Code §?203.Compensation to Members of Congress, officers, and others in matters affecting the Government

(a)Whoever, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duties, directly or indirectly—
(1)demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept any compensation for any representational services, as agent or attorney or otherwise, rendered or to be rendered either personally or by another—
(A)at a time when such person is a Member of Congress, Member of Congress Elect, Delegate, Delegate Elect, Resident Commissioner, or Resident Commissioner Elect; or
(B)at a time when such person is an officer or employee or Federal judge of the United States in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government, or in any agency of the United States,
in relation to any proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest, before any department, agency, court, court-martial, officer, or any civil, military, or naval commission; or
(2)knowingly gives, promises, or offers any compensation for any such representational services rendered or to be rendered at a time when the person to whom the compensation is given, promised, or offered, is or was such a Member, Member Elect, Delegate, Delegate Elect, Commissioner, Commissioner Elect, Federal judge, officer, or employee;
shall be subject to the penalties set forth in section 216 of this title.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP is why we need to bring back civics in high school. Or OP is Russian.

+1

I'm a pretty good civics student. Political science major fwiw.

Out of 60 or so presidential terms, there have been 4 impeachment inquiries, 0 convictions, and lots and lots of political scandals and bad acts. The ACT has to be so bad that it rises above partisanship and the president's own party clearly recognizes the bad behavior and the danger to the country. This doesn't qualify.

The fact that we all know that the Senate is not going to convict, that there really isn't even a chance for the Senate to convict, means by definition it is not a high crime. unless you truly think that a majority of the Senate, the most politically insulated office holders in our entire country other than judges, are evil brainwashed people. That is absurd.

Did you get your degree from Trump U? The senate is majority GOP.

The program bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 666, criminalizes the corrupt offer of anything of value intending to influence an agent in connection with a transaction exceeding $5,000, and involving a government or organization receiving at least $10,000 in federal funds.[40] 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)–(c) provides:

(a) Whoever, if the circumstance described in subsection (b) of this section exists –
(1) being an agent of an organization, or of a State, local, or Indian tribal government, or any agency thereof . . .
(B) corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more; or
(2) corruptly gives, offers, or agrees to give anything of value to any person, with intent to influence or reward an agent of an organization or of a State, local or Indian tribal government, or any agency thereof, in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving anything of value of $5,000 or more;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

The federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b), criminalizes the corrupt promise or transfer of any thing of value to influence an official act of a federal official, a fraud on the United States, or the commission or omission of any act in violation of the official's duty.[33] 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1)–(2) provides:

(b) Whoever –
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent –
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
(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:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person . . .
shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.[34]

The federal gratuity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(c), criminalizes the transfer of any thing of value to a federal official for or because of an official act.[35] 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1) provides:

(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 . . .
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.[36]

It's a big deal to remove a democratically elected president, and people are going to take it seriously, examine political motives, and many are going to legitimately find, in complete good faith, that this is bad but not a high crime.

If Trump is ever removed, it will be great to see all the Trump GOP apologists equivocating how they, too, had misgivings, grave misgivings, about Trump's poor character all along...

That's when they get a brick to the face.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly it's inappropriate. I'm not sure if criminal, more sloppy incompetence.

But it's not impeachable, and there is zero chance for the Senate to convict.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being an impeachable high crime and 1 being jaywalking, this is maybe a 6 or 7.

The term "high crime" refers to the position of the person doing the crime, not to the type of crime. That said, "bribery" is specified in the Constitution as an impeachable offense. Both by the modern US legal definition and by the definition of the term "bribery" as the authors of the Constitution understood it, the current president and vice president appear to have committed the offense.

Seriously, of perjury about a blowjob is impeachable, how is this not impeachable? What would constitute an impeachable offense in your mind?

Good question. Treason. True bribery where the president is personally enriched (Illinois governor selling Senate seats). Nixon level obstruction. Not sleazy incompetence like this.

1) Bribery can be for political gain, and 2) trump has been using the presidency as a cash cow to enrich himself and his kids anyway.

Please.

All presidents do this. Really, all politicians do this. Take a hard look at some DC politicians. They are all guilty. Democrats and Republicans.

Did someone make you a flowchart?

When you get backed in to a corner, progress to "everyone does it" excuse?

It is like we are seeing the results of a flowchart.

A: It was bad, but not that bad.

B: No, it was actually really, really bad.

A: It was bad, but only because of incompetence, not INTENTIONALLY a crime. Some things are worse.

B: It was still a crime.

A: Everyone else has done it!

This is the OP. That's not my argument.

This is the script. You have to follow the script.

I left out "but the process is unfair! No defense attorney! Not letting the defense call witnesses!" part but this is the basic script.

So if someone doesn't agree with you then they are following a script? Got it.

It's a big deal to remove a democratically elected president, and people are going to take it seriously, examine political motives, and many are going to legitimately find, in complete good faith, that this is bad but not a high crime.

I think that's an open question, Vlad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the argument that it isn't enough because the R-controlled senate won't convict just shows the absurdity of the position.

Lol. That's the entire point of the system. Brilliantly designed. the House is more partisan by nature because of the short terms and more direct elections, the Senate is more insulated and measured. To get two-thirds of the Senate to agree to remove a president from office is a very high threshold. That is why it has never happened.

It doesn't mean that want what Trump did is appropriate. It doesn't mean that what Trump did isnt bad. but if two-thirds of the Senate does not agree with you that this is a high crime does not mean they are bought or corrupt or Russian spies. That is absurd and just shows your partisanship. Romney and Sasse are principled men who are not afraid to criticize Trump. Lee and Cruz are Constitutional scholars. Many more. Trust the system and let it play out.

No. It’s just means they are morally compromised.

Trump is a habitual liar and compulsive cheat. Everyone knows it, even his defenders and apologists. He thinks he's above the rule of law (and he may be proved right about that.)

After a lifetime of cheating plumbers, electricians, and painters, Trump is now cheating American taxpayers. Then as now, he does it because he wants to (that's "who he is"), and because he can.

It's ironic that Trump has been branded a "street-fighter." It seems doubtful he's ever been in an actual fistfight. He's a bloated, weak pig and proven coward. But it works for him.

Bribery isn’t a crime? I have heard it all. Bribery on top of working with a foreign power. You Trump supports have lost all moral and ethical values.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the argument that it isn't enough because the R-controlled senate won't convict just shows the absurdity of the position.

Lol. That's the entire point of the system. Brilliantly designed. the House is more partisan by nature because of the short terms and more direct elections, the Senate is more insulated and measured. To get two-thirds of the Senate to agree to remove a president from office is a very high threshold. That is why it has never happened.

It doesn't mean that want what Trump did is appropriate. It doesn't mean that what Trump did isnt bad. but if two-thirds of the Senate does not agree with you that this is a high crime does not mean they are bought or corrupt or Russian spies. That is absurd and just shows your partisanship. Romney and Sasse are principled men who are not afraid to criticize Trump. Lee and Cruz are Constitutional scholars. Many more. Trust the system and let it play out.

You absolutely cannot argue with a straight face that Republican senators are less partisan than representatives. I mean come on. Shows how stupid you think we are.

Mitch & company are the most blatantly partisan "party-over-country" senators in decades. They are hyperpartisan. They are the exact opposites of patriots. Moscow Mitch is a man who stole a supreme court seat from a sitting president, for god's sake, just because he was of a different party, and has been laughing about it ever since. He's a disgrace.

Sing it! This person is not being honest in their debate or they have actually been brainwashed by Barr in his basement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the argument that it isn't enough because the R-controlled senate won't convict just shows the absurdity of the position.

Lol. That's the entire point of the system. Brilliantly designed. the House is more partisan by nature because of the short terms and more direct elections, the Senate is more insulated and measured. To get two-thirds of the Senate to agree to remove a president from office is a very high threshold. That is why it has never happened.

It doesn't mean that want what Trump did is appropriate. It doesn't mean that what Trump did isnt bad. but if two-thirds of the Senate does not agree with you that this is a high crime does not mean they are bought or corrupt or Russian spies. That is absurd and just shows your partisanship. Romney and Sasse are principled men who are not afraid to criticize Trump. Lee and Cruz are Constitutional scholars. Many more. Trust the system and let it play out.

You absolutely cannot argue with a straight face that Republican senators are less partisan than representatives. I mean come on. Shows how stupid you think we are.

Mitch & company are the most blatantly partisan "party-over-country" senators in decades. They are hyperpartisan. They are the exact opposites of patriots. Moscow Mitch is a man who stole a supreme court seat from a sitting president, for god's sake, just because he was of a different party, and has been laughing about it ever since. He's a disgrace.

It would be hypocritical at best if Trump were to be able to skate on conduct that is specifically proscribed by the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Bribery is bribery, no matter the form it takes. Conspiracy to commit bribery is a crime, no matter the form it takes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly it's inappropriate. I'm not sure if criminal, more sloppy incompetence.

But it's not impeachable, and there is zero chance for the Senate to convict.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being an impeachable high crime and 1 being jaywalking, this is maybe a 6 or 7.

The term "high crime" refers to the position of the person doing the crime, not to the type of crime. That said, "bribery" is specified in the Constitution as an impeachable offense. Both by the modern US legal definition and by the definition of the term "bribery" as the authors of the Constitution understood it, the current president and vice president appear to have committed the offense.

Seriously, of perjury about a blowjob is impeachable, how is this not impeachable? What would constitute an impeachable offense in your mind?

Good question. Treason. True bribery where the president is personally enriched (Illinois governor selling Senate seats). Nixon level obstruction. Not sleazy incompetence like this.

1) Bribery can be for political gain, and 2) trump has been using the presidency as a cash cow to enrich himself and his kids anyway.

Please.

All presidents do this. Really, all politicians do this. Take a hard look at some DC politicians. They are all guilty. Democrats and Republicans.

Did someone make you a flowchart?

When you get backed in to a corner, progress to "everyone does it" excuse?

It is like we are seeing the results of a flowchart.

A: It was bad, but not that bad.

B: No, it was actually really, really bad.

A: It was bad, but only because of incompetence, not INTENTIONALLY a crime. Some things are worse.

B: It was still a crime.

A: Everyone else has done it!

This is the OP. That's not my argument.

This is the script. You have to follow the script.

I left out "but the process is unfair! No defense attorney! Not letting the defense call witnesses!" part but this is the basic script.

So if someone doesn't agree with you then they are following a script? Got it.

It's a big deal to remove a democratically elected president, and people are going to take it seriously, examine political motives, and many are going to legitimately find, in complete good faith, that this is bad but not a high crime.

Then what is a high crime in your opinion? How much worse would things have to be? FWIW, if he is not removed from office his behavior will be the new normal.

Anonymous wrote:And the argument that it isn't enough because the R-controlled senate won't convict just shows the absurdity of the position.

Lol. That's the entire point of the system. Brilliantly designed. the House is more partisan by nature because of the short terms and more direct elections, the Senate is more insulated and measured. To get two-thirds of the Senate to agree to remove a president from office is a very high threshold. That is why it has never happened.

It doesn't mean that want what Trump did is appropriate. It doesn't mean that what Trump did isnt bad. but if two-thirds of the Senate does not agree with you that this is a high crime does not mean they are bought or corrupt or Russian spies. That is absurd and just shows your partisanship. Romney and Sasse are principled men who are not afraid to criticize Trump. Lee and Cruz are Constitutional scholars. Many more. Trust the system and let it play out.