No, and bribery is a listed reason for impeachment, alongside treason, separate and apart from "high crimes and misdemeanors."
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Trump Impeachment: What crimes to include
- Thread starter Segnosaur
- Start date
No, and bribery is a listed reason for impeachment, alongside treason, separate and apart from "high crimes and misdemeanors."
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I haven't been able to keep up with every development. What bribe did President Trump solicit?
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
"Bribery" was the wrong term. It was extortion. "Nice little military aid you've got there. Shame if something happened to it."
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
I was referring to the “favor” Trump was asking for as also being a bribe, apart from any other reasons it was illegal. A “if you rub my back, I’ll rub yours” situation.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Thank you for the correction.
I haven't been able to keep up with every development. What extortion did President Trump threaten?
Or does your "quote" actually quote the threat in question?
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Didn’t Trump provide extra money to the Ukraine above what was allocated by Congress? The quid for Ukraine’s promised quo?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
What exactly was the bribe?
I'm expecting some evidence of personal profit for Donald Trump. You know: a bribe.
What's the evidence?
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Political dirt on Biden. Bribes don’t have to be money.
The evidence is the transcript provided by the White House and, arguably, Trump’s documented actions concerning Ukraine.
Last edited:
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
Seriously, I don't know why people are trying to make this so complicated (Well I know why the Republicans want it to be, but non-republications, it baffles me)
It is very simple.
The President used his office to solicit help from a foreign Government to damage the person who was his main political rival at the time.
It doesn't matter that he was asking it as a favour in return for selling Javelin missile, or holding back military funding, these are just aggravating circumstances.
I thought one commentator was very good in his commentary when he noted that "If you strongly believe that America needs to be protected by a wall to stop foreign intrusion, then surely you should believe equally, if not more strongly, that our Sovereign Elections should also be protected from Foreign Intrusion."
I don't think it should matter which party you support, having the leader of your country try and take out a political rival by asking a foreign leader to start a criminal investigation into them should turn your stomach and have you calling for that leader's head. This is the sort of BS that is found in totalitarian leaning third world countries run by strongmen dictators. It is not the sort of thing that should be occurring in leading western democracies, and if you refuse to acknowledge it, or condemn it, then you are just as complicit in the destruction of your democracy as the leader that did it.
It is very simple.
The President used his office to solicit help from a foreign Government to damage the person who was his main political rival at the time.
It doesn't matter that he was asking it as a favour in return for selling Javelin missile, or holding back military funding, these are just aggravating circumstances.
I thought one commentator was very good in his commentary when he noted that "If you strongly believe that America needs to be protected by a wall to stop foreign intrusion, then surely you should believe equally, if not more strongly, that our Sovereign Elections should also be protected from Foreign Intrusion."
I don't think it should matter which party you support, having the leader of your country try and take out a political rival by asking a foreign leader to start a criminal investigation into them should turn your stomach and have you calling for that leader's head. This is the sort of BS that is found in totalitarian leaning third world countries run by strongmen dictators. It is not the sort of thing that should be occurring in leading western democracies, and if you refuse to acknowledge it, or condemn it, then you are just as complicit in the destruction of your democracy as the leader that did it.
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 33,109
Witness Intimidation
must go on the list
must go on the list
This is The End
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2007
- Messages
- 10,925
No offense, but if you literally have not watched any news in over a week, which you clearly haven't, then why are you in a discussion thread about news?
He asked a foreign head of state to investigate another candidate for President. That in and of itself is extremely illegal. Full stop. He withheld military aid as in incentive for the foreign head of state to cooperate, it was not coincidence. He soon realized that (made to realize, of course), oh crap, that was a bad idea and granted the aid.
Beelzebuddy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,982
Please don't bite at the fringe reset.
"Oh, this scandal that's been going on for a week and generating discussions I've been actively participating in? I don't know aaanything about it, can you explain it to me from the beginning again, please?"
Belz...
Fiend God
So you haven't heard of this scandal AT ALL, then?
The Dems are saying they're not going to allow the proceedings to be stalled by stonewalling. The stonewalling will be considered as a charge of obstruction.
OK good. But why the concern over delays? Wouldn't these things be fast-tracked by the Supremes, ala Florida Bush v Gore?
OK good. But why the concern over delays? Wouldn't these things be fast-tracked by the Supremes, ala Florida Bush v Gore?
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
I think its a case where the supreme court can't be called on to rule on everything. And this sort of investigation is going to rely a lot on lots of subpoenas collecting evidence from multiple sources. If the Trump administration is uncooperative, each individual subpoena would probably have to go through the courts, then appeals, etc.
And even if you get the supreme court to rule that this stuff must be fast tracked, there is no guarantee the Trump administration would cooperate.
"Oh, the Supreme court said we must turn things over quickly. But we didn't think they meant turn over everything." (or something like that).
This is The End
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2007
- Messages
- 10,925
True, but there may be other people viewing this thread that legitimately would listen to facts.
The "thing of value" is dirt on a political opponent. "Unlawful" means "illegal".
Trump begging the foreign head of state to investigate his political opponent is illegal in and of itself. Full stop.
The fact that Trump added a wink-wink bribe (the withholding of military aid during the illegal request) is not required in any way what-so-ever in this being illegal. Not. At. All. No matter how much the Republicans and Trump try and make it sound like it is required. (Though it is icing on the cake!!)
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Nation states engage in this kind of quid pro quo all the time, though. It's not actually unethical to predicate a friendly relationship, with diplomatic, economic, and military benefits, in part on mutual cooperation on issues of interest to one party or the other.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 41,175
No they don't. Quit trying to normalize atrocious behavior.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 41,175
The real question is which crimes to leave off.
Trump craps on America's face and tries to make it sound like he's doing us a favor. Sadly, his supporters likes the taste.
There is his obvious conspiracy with Russia. His wanton infringements of the Emoluments Clause. There is abuses of power too many to list. Such as his stonewalling and instructions of staff not to cooperate with the House. His not so subtle threats towards the whistleblower His extortion of Ukraine and his requests that not one, but two foreign countries investigate his political opposition.
Trump craps on America's face and tries to make it sound like he's doing us a favor. Sadly, his supporters likes the taste.
There is his obvious conspiracy with Russia. His wanton infringements of the Emoluments Clause. There is abuses of power too many to list. Such as his stonewalling and instructions of staff not to cooperate with the House. His not so subtle threats towards the whistleblower His extortion of Ukraine and his requests that not one, but two foreign countries investigate his political opposition.
Yeah if you somehow overlook the circumstances that starkly differentiate Trump's obviously corrupt shenanigans.
It's not unlike defending Giuliani... What's the big deal with traveling to Ukraine? There's nothing wrong with that. Is there a named fallacy for this sort of filtering out the essence?