests (i.e., improving his 2020 reelection chances), corruptly demanded that Ukraine conduct investigations of his political rivals in exchange for two official acts — viz., granting a White House visit for Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and transferring $400 million in military aid authorized by Congress to help Ukraine defend against Russian aggression.

    Schiff theorizes that this statutory bribery crime was complete when the demand was made; it makes no difference that the demand was dropped, and the Ukrainians got their aid. (Zelensky has not yet visited the White House, but Trump did meet him publicly at a session attendant to the annual U.N. festivities in September.)

    To be clear, I do not believe Trump could be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of bribery because there are significant proof problems, on the issues of both (a) corrupt intent and (b) the causal connection between the purported demand and the official acts. (On the latter, I’ve argued that it is foolish for Republicans to deny the existence of a quid pro quo; that does not mean the proof is strong enough to convict in court — so far, the circumstantial evidence that Trump ordered the defense aid to be withheld is not airtight.)

    For present purposes, though, I want to focus on bribery — specifically, on what the Framers had in mind when they wrote bribery into the Constitution as a predicate for impeachment.

    Hint: It was not the above-described federal bribery statute, the current version of which was enacted in 1962, some 175 years after the Constitution was written.

    The Framers made “Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” the triggers for impeachment. Obviously, they were referring to bribery of a high order, on the scale of treason. The latter offense involves making war on the U.S., including giving the enemy aid and comfort. Enemies are foreign powers with which we are at war. The Framers, however, were worried that other foreign powers — even ones with which we are at peace — could corrupt an American president. Bribery was meant to fill that gap. It made impeachment available if a president was bribed by a foreign power to put the might of the United States in the service of the foreign power at the expense of the American people.

    Schiff and the Democrats would reject this construction of bribery in the Constitution. Their position is that if it’s bribery under the federal statute, that’s good enough to impeach a president.

    But is that really what they think?


    On Wednesday, Ambassador Gordon Sondland testified about the two afore-described “official acts” that the Ukrainians sought from President Trump. Sondland said he could only be sure about one of them: the White House visit. As for the second, Sondland could only “deduce” that Trump was holding back on the defense aid to nudge Ukraine into announcing the investigations. Over time, Sondland inferred that the aid was being delayed and worried that it might not be transferred. He directly asked President Trump, who exclaimed that there was “no quid pro quo” — though this was less than convincing: Trump continued to insist that he wanted to Zelensky to do what was “right,” and Sondland understood that the aid was caught in a “stalemate” that could be undone only if it announced it would do the investigations.

    Democrats spent most of Sondland’s hours of testimony pushing him very hard on this second official act, the provision of defense aid. Schiff and majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, repeatedly walked Sondland through the timeline and got him to agree that he’d “put two and two together.” Why the vigorous effort to induce an admission (which Sondland could not give) that the aid was absolutely conditional on the investigations?

    Because Schiff knows that not all bribery is created equal. He knows the first official act is not good enough for impeachment, even if it’s good enough for the federal bribery statute. That is: No one in America except the most ardent anti-Trumpers is going to support the impeachment of the president of the United States over the mere denial of a White House visit to a foreign politician.

    Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that all the facts were as the Democrats claim, including that the president’s intent was corrupt. That would indeed establish a corrupt demand under the bribery statute, just as Schiff theorizes. But Schiff knows, like everyone knows, that that would not be close to the bribery needed to justify impeaching and removing a president.

    And that’s because the Democrats’ theory is simply wrong. A violation of the federal bribery statute is not the bribery the Framers had in mind in the impeachment clause.

    Schiff is anxious to tie the defense aid to the quid pro quo, too, because it’s clearly more serious than denying the White House visit. But that betrays his real problem: A statutory bribery offense is not necessarily enough. Even if he can prove one, there’s a big leap to impeachment and removal.

    As we’ve said several times, impeachment is political, not legal. Congress does not need to prove a statutory crime; and no court can tell the House what an impeachable offense is — the brute fact is that Democrats are the majority, and they have the raw power to cite any alleged misconduct that can win a simple majority vote.

    Yet, in the GOP-controlled Senate, a two-thirds’ supermajority is necessary to convict and remove a president from power. If House Democrats go down their bribery road, the Senate will have the opportunity to consider what the Framers had in mind when they put bribery in the impeachment clause. Here’s betting the senators will not conclude that a “corrupt demand” makes the cut.
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...d-impeachment/
    either type of bribery is impeachable.
    4,487

    Zelensky: I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps, specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes....

    Drumpf: I would like you to do us a favor though


    "It is impossible that the Whistleblower is the hero and I am not. Rudy Giuliani will be the hero here."

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to Jarod For This Post:

    ThatOwlWoman (11-22-2019)

  23. #105 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    24,985
    Thanks
    44,159
    Thanked 17,706 Times in 11,068 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,502 Times in 1,424 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stretch View Post
    And you think that has meaning. lol

    Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever.” -- Gandhi

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-10-2019, 11:36 AM
  2. this is insane
    By evince in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-15-2017, 10:16 PM
  3. Truly insane
    By Havana Moon in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-29-2017, 09:26 AM
  4. This is just insane !!
    By Havana Moon in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-14-2017, 05:37 PM
  5. Insane
    By Cancel 2018. 3 in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-21-2013, 05:35 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •