Bribery
- Thread starter Crazyhole
- Start date
I think that they were trying to keep it simple so that the public could understand. They also didn't add the 10 instances of obstruction of justice in the Mueller report or the foreign emoluments clause (I thought this would be a no brainer).
I was told several times on here that bribery is one of the clear examples laid out in the constitution for impeachment, and that it is clear that trump is guilty of bribery. Why would the house dems not lay it out as clearly as the lefties on this board claimed it was?
No it doesn’t. Bribery is a crime with well defined elements and qualifies under the Constitutional definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. Abuse of power is a purely subjective term with ambiguous attributes that does not constitute a crime and therefore doesn’t fall into the high crimes and misdemeanors.
It was laid out by a couple of progressive law professors that could argue any point and was rebutted by another law professor who could argue any point. There is no precedent for using the concept of abuse of power to remove a POTUS.
There is no precedent for removing a POTUS since it has never actually happened. Are you really arguing impeachment can only happen if there is a precedent? Only 2 presidents have technically been impeached, so there is basically no precedent for impeachment period.
Abuse of power is an umbrella term in which bribery most certainly falls under.
The entire case for the Dems is utterly falling apart, as predicted. What a total sham and waste of time this is.
New polls confirm the American people are sick of this shit already.
New polls confirm the American people are sick of this shit already.
No, what I’m saying is that the bar for impeachment set in the Constitution is high crimes and misdemeanors. If we’re going to ignore that to set precedence, then we should do so very deliberately. Not to influence the 2020 election. I’m also saying that the Democrats goalpost moving is nauseating. Now you’re settling in on some abstract concept and trying to sell that. It’s well past the point where it’s gotten old.
This is correct. The bar for impeachment is being lowered to dramatically here that the Dems will yet against set another pathetic precedent that will further erode the credibility of our government. Much like when Harry Reid acted like a toddler and destroyed the filibuster in the Senate by invoking the nuclear option.
Nobody is settling on an abstract concept, you are honestly arguing semantics. Bribery or a quid pro quo, is an abuse of power and falls under that umbrella. You are basically reading the headline and ignoring the rest of the story. They are saying he abused his power by the use of bribery.
New polling from an outfit that had Trump in massive trouble 2-3 months ago now shows him winning in most every battle ground state thanks to this impeachment debacle.
As the impeachment process heats up in Washington, Donald Trump is seeing a boost in support in crucial swing states. Across the board, President Trump is polling well against the Democratic field in each of these battleground states. Notably, Vice President Biden has seen a sharp decline in support in our surveys as he currently runs behind President Trump in each of the three states.
As the race currently stands, President Trump is in the lead in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in hypothetical match-ups against former Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senator Bernie Sanders, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and former Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Across the three states, Trump’s closest contest is against Joe Biden, although the president leads by an average of 6 percentage points against each Democrat.
Wisconsin was President Trump’s best state in this round of battleground polling. Against almost each of his Democratic challengers, President Trump held a double-digit lead. The president is currently running up nine percentage points against Biden, twelve points against Warren, thirteen points against Sanders, eleven points against Buttigieg, and twelve points against Bloomberg. Among non-partisan voters, Wisconsinites favored President Trump by double digits. For example, against Senator Elizabeth Warren, Trump led by over 18 percentage points among non-partisans.
As the impeachment process heats up in Washington, Donald Trump is seeing a boost in support in crucial swing states. Across the board, President Trump is polling well against the Democratic field in each of these battleground states. Notably, Vice President Biden has seen a sharp decline in support in our surveys as he currently runs behind President Trump in each of the three states.
As the race currently stands, President Trump is in the lead in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in hypothetical match-ups against former Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senator Bernie Sanders, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and former Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Across the three states, Trump’s closest contest is against Joe Biden, although the president leads by an average of 6 percentage points against each Democrat.
Wisconsin was President Trump’s best state in this round of battleground polling. Against almost each of his Democratic challengers, President Trump held a double-digit lead. The president is currently running up nine percentage points against Biden, twelve points against Warren, thirteen points against Sanders, eleven points against Buttigieg, and twelve points against Bloomberg. Among non-partisan voters, Wisconsinites favored President Trump by double digits. For example, against Senator Elizabeth Warren, Trump led by over 18 percentage points among non-partisans.
Yes, they are. They didn’t prove the case for bribery so they’re trying to wave that away saying that it’s a broader abuse of power that is the problem. If they had a bribery charge, that would’ve been sufficient. But because they don’t, they’re trying to group a bunch of behavior into a bigger umbrella and hoping that the volume of “abuses” is enough to sway public opinion.
Dude, they are saying he abused his power by the use of bribery, or quid pro quo, however you wish to refer to it. Obviously, they explain why they think he abused his power, and you don't seen to be acknowledging that part of this.
They quit using quid pro quo because it didn't sell to the focus groups. The impeachment hearings are political for the 2020 election.
Here's a moderate Democrat speaking to CNN anonymously, lamenting the fact that their leaders are killing them back home with this impeachment debacle and then dropping this doozy:
“The fact of the matter is this does have political consequences and the people who will suffer significant political consequences are our moderate members. In fact, there are on-year amounts of money being spent in districts all across our moderates. For our leadership not to engage with moderates at all to either talk about how they are going to message or what they are going to put in it, seems to be a giant oversight,” [one Democratic moderate] said.
Another moderate Democratic member lamented that the information about articles of impeachment are “secondhand.”
“I would say look I am concerned about not knowing what the articles will have in them. I am concerned about the timeline of this whole impeachment process. For me, right now, I am struggling to see how the evidence supports impeachment at this point,” the member said on the condition of background in order to speak freely about internal discussions.
“The fact of the matter is this does have political consequences and the people who will suffer significant political consequences are our moderate members. In fact, there are on-year amounts of money being spent in districts all across our moderates. For our leadership not to engage with moderates at all to either talk about how they are going to message or what they are going to put in it, seems to be a giant oversight,” [one Democratic moderate] said.
Another moderate Democratic member lamented that the information about articles of impeachment are “secondhand.”
“I would say look I am concerned about not knowing what the articles will have in them. I am concerned about the timeline of this whole impeachment process. For me, right now, I am struggling to see how the evidence supports impeachment at this point,” the member said on the condition of background in order to speak freely about internal discussions.
If you look at articles of impeachment for past presidents is pretty much exactly in line with what Trump has done and in many cases Trump has done much worse.
Bingo. They aren't even pursuing what the originally obsessed over. They went all in on this, they now realized it's a mistake, but they have to put something forward since they'll look like dolts to their fringe base if they don't impeach Trump over something.
Meanwhile there's an election in 11 months. They could just win that and remove Trump but meh.
Then why is it specifically delineated in the constitution? Is this another example of how the constitution was intentionally vague in its drafting? Seems to me that the members of this board felt like it was a cut and dried concept and that Trump was clearly guilty of something that is mentioned specifically as a reason for impeachment. Odd that house democrats disagree on that concept.
We get it, y'all love Donald Trump. It doesn't change the fact that he unilaterally withheld congressional approved funding paid for out of our taxes, intended for a nation that is at war with Russia, that is a strategic partner of not just the United States but the free world, to try to gain leverage for an announcement of a political investigation against his main election rival in 2020.
In one action he:
Helped Russia
Harmed Ukraine
Harmed the EU
Ignored congress
Signaled to the world that interfering in our elections in his favor will be rewarded
Abused his power to gain advantage in an election.
Then he spent months doing everything he could to obstruct an investigation into his actions.
If you think that's OK then you're bad for America. Almost every single maga hat on this board was incredibly frothed up when they though Obama ordered the investigation of Trump for political reasons (and you were all wrong according to the IG) but you don't care when Trump does it in plain sight.
In one action he:
Helped Russia
Harmed Ukraine
Harmed the EU
Ignored congress
Signaled to the world that interfering in our elections in his favor will be rewarded
Abused his power to gain advantage in an election.
Then he spent months doing everything he could to obstruct an investigation into his actions.
If you think that's OK then you're bad for America. Almost every single maga hat on this board was incredibly frothed up when they though Obama ordered the investigation of Trump for political reasons (and you were all wrong according to the IG) but you don't care when Trump does it in plain sight.
The constitution gives Congress both the responsibility to oversee the executive branch and subpoena power, Trump ignored it. I guess that's a scenario where you believe "how the constitution was intentionally vague in its drafting?"
Now we've heard it all. Trump "helped Russia" by temporarily withholding arms and aid that contained lethal arms designed to kill Russians, the same lethal aid that Barack Obama stonewalled during his entire Presidency as the Russians marched into and through eastern Ukraine.
But it's Trump who "helped Russia".
But it's Trump who "helped Russia".
Other than the last paragraph, this is a much more well thought out formula for impeachment and it would resonate with voters. If democrat leadership hadn't been so focused on optics and messaging they could have had a really good shot at winning over the minds of the voters on this.
This is the exact messaging everyone paying attention to normal people news and not having their information curated by the state got. I'm sorry if you're hearing this for the first time but maybe you need to self evaluate where you get your information from.
I was poking at cubs with the intentionally vague comment. As far as Congress's ability to subpoena, they could have gone to court to force anybody they want to testify, including trumps cabinet. They weren't powerless here. Instead of doing that, they subpoenaed phone records for reporters and opposition members. Why go to the trouble of getting a subpoena for john solomon but not for john Bolton? He said he would testify if compelled.
Actually he said he would sue and tie it up in court.
And? The executive branch has as much authority to defend itself in court as does the legislative branch. The reason for Schiff not pursuing it was because it is a long established precedent that the president has executive privilege. The court, if sufficient evidence was provided, would side with congress and could enforce subpoenas but obviously they didn't feel that enough evidence was present to make that case.
I reject that there was clear and convincing evidence that met the federal criteria for bribery. I reject that the Democrat inquiry proved that Trump intended there to be a quid pro quo and then received one. I reject that fact witnesses were speculating on Trump’s intentions and that got bandied around as fact. As does most of the public.
So, when the components of your umbrella are unproven, you can’t just claim the whole umbrella is proven. It doesn’t work that way. So, yes, I reject that latest line of attack. You seem to have no problem building a house on a sand foundation. But that is not the way our system is supposed to work. Prof. Turley called them out on it. Just because you ascribe to Prof. Karlan who has been trying to put forth an impeachment argument since well before Ukraine and another Prof who worked with and for Democrat leadership, that doesn’t make their opinions fact. So, no, I’m not buying the latest partisan democrat effort to use Congress to influence the 2020 election.
Last edited:
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
How terrible does polling look for vulnerable D's now that their party has embarrassed themselves with this debacle? This bad. Bad enough that almost 1/4 of Senate D's and quietly reaching out to House Republicans, seeing if they'd be willing to pass a censure instead of impeachment, so the Senate D's can demand that Pelosi and her band of nitwits drop the final vote all together and spare them of having this nonsense drag on in the Senate. Oh man.
Politico:
Those Democrats, all representing districts that Trump won in 2016, huddled on Monday afternoon in an 11th-hour bid to weigh additional — though unlikely — options to punish the president for his role in the Ukraine scandal as the House speeds toward an impeachment vote next week.
The group of about 10 members included Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), Anthony Brindisi (D-N.Y.), and Ben McAdams (D-Utah.)…
The Trump-district Democrats say they are increasingly worried that a lengthy Senate trial — which could stretch into the spring — will result in an even more polarizing 2020 campaign.
Some of the Democrats involved have quietly reached out to centrist House Republicans in recent days to see whether they would be willing to censure Trump, according to multiple lawmakers, including in conversations on the House floor.
Nobody was expecting you to buy it, you realize that right? Even Trump knows he has his base and could shoot someone on 5th avenue and they wouldn't care. And yes, I know I know, you aren't his base even though you pretty much support everything he does, or whatever.
47 out of 73 IGs accused the Obama administration of obstruction of justice. Why didn't Nancy Pelosi support impeachment charges against him? When congress was investigating fast and furious, Obama blocked testimony. When congress was investigating the Iran cash drop, Obama blocked testimony. Is this whataboitism? Yep. Is it consistent with precedent that had been set laying out executive privilege? Yep.
If democrats vote in favor of the impeachment article for obstruction then it should be obvious that this whole thing is only political in nature.
If democrats vote in favor of the impeachment article for obstruction then it should be obvious that this whole thing is only political in nature.
