Anonymous wrote:

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.

It kinda does mean they are corrupt and bought.

At absolute best, it means they have shitty judgement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP can you explain, in words, what is "sloppy" and "incompetent" about all this? Either Trump tried to leverage the official power of the U.S. government for personal gain in an election, or he did not. It doesn't even have to be technically bribery. I'm a federal employee, and if I even tried to buy stock in one of my regulated entities, I could be fired or put in jail. It's basic government ethics.

It's definitely not bribery.

It's incompetent because every functional administration has a prepared script when talking with foreign leaders. The staff runs the call with the President adding talking points. This clown puts Ivanka on the calls routinely. It's sloppy because every administration users, to some degree, foreign policy interaction for domestic political gain. You don't do it on a call with dozens listening.

It's not really that material because there was no real damage. Ukraine received the aid, nobody was investigated. The Hunter Biden board membership was obviously inappropriate, so it's certainly topical.

This isn't the worst thing Trump's done this year. The Turkey/Kurds thing was easily 1000x worse. Calling Baltimore names was worse. Insulting allies was worse.

This is inappropriate, but it's not bribery obviously and it's not a high crime.

DP:

"Today, a person commits the crime of bribery by giving or offering a public official or public employee something of value in return for some official action (or in exchange for the public official not doing something he or she is legally obligated to do), benefitting the defendant."

this is exactly what happened. You (public official) perform and publicly declare you will perform a sham investigation on my political rival (official action) and I'll give you this aid (something of value). IF you don't, I won't. Bribery. He needs to go.

By that ridiculous interpretation, EVERY negotiation I've ever had was actually a bribery

WTF kind of negotiations have you been having?

Hookers and dope?

So sick of hearing Trump supporters saying his actions aren't enough to impeach (or not enough to remove from office). If this isn't enough then nothing is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP can you explain, in words, what is "sloppy" and "incompetent" about all this? Either Trump tried to leverage the official power of the U.S. government for personal gain in an election, or he did not. It doesn't even have to be technically bribery. I'm a federal employee, and if I even tried to buy stock in one of my regulated entities, I could be fired or put in jail. It's basic government ethics.

It's definitely not bribery.

It's incompetent because every functional administration has a prepared script when talking with foreign leaders. The staff runs the call with the President adding talking points. This clown puts Ivanka on the calls routinely. It's sloppy because every administration users, to some degree, foreign policy interaction for domestic political gain. You don't do it on a call with dozens listening.

It's not really that material because there was no real damage. Ukraine received the aid, nobody was investigated. The Hunter Biden board membership was obviously inappropriate, so it's certainly topical.

This isn't the worst thing Trump's done this year. The Turkey/Kurds thing was easily 1000x worse. Calling Baltimore names was worse. Insulting allies was worse.

This is inappropriate, but it's not bribery obviously and it's not a high crime.

DP:

"Today, a person commits the crime of bribery by giving or offering a public official or public employee something of value in return for some official action (or in exchange for the public official not doing something he or she is legally obligated to do), benefitting the defendant."

this is exactly what happened. You (public official) perform and publicly declare you will perform a sham investigation on my political rival (official action) and I'll give you this aid (something of value). IF you don't, I won't. Bribery. He needs to go.

By that ridiculous interpretation, EVERY negotiation I've ever had was actually a bribery

WTF kind of negotiations have you been having?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP can you explain, in words, what is "sloppy" and "incompetent" about all this? Either Trump tried to leverage the official power of the U.S. government for personal gain in an election, or he did not. It doesn't even have to be technically bribery. I'm a federal employee, and if I even tried to buy stock in one of my regulated entities, I could be fired or put in jail. It's basic government ethics.

It's definitely not bribery.

It's incompetent because every functional administration has a prepared script when talking with foreign leaders. The staff runs the call with the President adding talking points. This clown puts Ivanka on the calls routinely. It's sloppy because every administration users, to some degree, foreign policy interaction for domestic political gain. You don't do it on a call with dozens listening.

It's not really that material because there was no real damage. Ukraine received the aid, nobody was investigated. The Hunter Biden board membership was obviously inappropriate, so it's certainly topical.

This isn't the worst thing Trump's done this year. The Turkey/Kurds thing was easily 1000x worse. Calling Baltimore names was worse. Insulting allies was worse.

This is inappropriate, but it's not bribery obviously and it's not a high crime.

It is textbook bribery, which includes the "solicitation" or the ask. It need not be executed in order for it to be a crime.

And it's bribery because it was done for Trumps ***personal*** benefit -- not "domestic political gain" for the country. Yes, trading things with foreign countries to gain advantages for the US is normal politics and not bribery. Using US foreign aid to as a way to extract PERSONAL political benefit is bribery and conflict of interest. Trump did it on a call with dozens listening because he's impulsive and corrupt as hell, and has been getting away with this stuff his whole life. "Damage" is not an element of bribery and conflict of interest, but good try!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP can you explain, in words, what is "sloppy" and "incompetent" about all this? Either Trump tried to leverage the official power of the U.S. government for personal gain in an election, or he did not. It doesn't even have to be technically bribery. I'm a federal employee, and if I even tried to buy stock in one of my regulated entities, I could be fired or put in jail. It's basic government ethics.

It's definitely not bribery.

It's incompetent because every functional administration has a prepared script when talking with foreign leaders. The staff runs the call with the President adding talking points. This clown puts Ivanka on the calls routinely. It's sloppy because every administration users, to some degree, foreign policy interaction for domestic political gain. You don't do it on a call with dozens listening.

It's not really that material because there was no real damage. Ukraine received the aid, nobody was investigated. The Hunter Biden board membership was obviously inappropriate, so it's certainly topical.

This isn't the worst thing Trump's done this year. The Turkey/Kurds thing was easily 1000x worse. Calling Baltimore names was worse. Insulting allies was worse.

This is inappropriate, but it's not bribery obviously and it's not a high crime.

DP:

"Today, a person commits the crime of bribery by giving or offering a public official or public employee something of value in return for some official action (or in exchange for the public official not doing something he or she is legally obligated to do), benefitting the defendant."

this is exactly what happened. You (public official) perform and publicly declare you will perform a sham investigation on my political rival (official action) and I'll give you this aid (something of value). IF you don't, I won't. Bribery. He needs to go.

By that ridiculous interpretation, EVERY negotiation I've ever had was actually a bribery

In these negotiations, are you a public official who is seeking to trade an official US act in exchange for something of personal benefit? If so, congratulations, you have committed federal bribery and violated the criminal financial conflict of interest statute. possibly wire fraud as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP can you explain, in words, what is "sloppy" and "incompetent" about all this? Either Trump tried to leverage the official power of the U.S. government for personal gain in an election, or he did not. It doesn't even have to be technically bribery. I'm a federal employee, and if I even tried to buy stock in one of my regulated entities, I could be fired or put in jail. It's basic government ethics.

It's definitely not bribery.

It's incompetent because every functional administration has a prepared script when talking with foreign leaders. The staff runs the call with the President adding talking points. This clown puts Ivanka on the calls routinely. It's sloppy because every administration users, to some degree, foreign policy interaction for domestic political gain. You don't do it on a call with dozens listening.

It's not really that material because there was no real damage. Ukraine received the aid, nobody was investigated. The Hunter Biden board membership was obviously inappropriate, so it's certainly topical.

This isn't the worst thing Trump's done this year. The Turkey/Kurds thing was easily 1000x worse. Calling Baltimore names was worse. Insulting allies was worse.

This is inappropriate, but it's not bribery obviously and it's not a high crime.

DP:

"Today, a person commits the crime of bribery by giving or offering a public official or public employee something of value in return for some official action (or in exchange for the public official not doing something he or she is legally obligated to do), benefitting the defendant."

this is exactly what happened. You (public official) perform and publicly declare you will perform a sham investigation on my political rival (official action) and I'll give you this aid (something of value). IF you don't, I won't. Bribery. He needs to go.

it also works in the reverse - trump is demanding something of material value (investigation of political rival) in exchange for an official governmental act. this is bribery and violates the financial conflict of interest laws for govt employees.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP can you explain, in words, what is "sloppy" and "incompetent" about all this? Either Trump tried to leverage the official power of the U.S. government for personal gain in an election, or he did not. It doesn't even have to be technically bribery. I'm a federal employee, and if I even tried to buy stock in one of my regulated entities, I could be fired or put in jail. It's basic government ethics.

It's definitely not bribery.

It's incompetent because every functional administration has a prepared script when talking with foreign leaders. The staff runs the call with the President adding talking points. This clown puts Ivanka on the calls routinely. It's sloppy because every administration users, to some degree, foreign policy interaction for domestic political gain. You don't do it on a call with dozens listening.

It's not really that material because there was no real damage. Ukraine received the aid, nobody was investigated. The Hunter Biden board membership was obviously inappropriate, so it's certainly topical.

This isn't the worst thing Trump's done this year. The Turkey/Kurds thing was easily 1000x worse. Calling Baltimore names was worse. Insulting allies was worse.

This is inappropriate, but it's not bribery obviously and it's not a high crime.

DP:

"Today, a person commits the crime of bribery by giving or offering a public official or public employee something of value in return for some official action (or in exchange for the public official not doing something he or she is legally obligated to do), benefitting the defendant."

this is exactly what happened. You (public official) perform and publicly declare you will perform a sham investigation on my political rival (official action) and I'll give you this aid (something of value). IF you don't, I won't. Bribery. He needs to go.

By that ridiculous interpretation, EVERY negotiation I've ever had was actually a bribery

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP can you explain, in words, what is "sloppy" and "incompetent" about all this? Either Trump tried to leverage the official power of the U.S. government for personal gain in an election, or he did not. It doesn't even have to be technically bribery. I'm a federal employee, and if I even tried to buy stock in one of my regulated entities, I could be fired or put in jail. It's basic government ethics.

It's definitely not bribery.

It's incompetent because every functional administration has a prepared script when talking with foreign leaders. The staff runs the call with the President adding talking points. This clown puts Ivanka on the calls routinely. It's sloppy because every administration users, to some degree, foreign policy interaction for domestic political gain. You don't do it on a call with dozens listening.

It's not really that material because there was no real damage. Ukraine received the aid, nobody was investigated. The Hunter Biden board membership was obviously inappropriate, so it's certainly topical.

This isn't the worst thing Trump's done this year. The Turkey/Kurds thing was easily 1000x worse. Calling Baltimore names was worse. Insulting allies was worse.

This is inappropriate, but it's not bribery obviously and it's not a high crime.

DP:

"Today, a person commits the crime of bribery by giving or offering a public official or public employee something of value in return for some official action (or in exchange for the public official not doing something he or she is legally obligated to do), benefitting the defendant."

this is exactly what happened. You (public official) perform and publicly declare you will perform a sham investigation on my political rival (official action) and I'll give you this aid (something of value). IF you don't, I won't. Bribery. He needs to go.

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.

so let's start today to remedy this. Starting with this grifter POTUS and his deplorable family.

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.

DP.

The Senate was supposed to be more insulated and measured, but under the "leadership" of Moscow Mitch, it has devolved into partisan inertia, specializing in partisan obstruction. Totally useless.

I hope you are right that there are some Rs who will step up and defend the Constitution. That means getting this criminal POTUS out. But I fear there is no hope for these losers who care only about their own power and money and nothing for their country or the Constitution. Lots of empty talk about the Constitution and patriotism, but the sentiments are hollow when it comes down to it.

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

Agree 100% with both statements.

The Trump presidency is a wake up call that our citizens are too ignorant. Civics should be front and center in school.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You sound like a psycho antifa

U.S. Code §?208.Acts affecting a personal financial interest
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a)Except as permitted by subsection (b) hereof, whoever, being an officer or employee of the executive branch of the United States Government, or of any independent agency of the United States, a Federal Reserve bank director, officer, or employee, or an officer or employee of the District of Columbia, including a special Government employee, participates personally and substantially as a Government officer or employee, through decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or otherwise, in a judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter in which, to his knowledge, he, his spouse, minor child, general partner, organization in which he is serving as officer, director, trustee, general partner or employee, or any person or organization with whom he is negotiating or has any arrangement concerning prospective employment, has a financial interest—
Shall be subject to the penalties set forth in section 216 of this title.

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.

It kinda does mean they are corrupt and bought.