Bribery

[Recording Engineer]

just a "yes" or "no" question so please answer so that I can understand your position clearly.

I agree, but if I see partisan rally words or phrases of complaints, division, or attack, I pretty much know where they stand, or really, how politically-indoctrinated they are, where they can no longer apply or accept simple logic to it. It happens and they don’t even realize it. It’s like being in a toxic-relationship and not seeing it while in the thick of it. I’ve seen it happen to extremely smart and logical people that I highly-respect.

I joke, Jeff Foxworthy’s updated bit:
If you use the words ________, you might be a ________.

Maybe I should start a new thread as a game to see what people come up with. Ha!

 

[Matador]

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

I've been meaning to tease this apart, as you've said this several times.  You seem to be arguing that only a select specific/objective list of behaviors fall into this category, and it was understood by the framers to only applied to 'serious crimes'.  This also appears to be Dershowitz's argument.

Professor Clark Cunningham had an excellent piece in Politico which tries to go over this.  A few good excerpts:

If we examine the specific words of the Constitution—an analysis perhaps more congenial to Republican senators who praise an “original” approach to interpreting the Constitution—no one seems to be asking why the word “misdemeanor” appears in the list of impeachable offenses. The motion to dismiss may collapse if senators ask the Trump team if they are simply misreading 21st century meaning into the Constitution’s 18th century language.
...
The proceedings of the Constitutional Convention strongly indicate that one of the most influential framers of the Constitution, James Madison, understood “misdemeanor” as having a different and broader meaning than criminal acts. In the waning days of the convention, on September 8, 1787, Virginia delegate George Mason moved to add “maladministration” to the existing list of impeachable offenses—at that point, only “Treason or Bribery.” Madison objected that “so vague a term [as maladministration] will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.” Mason responded by withdrawing his motion and substituting “other high crimes and misdemeanors against the state.” Mason’s revised motion passed 8-3, which is how the “high crimes and misdemeanors” language got into to the Constitution.

So this is where the argument comes from:  making the impeachment standard vague means that the President would serve only at the whim of the Senate (aka. the bar is too low).

So as the article explains, Madison moved to change the venue of impeachment from the Senate to the Supreme Court, as he argued that the SC would be a better place to arbitrate 'misdemeanors', and that “for any act which might be called a misdemesnor [sic]”, the president “under these circumstances was made improperly dependent” on the Senate." 

Clearly Madison understood that the 'other high crimes and misdemeanors' could be thought of as more broad that 'pure crimes':

Madison’s statement seems to tell us two things: First, he did not see “misdemeanor” in the amended impeachment clause as a term with well-defined limits, as would be the case if it instead said statutory violations or crimes. Instead Madison suggested that many kinds of acts “might be called” a misdemeanor. Second, Madison saw inclusion of “misdemeanors” in the impeachment clause as giving the Senate greater discretion to remove the president than just the phrase “other High Crimes.” Madison’s motion to move the venue of an impeachment trial from the Senate, where he feared a president’s political opponents could misuse the wide latitude the word “misdemeanor” affords, to an assumed apolitical Supreme Court failed on a 9-2 vote. But the language of what a president can be impeached for remained, leaving the Senate with what Madison considered to be very broad discretion to remove a President for “any act which might be called a misdemeanor.”

So I'm having a hard time accepting this notion that the framers understood impeachment to only apply for specific, high crimes.

Linked in that article is another, which is how impeachment was applied for the first 200 years:

The beauty of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” from the perspective of the men of 1787 was that it provided both flexibility and some measure of guidance. Flexibility because it plainly pointed to the parliamentary practice of defining impeachable conduct on a case-by-case basis. Guidance because it incorporated, by reference, 400 years of prior practice on which one could rely in identifying the kinds and degrees of misbehavior that ought to be impeachable.

Moreover, the founders, both during the ratification period and afterward, identified multiple noncriminal acts they believed to be impeachable. At the Virginia ratifying convention, James Madison and Wilson Nicholas said abuse of the pardon power would be impeachable. Impeachment, some founders said, would also follow from receipt of foreign emoluments or presidential efforts to secure by trickery Senate ratification of a disadvantageous treaty. During the first Congress of 1789, Madison even argued that presidents could be impeached for “wanton removal of meritorious officers.”

In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton made the larger point that impeachment is directed at “political” offenses that “proceed from … the abuse or violation of some public trust.” He was echoed by the foremost of the first generation of commentators on the Constitution, Justice Joseph Story, who observed in his 1833 treatise Commentaries on the Constitution that impeachable conduct is often “purely political,” and that “no previous statute is necessary to authorize an impeachment for any official misconduct.”

So given this, I don't understand why Trump's behavior, even given the context of how such behavior would be interpreted by the founders, is to be simply dismissed. 

 

[pucho812]

trumps behavior is not the norm.  We know this, we have seen it.  He is rude, crude, and not a politician. But with all that, it does not mean illegal activity has happened, it also does not mean corruption and self-interest has taken place. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

I don't understand why Trump's behavior, even given the context of how such behavior would be interpreted by the founders, is to be simply dismissed.

The question is whether impeachment is the appropriate remedy for what(?) behavior?

The will of the people can be satisfied one way or the other in a few months.

===

I don't know if this changes the analysis of founder's intent but the senators used to be appointed directly by the state legislatures so much more strictly answerable to state governments. (changed to direct election by 17th amendment).

  ===
This appears to be another successful test of our well designed government, while of course it over yet.  Good luck to us all.

JR

PS: did anybody notice Brexit ?

 

[Bo Deadly]

JohnRoberts,

Do you believe that Trump was sincerely trying to stop corruption when he asked Zelensky to "do us a favor" and investigate the Bidens?

 

[Gold]

maybe but it is what took place. Sonland said trump was clear that he wanted nothing in return.

Sonaland also said that he didn't believe Trump when he said it.

 

[Recording Engineer]

The will of the people can be satisfied one way or the other in a few months.

In regard to Trump, yes. But from another perspective, at least this whole impeachment process also gives the moderate voters, the ones that don’t vote party lines under absolutely all circumstances, a better view of all the leaders.

Unfortunately, moderates have probably been on steady decline for the last 25 years, lining-up with these massive, you’re either for us or against us party-line opinion media outlets. Trump came around with his media and swamp-dweller attacks, toyed with their feelings by acting as if he’s some hero, and pushed the leftover moderates on either side of the line and got himself elected. His election’s popular vote tells the story.

Should the GOP get their way and not accept further evidence or testimony, and acquittal happens, as has always been expected, it’s going to be interesting to see how all voters react in the coming election and all other types of elections in the foreseeable future.

Some people view this as a positive thing, but I am not. Yes, Trump shook up a broken system and further shows us that we have some critical repairs, but he was the wrong guy for the job and did nothing but open up the floodgates if we don’t show we can’t stop him or the next guy taking advantage of our desire to fix things.

For the the GOP to put blinders on for the sake of politics is most certainly not a good thing. I guess I’m just not trusting there’s enough moderates left anymore to take corrective action. Hopefully this whole thing sparks the beginning of bringing back moderation. However, I’m afraid they’ll get in line, putting the blinders on, following the GOP’s lead.

 

[Recording Engineer]

Sonaland also said that he didn't believe Trump when he said it.

Right, because nobody in their right mind should believe a single thing coming out of Trump’s mouth, ever. Period.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I know that I suck at predicting the future, but I am glad you guys are worse IMO.... (Kind of dark predictions, while the sky is falling never was a happy thought).

Good luck to you and us all...

JR

 

[Recording Engineer]

When everyone around is so black and white, there’s not much color to enjoy.

 

[Recording Engineer]

Oh, one ray of colorful hope for the future is that at least there have been people around Trump who refused go as far as he tried to get them to go. Anyhow, all this couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy. Really though, I think he’s just ill and should have never been allowed to be put in this job. Maybe it says just how ill we are.

 

[Tubetec]

High functioning psycho and carpetbagger all rolled into one 

Carpetbagger:
n. A Northerner who went to the South after the Civil War for political or financial advantage.
n. An outsider, especially a politician, who presumptuously seeks a position or success in a new locality.

 

[boji]

It's still bribery.

To my ears it'd be bribery if money or any other thing of value was exchanged and the payee(s) did what was asked of them as a result. Why they call it 'taking' a bribe, hence the performance requirement.

Many of the things you listed would be shady games of coercion, enticements and emoluments, and in the case of Ukraine, a sprinkling of blackmail. All nonetheless bad/illegal business practices.

 

[Matador]

To my ears it'd be bribery if money or any other thing of value was exchanged and the payee(s) did what was asked of them as a result. Why they call it 'taking' a bribe, hence the performance requirement.

Many of the things you listed would be shady games of coercion, enticements and emoluments, and in the case of Ukraine, a sprinkling of blackmail. All nonetheless bad/illegal business practices.

Just to be clear, the federal bribery statute doesn't require a performance element.

18 U.S. Code § 201(b)(2)(A) - Whoever, 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: being influenced in the performance of any official act;

In other words, merely asking for the thing of value is bribery (as is actually accepting it).  There is also wide precedent that the thing of value doesn't have to be money itself.  For example:

United States v. Renzi, 769 F.3d 731, 744 (9th Cir.2014)
(The term “anything of value” is “defined broadly to include ‘the value which the defendant subjectively attaches to the items received.’ )

 

[JohnRoberts]

High functioning psycho and carpetbagger all rolled into one 

Carpetbagger:
n. A Northerner who went to the South after the Civil War for political or financial advantage.
n. An outsider, especially a politician, who presumptuously seeks a position or success in a new locality.

I new I could count on you guys for creative new insults...

JR

 

[L´Andratté]

From this interview:
https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-spricht-ueber-wikileaks-gruender-julian-assange

via google translate

As a UN special rapporteur on torture and previously as an ICRC delegate, I have seen a lot of terror and violence. How quickly peaceful countries like Yugoslavia or Rwanda can turn into hell. At the root of such developments are always structures of insufficient transparency and uncontrolled political or economic power, combined with the naivety, indifference and manipulability of the population. Suddenly, what happens to everyone else today - unpunished torture, rape, displacement and murder - can just as easily happen to us or our children. And there won't be a rooster crowing afterwards*. I can assure you of that.

*(iow nobody will give a sh*t)

Edit there´s an english version
https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange

 

[Tubetec]

I'd heard the term Carpetbagger before , and while understanding the basics of it from old westerns ,was only yesterday when I wordsearched it I found out the etymology and subtleties of the term , I couldnt resist . 

Definately some interesting details about the US's methodology on trying the likes of Assange in a neighbourhood composed of 85% CIA/NSA/Gov Contractors etc , hardly unbiased is it 

Epstein was liquidated before he could inflict any damage on the system , what sort of 'trump cards' do you think Weinstein  is holding to keep his feet touching deck ?

 

[JohnRoberts]

I'd heard the term Carpetbagger before , and while understanding the basics of it from old westerns ,was only yesterday when I wordsearched it I found out the etymology and subtleties of the term , I couldnt resist . 

Our civil war was of historical interest to us...  (I wrote a report about the battle of Shiloh when I was in the 7th grade, several decades ago). Carpetbaggers was a pejorative description of opportunistic (northern) business men who profited from the chaos after the war.  As a Yankee who moved south several decades ago I find the term especially interesting.  :  I attached a copy of a weekend pass issued to a relative on my mother's side from NC, who participated in the civil war.

Definately some interesting details about the US's methodology on trying the likes of Assange in a neighbourhood composed of 85% CIA/NSA/Gov Contractors etc , hardly unbiased is it 

Epstein was liquidated before he could inflict any damage on the system , what sort of 'trump cards' do you think Weinstein  is holding to keep his feet touching deck ?

There are a lot of conspiracy theories amplified by modern social media as a consequence of the same AI algorithms engineered to increased engagement (aka profit).  I find it hard to buy into many (any?) modern conspiracies.

One joke about Epstein (actually joke is about the Clintons)  is that knowing too much dirt about the Clintons makes people suicidal...    Not my joke but indeed the circumstances surrounding Epstein's death are questionable.

JR

PS: I suspect Epstein's files are still intact being held for leverage by his female co-conspirator (if she has half a brain, and I suspect she does.) 

 

[pucho812]

Epstein was liquidated before he could inflict any damage on the system , what sort of 'trump cards' do you think Weinstein  is holding to keep his feet touching deck ?

Weinstein was the poster child for the Hollywood casting couch and any quid pro quo in hollywood. How bad do you want that acting part in that new film? Nothing I would be proud of and nothing we should celebrate. He is far rom removed for any government dealings and ultimately anything that happens to him should not result in him dying from suicide, he has nothing they need to keep secret.

 

[boji]

18 U.S. Code § 201(b)(2)(A)

Thanks Mattie. 

I think the only reason Trump is in trouble for Ukraine was he was still learning the beltway game which doesn't use cell phones to make such demands-- they use lobbyists to pass around bribes. 

"seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees[/b]"  But there it is, gaping catch-all.  How far back do we have to go where to be judged a criminal one must do a criminal act.  For example, I don't get how a person can be charged with a crime of terrorism if they were, at worst, in the planning stage.  Feels like  'Minority Report' type lawmaking, minus the clairvoyants.

Patriot act is still alive and well, 19 years after 9/11.      A sweeping measure that took nearly all of our privacy away if you believe Snowden. And everyone's ok with it, apparently.  Renewing those orwellian rules made during pannicky times over and over that were supposed to 'sunset' -- that's not corruption.  Trump tho? Omg, he's our peak problem.