Impeachment not going so well?

[gunthernehmen]

It was attempted bribery.

He ATTEMPTED to tell Ukraine to do their jobs?

Based on all the info floating around now about the Biden Crime Family and the money laundering that's been going on through the Democrat Party, sounds like somebody did some investigating somewhere.

 

[Cubantripod]

”Corrupt solicitation, acceptance, or transfer of value in exchange for official action.” A perfect fit. Wishes will never change that.

"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."

Notice the second sentence. Where is the change in behavior. Think of a more classic example like a zoning board being bribed by the developer. Where is that change in behavior. You're not understanding the elements of bribery.

 

[Cubantripod]

it is political stupidity. the clintons are the biggest scum and for years we "the People " did nothing. so here we are.

Because people are suckers and buy into the marketing. The Clintons have as much problems with the truth as Trump, yet people generally like the former and dislike the latter. It's mainly how the media portrayed them. Bill Clinton's golfing buddy for years was Donald Trump. Gee I wonder what that locker room talk was like? Then Hillary portrays herself as a champion of women, but blames the women who her husband assaults as just another "bimbo eruption." Bill Clinton actually tried to argue the definition of the word "is."
Now a lot of the crap going on is a result of them refusing to go away. The Clintons are like that relative that needs to give up the keys before they hurt someone but they refuse. They've turned back the clock to the 1980s with all this Russia is going to us over if we change the failed policies the establishment has been pushing for the last half century.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Your daily reminder that the Constitution does not designate Senators as “jurors”, and Trump is still your President.

 

[phrodeau]

Your daily reminder that the Constitution does not designate Senators as “jurors”, and Trump is still your President.

Senators have called themselves jurors.

 

[phrodeau]

How???

What was the bribe?


*incoming deflection*

Start on page 3 line 13.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Start on page 3 line 13.

Doesn't make any case for bribery.

No wonder you can't articulate an argument to support your assertion that he committed bribery any better than the (D)eez have.

 

[Rightguide]

Wow. Bill Clinton hasn't been president for almost nineteen years, but it's still all his fault.
And they accuse us of being deranged...

Yes, but his wife is very much in the public eye and equally as corrupt. So have a cup of crow from Cuppers.

 

[Rightguide]

It was attempted bribery.

No it wasn't. I've already explained how it wasn't.

 

[phrodeau]

No it wasn't. I've already explained how it wasn't.

You did? Which alt did you use?

 

[JackLuis]

No it wasn't. I've already explained how it wasn't.

And I explained how wrong you were. On all six points!

 

[Dumpington]

phrodeau writes: "Senators have called themselves jurors."

TRIVIA QUESTIONS for phrodeau:

1) After a president is impeached, WHO is in complete charge of the trial that follows:

a) the Speaker of the House
b) the media
c) the House Democrats
d) the U.S. Senate

2) WHICH individual in Washington, D.C. will determine what rules that President Trump's impeachment trial will use:

a) Nancy Pelosi
b) Adam Schiff
c) Jerry Nadler
d) Mitch McConnell

3) If the House of Representatives impeaches a president but then refuses to forward the articles of impeachment to the U.S. Senate, what happens:

a) the president is removed from office
b) the president must resign immediately
c) the president cannot run for re-election in 2020
d) NOTHING - it's as if the charges were dismissed for lack of evidence

Let's see how well you understand our U.S. Constitution, phrodeau!

 

[Cubantripod]

You did? Which alt did you use?

From the link I provided you earlier.

"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."

Notice the second sentence. Where is the change in behavior? Think of a more classic example like a zoning board being bribed by the developer. Where is that change in behavior. You're not understanding the elements of bribery.

 

[jp55665566]

"We've been doing the impeachment for 2 1/2 years" - Nancy Pelosi

 

[magicalmoments]

Isn't the bribery case against trump irrelevant now?
The case against him is outlined in the articles of impeachment and they left bribery out of them because of the confusion that is apparent in the exchanged above.

 

[jp55665566]

No. Trump is a Russian agent who "gets off" on torturing children AND their pets. He is going to extreme lengths in an attempt to thwart a brave challenge from valiant former Vice President Joe Biden. Even attempting to shame the former Vice President's son, by implying some sort of quid-pro-quo, while he served on the Board of a prestigious oil/gas firm in Ukraine. A shamefully biased expose >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gT5SBOo0zM

 

[phrodeau]

From the link I provided you earlier.

"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."

Notice the second sentence. Where is the change in behavior? Think of a more classic example like a zoning board being bribed by the developer. Where is that change in behavior. You're not understanding the elements of bribery.

Well Rightguide, I’m not sure why you think that’s relevant. Ukraine is not a corporation or individual, and if Ukraine makes a contribution to an American political campaign, that would be a violation of campaign law.

 

[Cubantripod]

Well Rightguide, I’m not sure why you think that’s relevant. Ukraine is not a corporation or individual, and if Ukraine makes a contribution to an American political campaign, that would be a violation of campaign law.

When you're trying to prove a violation of the law, you have to show that the facts satisfy the elements of the violation. The example I gave you is because it's the easiest to visualize. With the bribing of the zoning board member, you see the change in behavior. Private corporation, individual or foreign government, you have to prove a similar behavior change with Trump to establish that bribery happened. Hence why I cited the page I did.

Yes, foreign donations are against campaign finance law, which its less likely someone would do it, but you still need to prove the exchange of something of value and the subsequent change in behavior.

Bribery is one of the crimes expressly stated in the Constitution. If you have the evidence to prove bribery, it would be an impeachment article because then there is no debate whether the president's conduct is impeachable.

 

[Cubantripod]

Isn't the bribery case against trump irrelevant now?
The case against him is outlined in the articles of impeachment and they left bribery out of them because of the confusion that is apparent in the exchanged above.

It's not that it's irrelevant, it's that the evidence isn't there. Bribery is one of the crimes expressly stated in the constitution that is an impeachable offense. If you had the evidence to prove it, you would impeach on those grounds. It would eliminate the need to have this discussion of whether the president's conduct rises to the level of impeachment.

 

[phrodeau]

It's not that it's irrelevant, it's that the evidence isn't there. Bribery is one of the crimes expressly stated in the constitution that is an impeachable offense. If you had the evidence to prove it, you would impeach on those grounds. It would eliminate the need to have this discussion of whether the president's conduct rises to the level of impeachment.

Ok, you’re absolutely right. There was no change of behavior, so there was no bribery at all.

It was attempted bribery.

 

[KeithD]

Your daily reminder that Trump is still our President and no articles of impeachment have been delivered to the Senate.

Your daily reminder that Trump is still in the exclusive club of "impeached president" and will be there forever down through history and there isn't a damn thing you or he can do about that. The Republicans in the Senate have made clear that failure to remove has nothing to do with establishing innocence of the charges and the history books will fully make that clear--and again, there isn't a damn thing you or Trump can do about that. It seems clear from his reactions that Trump understands this even if you pretend not to.

 

[Cubantripod]

Ok, you’re absolutely right. There was no change of behavior, so there was no bribery at all.

It was attempted bribery.

With inchoate crimes you still have to prove the same elements as if you had committed the Crime. With attempted murder for example, the only real difference is your aiming sucks.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Your daily reminder that Trump is still in the exclusive club of "impeached president"

Watch the next few presidential terms. Impeachment has been weaponized by the Democrat Party and will likely be used against every Republican president from now on.

 

[DawnONight]

Can you cite an instance of Trump threatening "violence on the streets"?

#313 above
Google is our friend. God knows it's plain to see you're skilled at its use.
There are plenty of examples of trump and his cronies suggesting civil war or violence if he is defeated at the polls. In fact his dire threats before last years election have proved unfounded.

I point out when I disagree with the opinions of those commentators that you cut and paste on here. I don't think I've seen an original thought from you on here but your bias shows from those you choose to cut and paste on here. You point out when you disagree with me. That's the way it works. You should learn a little tolerance and cope with it.

As I expected: No citations, only deflection.

At least what I post here is supported by actual facts, as opposed to you who just makes stuff up.

You never back up your wild claims. Why should anyone take you seriously?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Isn't the bribery case against trump irrelevant now?
The case against him is outlined in the articles of impeachment and they left bribery out of them because of the confusion that is apparent in the exchanged above.

Yea.

No it was left out because it was some extra weak shit that was stretched beyond it's serviceability. That is to say the (D)eez couldn't prove bribery, so to look less retarded and save some face the (D)eez backed off.