15 Nov 19
@caissad4 saidTo be fair, the Constitution says "The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
If it is bribery then the Constitution states that he "shall be removed " , not "should be removed ". Something to think about.
"On Impeachment for, AND Conviction of". Conviction occurs in the US Senate, provided two-thirds has the balls to vote for it.
15 Nov 19
@mott-the-hoople saidYou misspelled "are being manipulated by Republicans to protect Trump."
the problem is “poorly educated Americans” are being manipulated by democrats/media to harm Trump.
15 Nov 19
@suzianne saidThe Ukrainian President denies such allegations about Trump but we are suppose to believe a he said, she said, from Swamp creatures instead?
"... soliciting of something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal duties"
Seriously, are you stupid?
He withheld funds already approved by Congress (something of value) until Zelensky publicly acceeded to Trump's demands (the action of an official). After the whistleblower came forward, ...[text shortened]... as so serious as to make it a prime cause for Impeachment. So you can give up your gaslighting now.
15 Nov 19
@whodey saidHe's not "being tried". That occurs in the Senate.
Stop with all the allegations and focus on what he is being tried for
Geez.
The blinding ignorance of some uneducated Americans of our government must be why they choose to support Trump.
Hey, you could carry around a sign stating, "Morons for the Moron-in-Chief!"
This just in: The testimony of Marie Yovanovitch. Powerful, credible stuff. Also, Live, Trump intimidates the witness on Twitter as she testifies. Add Witness Intimidation to his list of crimes.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/live-impeachment-hearings-trump-day-2-maria-yovanovitch-121501070.html
Also just in:
Robert Stone found guilty on 4 of 7 counts. So he, in fact, lied. Truth matters.
UPDATE: He is now guilty on 7 of 7 counts. Sentencing on Feb. 6.
15 Nov 19
@whodey saidNo, he doesn't. The most he has said is that he didn't feel pressured, but it is understandable that he wouldn't want to say anything that might get the Extortionist in Chief angry lest Trump retaliate in some way. Zelensky is the victim and his position as the President of a much weaker country being actively threatened by a much stronger one (Russia) made him prey to Trump's crime.
The Ukrainian President denies such allegations about Trump but we are suppose to believe a he said, she said, from Swamp creatures instead?
15 Nov 19
@whodey saidIF there was no coercion, it was bribery.
Which is why the term is being used, an incorrect term
Something to think about.
IF there was coercion, it was extortion.
"Bribery relates to a corrupt benefit given or received to influence official action so as to afford the giver better than fair treatment. Both the person giving and the recipient are guilty of bribery. On the other hand, coercive extortion by a public official is the seeking or receiving of a corrupt benefit paid under an implicit or explicit threat to give the payer worse than fair treatment or to make the payer worse off. The payee is guilty of extortion; the payer is the victim of extortion."
https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/organized-crime/module-4/key-issues/bribery-versus-extortion.html
So even if we accept the most generous version pushed by Republicans i.e. that Zelensky was not "coerced", it was bribery. If we accept what the evidence strongly indicates i.e. that he was essentially threatened than it was extortion.
Both are crimes. And it is extraordinarily unlikely that the Framers would have included Bribery as an explicit reason for impeachment and removal but not considered the more serious crime of extortion by a public official a "High Crime and Misdemeanor".
15 Nov 19
1 edit
@no1marauder saidThe question is whether the investigation of a potential political opponent is something of "value." Value traditionally means something pecuniary. A reduced sentence in exchange for testimony, for example, is not considered "value" for purposes of the federal bribery statute (18 USC 201) ( United States v. Feurtado, 191 F.3d 420 (4th Cir. 1999)). Is there case law that demonstrates that investigating a political opponent would be considered "value" for this purpose?
IF there was no coercion, it was bribery.
IF there was coercion, it was extortion.
"Bribery relates to a corrupt benefit given or received to influence official action so as to afford the giver better than fair treatment. Both the person giving and the recipient are guilty of bribery. On the other hand, coercive extortion by a public official is the seeking or recei ...[text shortened]... considered the more serious crime of extortion by a public official a "High Crime and Misdemeanor".
I ran a couple of Lexis searches. I did see this quote:
“Thing of value” is not limited to gratuities, as term is commonly understood, but must be broadly construed, with focus on subjective value defendant places on items received, where defendant United States Attorney negotiated to continue criminal bankruptcy investigation in exchange for loans and promise of future employment with individual who had financial interest in investigation, since 18 USCS § 201 is meant to reach all situations in which government official’s judgment might be clouded by receipt of item of value given him by reason of his position. United States v. Gorman, 807 F.2d 1299 (6th Cir. 1986),
But in this case, the defendant received a loan and promise of future employment.
I can't find any cases wherein someone was convicted under federal bribery law without having received anything that could be construed as pecuniary in nature.
15 Nov 19
1 edit
@sh76 saidThe short answer is that Trump was asking/pressuring the Ukraine government to use its resources to aid his election campaign. And:
The question is whether the investigation of a potential political opponent is something of "value." Value traditionally means something pecuniary. A reduced sentence in exchange for testimony, for example, is not considered "value" for purposes of the federal bribery statute (18 USC 201) ( United States v. Feurtado, 191 F.3d 420 (4th Cir. 1999)). Is there case law that demonstr ...[text shortened]... federal bribery law without having received anything that could be construed as pecuniary in nature.
"In the campaign finance world, a “contribution” is any "thing of value” given to affect an election.
There is no doubt that a foreign government’s search for damaging information about a candidate’s political opponent would be valuable to that candidate. As Special Counsel Mueller noted, “[a] foreign entity that engaged in such research and provided resulting information to a campaign could exert a greater effect on an election, and a greater tendency to ingratiate the donor to the candidate, than a gift of money or tangible things of value.”
Tweetable quote:By directly requesting or suggesting that President Zelensky use Ukraine’s resources to help his reelection efforts, Trump violated campaign finance law.Tweet this quote.
(More technically, Trump asked Ukraine to make an “expenditure” by spending resources for the purpose of the influencing the 2020 election. An “expenditure” that is coordinated with a candidate is a campaign contribution; “coordinated” means made at the “request or suggestion” of a candidate. So Trump requesting that Ukraine make an expenditure means that he solicited a contribution.)"
https://campaignlegal.org/update/yes-president-trump-violated-campaign-finance-law-asking-ukraine-favor
If, a "contribution" that is an "expenditure" is "anything of value" as far as campaign finance law, why would it not be for the purposes of a bribery statute?
@no1marauder saidSo the President of the Ukraine is suffering from battered wife syndrome
No, he doesn't. The most he has said is that he didn't feel pressured, but it is understandable that he wouldn't want to say anything that might get the Extortionist in Chief angry lest Trump retaliate in some way. Zelensky is the victim and his position as the President of a much weaker country being actively threatened by a much stronger one (Russia) made him prey to Trump's crime.
Luckily we have health care professionals/mind readers such as yourself.
Good to know.
15 Nov 19
@no1marauder saidSo there is a corrupt benefit to the Ukrainians being asked to investigate corruption?
IF there was no coercion, it was bribery.
IF there was coercion, it was extortion.
"Bribery relates to a corrupt benefit given or received to influence official action so as to afford the giver better than fair treatment. Both the person giving and the recipient are guilty of bribery. On the other hand, coercive extortion by a public official is the seeking or recei ...[text shortened]... considered the more serious crime of extortion by a public official a "High Crime and Misdemeanor".
Do tell.
15 Nov 19
@sh76 saidIt's not a bribery case but United States v. Girard, 601 F.2d 69 seems on point. The facts:
The question is whether the investigation of a potential political opponent is something of "value." Value traditionally means something pecuniary. A reduced sentence in exchange for testimony, for example, is not considered "value" for purposes of the federal bribery statute (18 USC 201) ( United States v. Feurtado, 191 F.3d 420 (4th Cir. 1999)). Is there case law that demonstr ...[text shortened]... federal bribery law without having received anything that could be construed as pecuniary in nature.
"Appellants have appealed from judgments convicting them of the unauthorized sale of government property ( 18 U.S.C. § 641) and of conspiring to accomplish the sale ( 18 U.S.C. § 371). Appellant Girard also appeals from his separate conviction on a third count charging possession of cocaine with intent to distribute ( 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)).
In May 1977, appellant Lambert was an agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration, and Girard was a former agent. During that month, Girard and one James Bond [!] began to discuss a proposed illegal venture that involved smuggling a planeload of marijuana from Mexico into the United States. Girard told Bond that for $500 per name he could, through an inside source, secure reports from the DEA files that would show whether any participant in the proposed operation was a government informant. Unfortunately for Mr. Girard, Bond himself became an informant and disclosed his conversations with Girard to the DEA. Thereafter, dealings between Bond and Girard were conducted under the watchful eye of the DEA. Bond asked Girard to secure reports on four men whose names were furnished him by DEA agents. DEA records are kept in computerized files, and the DEA hoped to identify the inside source by monitoring access to the four names in the computer bank. In this manner, the DEA learned that Girard's informant was Lambert, who obtained the reports through a computer terminal located in his office. The convictions on Counts One and Two are based on the sale of this information."
Appellant argued that information was not a "thing of value" that was covered by the unauthorized sale of government property ( 18 U.S.C. § 641) statute, which, they claimed only covered tangible items. The Court rejected this:
"Like the District Judge, we are impressed by Congress' repeated use of the phrase "thing of value" in section 641 and its predecessors. These words are found in so many criminal statutes throughout the United States that they have in a sense become words of art. The word "thing" notwithstanding, the phrase is generally construed to cover intangibles as well as tangibles. For example, amusement is held to be a thing of value under gambling statutes. Giomi v. Chase, 47 N.M. 22, 25-26, 132 P.2d 715, 716-17 (1942); Hightower v. State, 156 S.W.2d 327, 328 (Tex.Civ.App. 1942); State v. Baitler, 131 Me. 285, 287, 161 A. 671, 672 (1932). Sexual intercourse, or the promise of sexual intercourse, is a thing of value under a bribery statute. McDonald v. State, 57 Ala.App. 529, 329 So.2d 583, 587-88 (1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 834, 97 S.Ct. 99, 50 L.Ed.2d 99 (1976); Scott v. State, 107 Ohio St. 475, 485-87, 141 N.E. 19, 22-23 (1923). So also are a promise to reinstate an employee, People ex rel. Dickinson v. Van De Carr, 87 App.Div. 386, 389-90, 84 N.Y.S. 461, 463-64 (1st Dep't 1963), and an agreement not to run in a primary election, People v. Hochberg, 62 A.D.2d 239, 246-47, 404 N.Y.S.2d 161, 167 (3d Dep't 1978). The testimony of a witness is a thing of value under 18 U.S.C. § 876, which prohibits threats made through the mails with the intent to extort money or any other "thing of value." United States v. Zouras, 497 F.2d 1115, 1121 (7th Cir. 1974)."
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-girard-2
The DOJ cites this in its Manual's analysis of the elements of the Bribery statute:
""Thing of Value"
The term "thing of value" is used throughout Title 18, and includes intangible as well as tangible things. See United States v. Girard, 601 F.2d 69, 71 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 871 (1979). It has been broadly construed to focus on the worth attached to the bribe by the defendant, rather than its commercial value. United States v. Williams, 704 F.2d 603, 622-23 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1007 (1983)"
https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2044-particular-elements
Obviously the "worth" of the Ukrainian government publicly announcing an investigation of the Bidens was thought to be considerable by this "defendant" i.e. Donald Trump.