Bribery

[Bo Deadly]

Listening to the impeachment hearings, I don't think either side is properly debating the central act that should decide the removal of POTUS which, it seems to me, is attempted bribery.

How important is it that the entity being bribed was foreign? If Trump asked a clerk at a local DC courthouse to do something illegal like destroy evidence or file a fraudulent document, is that not still bribery?

How important is it that the aid was authorized by congress? If Trump told Zelensky that he would pay with his own money, is that not still bribery?

How important is it that Ukraine desperately needed the aid to protect itself from an invading country? If Trump told the Secretary of the VA to "go to a mic" and endorse him or the VA wouldn't get funds, is that not still bribery?

How important is it that the item of value (the "quo" in quid-pro-quo) was to announce fake investigations which is election fraud? If the "quo" was the clerk filing a fraudulent brief, is that not still bribery?

The multiple interleaved bad acts conflates the significance of the central act of bribery. For example, one could argue that Trump attempted election fraud separable from the bribery act. If he simply instructed Barr to start investigations into the Bidens, is that not still election fraud? The fact that it was a sovreign ally is bad. The fact that it was funds authorized by congress on behalf of the American people is bad. The fact the Ukraine needed the money to protect itself is bad. But the attempted bribery is the criminal act that justifies impeachment and removal.

 

[pucho812]

hard to have a quid pro quo when both parties involved do not know the quid or the quo. hard to have a bribery when the parties involved have no idea it's taking place

 

[Recording Engineer]

hard to have a quid pro quo when both parties involved do not know the quid or the quo. hard to have a bribery when the parties involved have no idea it's taking place

That sounds like defense lawyer speak, if I’ve ever heard any, but you’d have to have your head in the sand to believe that.

 

[gyraf]

I really feel sorry for you guys, that your democracy has to go through this.

From the outside it looks like a loose/loose scenario..

/Jakob E.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Listening to the impeachment hearings, I don't think either side is properly debating the central act that should decide the removal of POTUS which, it seems to me, is attempted bribery.

How important is it that the entity being bribed was foreign? If Trump asked a clerk at a local DC courthouse to do something illegal like destroy evidence or file a fraudulent document, is that not still bribery?

How important is it that the aid was authorized by congress? If Trump told Zelensky that he would pay with his own money, is that not still bribery?

How important is it that Ukraine desperately needed the aid to protect itself from an invading country? If Trump told the Secretary of the VA to "go to a mic" and endorse him or the VA wouldn't get funds, is that not still bribery?

How important is it that the item of value (the "quo" in quid-pro-quo) was to announce fake investigations which is election fraud? If the "quo" was the clerk filing a fraudulent brief, is that not still bribery?

The multiple interleaved bad acts conflates the significance of the central act of bribery. For example, one could argue that Trump attempted election fraud separable from the bribery act. If he simply instructed Barr to start investigations into the Bidens, is that not still election fraud? The fact that it was a sovreign ally is bad. The fact that it was funds authorized by congress on behalf of the American people is bad. The fact the Ukraine needed the money to protect itself is bad. But the attempted bribery is the criminal act that justifies impeachment and removal.

I am repeating myself, but the bribery our founders were referring to was the executive being bribed by external wealthy foreign nations to corrupt his allegiance to America. 

Try not to be too shocked but American foreign aid has always come with strings attached.

For the court of public opinion they will try to argue down the definition of what high crimes are, hint not this.

Of course opinions vary.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

I really feel sorry for you guys, that your democracy has to go through this.

We have survived worse and will survive this too....  That is why this gets kicked up to the senate to decide, they are the more deliberative, sensible body.

From the outside it looks like a loose/loose scenario..

/Jakob E.

That all depends on how you define winning. There was never a sensible expectation of removing POTUS so this is succeeding at a very public partisan smearing of that office.  Time will tell if it was politically effective, (we will find out more about that in Nov). History from after the last impeachment (President Clinton) showed POTUS gaining popularity. I doubt that is the plan.  :

Political campaign fundraisers are clearly winning, while viewership of the hours and hours of televised hearings are getting lower ratings than hoped for.

I am not a mind reader (like so many claim to be these days, including some witnesses) but suspect major fractions of the public are bored, with another fraction getting angry about the waste of time and resources.  We are divided along partisan lines so the democratic base who was already on board with impeachment is even more energized now. 

At least one group will be disappointed, I expect both will be (your lose/lose scenario). Of course maybe I'm wrong....

JR

 

[Recording Engineer]

I am repeating myself, but the bribery our founders were referring to was the executive being bribed by external wealthy foreign nations to corrupt his allegiance to America. 

Try not to be too shocked but American foreign aid has always come with strings attached.

For the court of public opinion they will try to argue down the definition of what high crimes are, hint not this.

Of course opinions vary.

JR

I too am repeating myself, but this is exactly the concern toward Trump that started an investigation into him in the first place. Your defense is helping the prosecution.

Also, no one is concerned aid always comes with strings attached. This is stated as if this case isn’t different.  The defense team seems to be on the cusp of saying it is in plain English “and so what, it’s all legal”. I repeat myself again, then why not say that from the very beginning, from first expressed concern, instead of all the constantly-changing BS?

These are both absolutely terrible arguments in my opinion.

Oh and you’re right, here we go yet again, arguing about legal definitions in an impeachment case. Clinton was absolutely absurd and this is too, in my opinion. But as you say, opinions vary. As I say, that’s exactly the problem. Vague on policy is reasonable and understandable. Vague on criminality is absolutely terrible.

 

[pucho812]

That sounds like defense lawyer speak, if I’ve ever heard any, but you’d have to have your head in the sand to believe that.

maybe but it is what took place. Sonland said trump was clear that he wanted nothing in return. sounds to me that is counter to the very definition of quid pro quo.  Bribery, the act of giving a bribe.  bribe to get someone to act illegally  or dishonestly  in ones favor  by a gift of money or other inducement.  I wouldn't call foreign aid a bribe although it usually has condition to go with it.
Schiffs arguments, have been nothing more then Schiff puffing out his chest and rehashing the same lies he told in the house. I don;'t consider him to be a master or any sort of brilliant lawyer.  Hell even in his own district his town halls are full of people calling him idiot, buffoon, etc and demanding he stop such stupidity.  But they have gone this far, might as well as double down on failure.

 

[Bo Deadly]

Bribery, the act of giving a bribe.  bribe to get someone to act illegally  or dishonestly  in ones favor  by a gift of money or other inducement.  I wouldn't call foreign aid a bribe although it usually has condition to go with it.

Foreign aid is money. Withholding money until someone does what you want is the same as giving someone money for doing what you want. It's still bribery.

The only defense is that Trump was genuinely interested in stopping corruption. But given his history of appointing self-dealers to cabinet positions, unqualified judges, immoral behavior and on and on, that defense is just ridiculous.

 

[Recording Engineer]

maybe but it is what took place. Sonland said trump was clear that he wanted nothing in return. sounds to me that is counter to the very definition of quid pro quo.  Bribery, the act of giving a bribe.  bribe to get someone to act illegally  or dishonestly  in ones favor  by a gift of money or other inducement.  I wouldn't call foreign aid a bribe although it usually has condition to go with it.
Schiffs arguments, have been nothing more then Schiff puffing out his chest and rehashing the same lies he told in the house. I don;'t consider him to be a master or any sort of brilliant lawyer.  Hell even in his own district his town halls are full of people calling him idiot, buffoon, etc and demanding he stop such stupidity.  But they have gone this far, might as well as double down on failure.

Will you have that same position should Trump’s defense team finally straight out say it was done, but it’s not illegal? So far, it seems that’s their next move, should they need to, after long suggesting the hypothetical. There’s a reason it’s been long suggested: To see how the reactions play out amongst colleagues and the public. That determines if they’ll use it when push comes to shove and it’s about there. We’ll see if they use it.

 

[Recording Engineer]

The only defense is that Trump was genuinely interested in stopping corruption.

I would normally agree 100%, but considering he has always said the stupidest lies over and over again on even the stupidest little everyday things, because he’s ill, I have absolutely no choice but not to believe a single thing he says. Trump and his just as ill sidekick Giuliani have been touting that defense with supposed actual evidence that they’ll soon release since day one. Time is of the essence to finally present it. They haven’t because it doesn’t exist. Yet another defense is out the window, in my opinion.

 

[pucho812]

hard to mount a defense to a crime that does not exist.

 

[hodad]

Do you Republicans even bother to watch the actual hearings?  I ask this sincerely, because I don't think you do.  I don't think you want to hear your supposed case for Trump shredded.  I don't think you want to hear Trump's lawyers get shredded by Schiff.  You seem a lot like Trump, trying to will a lie into truth.

 

[pucho812]

Do you Republicans even bother to watch the actual hearings?  I ask this sincerely, because I don't think you do.  I don't think you want to hear your supposed case for Trump shredded.  I don't think you want to hear Trump's lawyers get shredded by Schiff.  You seem a lot like Trump, trying to will a lie into truth.

I am not a republican.  I wouldn't call hearsay and opinions  testimony that would shred a case be it for trump or anyone else.  As for Schiff I live in the congressional district next to his,  more and more of his district is thinking less and less of him.  there is no lie to will, so I am not sure what you seem to think we are doing here.

The facts as they stand and have been presented show a Buch of witnesses who really didn't witness and who ultimately contradicted themselves to the point that any lawyer worth a salt would not use them in court on the witness stand.

 

[Recording Engineer]

hard to mount a defense to a crime that does not exist.

That would be the best defense actually, except, as mentioned in the other thread, Trumps comments and actions, as I listed in the other thread, say otherwise.

It’s a long common tactic (for good reason) of an investigator to sweat a suspect and then back off entirely and wait. Observations of their body-language, responses, and actions tells the story almost always. Trump himself is his own worst enemy.

 

[hodad]

l, so I am not sure what you seem to think we are doing here.

I'm saying that you're ill-informed.  I'm saying that if you're getting information from talk radio or Fox News or similar, you're getting disinformation.  I'm saying that if you want to talk about how weak the case for impeachment is, you should at least pay some attention to the presentation of the actual case.  You should be open to listening to the evidence, to the arguments on both sides. 

I'm saying this is an important moment in the history (and for the future) of this nation, and all you want to do is have your preconceived notions reinforced, no matter how weak the argument is that supports them.  I'm saying that all you want is some cover for your belief that Trump is right and the Democrats are wrong, no matter how unsound, contradictory and dangerous that cover is. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

I'm saying that you're ill-informed.  I'm saying that if you're getting information from talk radio or Fox News or similar, you're getting disinformation.  I'm saying that if you want to talk about how weak the case for impeachment is, you should at least pay some attention to the presentation of the actual case.  You should be open to listening to the evidence, to the arguments on both sides. 

when experiencing cognitive dissonance it is human nature to grasp for such rationalizations....(if only they knew what I know....).

I'm saying this is an important moment in the history (and for the future) of this nation, and all you want to do is have your preconceived notions reinforced, no matter how weak the argument is that supports them.  I'm saying that all you want is some cover for your belief that Trump is right and the Democrats are wrong, no matter how unsound, contradictory and dangerous that cover is.

The sky is not falling but if we lower the bar so much that political impeachments becomes commonplace, the future of politics will get even more divisive.  I remain optimistic that this too will pass, and voters will apply corrective negative feedback to prevent these from becoming even more common .

Of course maybe I'm wrong... the future has not happened yet.

JR

 

[Bo Deadly]

The sky is not falling but if we lower the bar so much that political impeachments becomes commonplace, the future of politics will get even more divisive.

Regarding Trump "asking" Zelensky to look into the Bidens / CrowdStrike do you believe that he was just trying to root-out corruption? Meaning he was acting entirely in the interests of everyone and for the greater good?

Or is it possible that Trump had more personal interests in mind like smearing the top challenger in the 2020 presidential election?

I knowing that you've probably answered this numerous times here but I normally try NOT to read these comments too much and it's just a "yes" or "no" question so please answer so that I can understand your position clearly.

 

[Recording Engineer]

when experiencing cognitive dissonance it is human nature to grasp for such rationalizations....(if only they knew what I know....).
JR

I don’t see that really applying here.

 

[dmp]

I think the damage Trump (and by extension the GOP) are doing to the country is really being underestimated.

So many norms have been broken by Trump with his character (insulting others, etc) and his (blatant) corruption and self-interest.  Even Republican senators are agreeing on the facts - that Trump is guilty of extorting a foreign power to smear his political opponent - but they are saying it does not rise to the standard of 'high crimes'. And that is what will happen in the vote shortly and it is their prerogative to do that. It stinks, though, and is so blatantly against the principles of the USA, the Constitution, and even basic integrity, that it will haunt them for a long time.  A good standard to look for a cognitive dissonance is to apply the same situation in the opposite scenario - if Obama had acted like Trump how would you feel?  I think if any Republican honestly imagined this, their head would explode from rage.

The demographics are a time bomb for Republicans and they are burning the house on the way out.