Bribery is a loser

[progressive hunter]

Every president has bribed foreign governments. That’s how it works. Tit for tat. We give them aid they make promises back. We buy policy that we want them to institute

It's true not doubt. However I'm just pointing out that the Constitution doesn't say any type of bribery is okay.

It has been the norm for a long time. I think it's important to see the difference and how that difference makes what Trump was trying to do so insidious and dangerous to the Republic..

I agree... just think this change to bribery is going to confuse things. It smells. Sounds like they are trying to hard to mood it into an impeachable crime, but is not an accurate label. Abuse of office make sense, I would have stuck with that.

Bribery is a specific act of abuse of office.

but thats not what happened here,,,this is about exposing DNC Ukraine collusion not bribery

There is no such thing. Even if there were, there are official channels for doing so.

and POTUS is at the top of those channels,,,not to mention has final responsibility for national security,,,

 

[Thinker101]

Every president has bribed foreign governments. That’s how it works. Tit for tat. We give them aid they make promises back. We buy policy that we want them to institute

It's true not doubt. However I'm just pointing out that the Constitution doesn't say any type of bribery is okay.

It has been the norm for a long time. I think it's important to see the difference and how that difference makes what Trump was trying to do so insidious and dangerous to the Republic..

I agree... just think this change to bribery is going to confuse things. It smells. Sounds like they are trying to hard to mood it into an impeachable crime, but is not an accurate label. Abuse of office make sense, I would have stuck with that.

Bribery is a specific act of abuse of office.

What does this mean?
Your point?

It means, you're pretty damn ignorant.

 

[progressive hunter]

Every president has bribed foreign governments. That’s how it works. Tit for tat. We give them aid they make promises back. We buy policy that we want them to institute

It's true not doubt. However I'm just pointing out that the Constitution doesn't say any type of bribery is okay.

It has been the norm for a long time. I think it's important to see the difference and how that difference makes what Trump was trying to do so insidious and dangerous to the Republic..

I agree... just think this change to bribery is going to confuse things. It smells. Sounds like they are trying to hard to mood it into an impeachable crime, but is not an accurate label. Abuse of office make sense, I would have stuck with that.

Bribery is a specific act of abuse of office.

but thats not what happened here,,,this is about exposing DNC Ukraine collusion not bribery

There is no such thing. Even if there were, there are official channels for doing so.

and there is such a thing that happened because two ukrainians were convicted of doing it,,,

 

[Rustic]

Every president has bribed foreign governments. That’s how it works. Tit for tat. We give them aid they make promises back. We buy policy that we want them to institute

It's true not doubt. However I'm just pointing out that the Constitution doesn't say any type of bribery is okay.

It has been the norm for a long time. I think it's important to see the difference and how that difference makes what Trump was trying to do so insidious and dangerous to the Republic..

I agree... just think this change to bribery is going to confuse things. It smells. Sounds like they are trying to hard to mood it into an impeachable crime, but is not an accurate label. Abuse of office make sense, I would have stuck with that.

Bribery is a specific act of abuse of office.

What does this mean?
Your point?

Your god Obama is/was corrupt to the core... So another words you have no standing on the issue

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It's true not doubt. However I'm just pointing out that the Constitution doesn't say any type of bribery is okay.

It has been the norm for a long time. I think it's important to see the difference and how that difference makes what Trump was trying to do so insidious and dangerous to the Republic..

I agree... just think this change to bribery is going to confuse things. It smells. Sounds like they are trying to hard to mood it into an impeachable crime, but is not an accurate label. Abuse of office make sense, I would have stuck with that.

Bribery is a specific act of abuse of office.

but thats not what happened here,,,this is about exposing DNC Ukraine collusion not bribery

There is no such thing. Even if there were, there are official channels for doing so.

and POTUS is at the top of those channels,,,not to mention has final responsibility for national security,,,

POTUS has no ability or authority to investigate anything. That's what the DOJ is for.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It's true not doubt. However I'm just pointing out that the Constitution doesn't say any type of bribery is okay.

It has been the norm for a long time. I think it's important to see the difference and how that difference makes what Trump was trying to do so insidious and dangerous to the Republic..

I agree... just think this change to bribery is going to confuse things. It smells. Sounds like they are trying to hard to mood it into an impeachable crime, but is not an accurate label. Abuse of office make sense, I would have stuck with that.

Bribery is a specific act of abuse of office.

What does this mean?
Your point?

Your god Obama is/was corrupt to the core... So another words you have no standing on the issue

Is that what that video shows?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It's true not doubt. However I'm just pointing out that the Constitution doesn't say any type of bribery is okay.

It has been the norm for a long time. I think it's important to see the difference and how that difference makes what Trump was trying to do so insidious and dangerous to the Republic..

I agree... just think this change to bribery is going to confuse things. It smells. Sounds like they are trying to hard to mood it into an impeachable crime, but is not an accurate label. Abuse of office make sense, I would have stuck with that.

Bribery is a specific act of abuse of office.

but thats not what happened here,,,this is about exposing DNC Ukraine collusion not bribery

There is no such thing. Even if there were, there are official channels for doing so.

and there is such a thing that happened because two ukrainians were convicted of doing it,,,

So it was already investigated then?

 

[Slade3200]

Maybe the founders didn't want the president to be able to bribe foreign governments either.

Every president has bribed foreign governments. That’s how it works. Tit for tat. We give them aid they make promises back. We buy policy that we want them to institute

It's true not doubt. However I'm just pointing out that the Constitution doesn't say any type of bribery is okay.

It has been the norm for a long time. I think it's important to see the difference and how that difference makes what Trump was trying to do so insidious and dangerous to the Republic..

I agree... just think this change to bribery is going to confuse things. It smells. Sounds like they are trying to hard to mood it into an impeachable crime, but is not an accurate label. Abuse of office make sense, I would have stuck with that.

Bribery is a specific act of abuse of office.

Bribery is a pay for play which happens all the time. It takes the focus off the corruption which is where it should have stayed. The messaging needs to stay simple, this is going to complicate it.

 

[progressive hunter]

I agree... just think this change to bribery is going to confuse things. It smells. Sounds like they are trying to hard to mood it into an impeachable crime, but is not an accurate label. Abuse of office make sense, I would have stuck with that.

Bribery is a specific act of abuse of office.

but thats not what happened here,,,this is about exposing DNC Ukraine collusion not bribery

There is no such thing. Even if there were, there are official channels for doing so.

and there is such a thing that happened because two ukrainians were convicted of doing it,,,

So it was already investigated then?

not by us,,,

 

[Rustic]

lol
...And still no firsthand knowledge

High-level civilian federal employees are corrupt to the core always have been always will be.

 

[progressive hunter]

I agree... just think this change to bribery is going to confuse things. It smells. Sounds like they are trying to hard to mood it into an impeachable crime, but is not an accurate label. Abuse of office make sense, I would have stuck with that.

Bribery is a specific act of abuse of office.

but thats not what happened here,,,this is about exposing DNC Ukraine collusion not bribery

There is no such thing. Even if there were, there are official channels for doing so.

and POTUS is at the top of those channels,,,not to mention has final responsibility for national security,,,

POTUS has no ability or authority to investigate anything. That's what the DOJ is for.

that might be why he brought them into it,,,not to mention that POTUS is in charge of not just the DOJ but the whole fucking country,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Maybe the founders didn't want the president to be able to bribe foreign governments either.

Every president has bribed foreign governments. That’s how it works. Tit for tat. We give them aid they make promises back. We buy policy that we want them to institute

It's true not doubt. However I'm just pointing out that the Constitution doesn't say any type of bribery is okay.

It has been the norm for a long time. I think it's important to see the difference and how that difference makes what Trump was trying to do so insidious and dangerous to the Republic..

I agree... just think this change to bribery is going to confuse things. It smells. Sounds like they are trying to hard to mood it into an impeachable crime, but is not an accurate label. Abuse of office make sense, I would have stuck with that.

Bribery is a specific act of abuse of office.

Bribery is a pay for play which happens all the time. It takes the focus off the corruption which is where it should have stayed. The messaging needs to stay simple, this is going to complicate it.

are you talking about the DNC/ukraine corruption???

 

[Third Party]

I am far from a Trump supporter, however I need to call out yet another misstep from the Democrats. I posted about how Obstruction was a losing argument after the Mueller Report was released and now I see them doing it again with the Bribery claim.

I get that Bribery is in the constitution so they want to draw a simple and direct line with their charges for impeachment but what Trump did and what the context of bribery in the constitution is are two different things. By their definition, politicians and all past presidents commit bribery in the course of their foreign affairs. What Trump did was an abuse of office by dealing for personal gain, that should be the focus, not bribery. What the constitution was trying to protect from was politicians being paid to make policy... of course the lines are blurred with all the lobbying that goes on in Washington, a system that I’d happily like to see reformed, but that’s another story.

Best thing for Dems to do is wrap up the hearings. Get all the facts out with as little hyperbole as possible and then not file for impeachment but rather leave it up to the voters in next years election. Trump is as swampy as they come and he cares more about the fight than the future. I think enough people see that and will vote to end the drama and embarrassment. Let’s not make a martyr out of him by driving this impeachment train off a cliff.

Very adult of you. I see it this way-these are word games. People did not understand collusion, so the dems switched it to conspiracy-did not work. Now they took quid pro quo, people do not understand Latin, so now we have bribery-we'll see if THAT works. The last charge I see is running up the government's phone bill!

Your inability to discern the nuances of the english language does not mean anything "changed". There is no statute regarding a general act of collusion. There is however for the specific act of conspiracy. Simply because a criminal conspiracy could not be shown in no way means there were no acts of collusion.

No inability-I like my assessment better! Dems are dopes!

 

[BlindBoo]

Maybe the founders didn't want the president to be able to bribe foreign governments either.

Every president has bribed foreign governments. That’s how it works. Tit for tat. We give them aid they make promises back. We buy policy that we want them to institute

It's true not doubt. However I'm just pointing out that the Constitution doesn't say any type of bribery is okay.

It has been the norm for a long time. I think it's important to see the difference and how that difference makes what Trump was trying to do so insidious and dangerous to the Republic..

I agree... just think this change to bribery is going to confuse things. It smells. Sounds like they are trying to hard to mood it into an impeachable crime, but is not an accurate label. Abuse of office make sense, I would have stuck with that.

I would have led with it like Ali's left jab, and keep snapping it off, everyday. But that's just me.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Maybe the founders didn't want the president to be able to bribe foreign governments either.

Every president has bribed foreign governments. That’s how it works. Tit for tat. We give them aid they make promises back. We buy policy that we want them to institute

It's true not doubt. However I'm just pointing out that the Constitution doesn't say any type of bribery is okay.

It has been the norm for a long time. I think it's important to see the difference and how that difference makes what Trump was trying to do so insidious and dangerous to the Republic..

I agree... just think this change to bribery is going to confuse things. It smells. Sounds like they are trying to hard to mood it into an impeachable crime, but is not an accurate label. Abuse of office make sense, I would have stuck with that.

Bribery is a specific act of abuse of office.

Bribery is a pay for play which happens all the time. It takes the focus off the corruption which is where it should have stayed. The messaging needs to stay simple, this is going to complicate it.

Bribery is not pay for play. Bribery is bribery.
Pay for play is Trump donors being rewarded with positions in the administration like Sondland and DeVos.

Corrupt intent is simple.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Bribery is a specific act of abuse of office.

but thats not what happened here,,,this is about exposing DNC Ukraine collusion not bribery

There is no such thing. Even if there were, there are official channels for doing so.

and there is such a thing that happened because two ukrainians were convicted of doing it,,,

So it was already investigated then?

not by us,,,

Oh...I see.

 

[progressive hunter]

Every president has bribed foreign governments. That’s how it works. Tit for tat. We give them aid they make promises back. We buy policy that we want them to institute

It's true not doubt. However I'm just pointing out that the Constitution doesn't say any type of bribery is okay.

It has been the norm for a long time. I think it's important to see the difference and how that difference makes what Trump was trying to do so insidious and dangerous to the Republic..

I agree... just think this change to bribery is going to confuse things. It smells. Sounds like they are trying to hard to mood it into an impeachable crime, but is not an accurate label. Abuse of office make sense, I would have stuck with that.

Bribery is a specific act of abuse of office.

Bribery is a pay for play which happens all the time. It takes the focus off the corruption which is where it should have stayed. The messaging needs to stay simple, this is going to complicate it.

Bribery is not pay for play. Bribery is bribery.
Pay for play is Trump donors being rewarded with positions in the administration like Sondland and DeVos.

Corrupt intent is simple.

thankfully bribery isnt an issue here,,,

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I am far from a Trump supporter, however I need to call out yet another misstep from the Democrats. I posted about how Obstruction was a losing argument after the Mueller Report was released and now I see them doing it again with the Bribery claim.

I get that Bribery is in the constitution so they want to draw a simple and direct line with their charges for impeachment but what Trump did and what the context of bribery in the constitution is are two different things. By their definition, politicians and all past presidents commit bribery in the course of their foreign affairs. What Trump did was an abuse of office by dealing for personal gain, that should be the focus, not bribery. What the constitution was trying to protect from was politicians being paid to make policy... of course the lines are blurred with all the lobbying that goes on in Washington, a system that I’d happily like to see reformed, but that’s another story.

Best thing for Dems to do is wrap up the hearings. Get all the facts out with as little hyperbole as possible and then not file for impeachment but rather leave it up to the voters in next years election. Trump is as swampy as they come and he cares more about the fight than the future. I think enough people see that and will vote to end the drama and embarrassment. Let’s not make a martyr out of him by driving this impeachment train off a cliff.

Very adult of you. I see it this way-these are word games. People did not understand collusion, so the dems switched it to conspiracy-did not work. Now they took quid pro quo, people do not understand Latin, so now we have bribery-we'll see if THAT works. The last charge I see is running up the government's phone bill!

Your inability to discern the nuances of the english language does not mean anything "changed". There is no statute regarding a general act of collusion. There is however for the specific act of conspiracy. Simply because a criminal conspiracy could not be shown in no way means there were no acts of collusion.

No inability-I like my assessment better! Dems are dopes!

I'm sure you do. That ignorance is like a warm blanket.

 

[Slade3200]

Every president has bribed foreign governments. That’s how it works. Tit for tat. We give them aid they make promises back. We buy policy that we want them to institute

It's true not doubt. However I'm just pointing out that the Constitution doesn't say any type of bribery is okay.

It has been the norm for a long time. I think it's important to see the difference and how that difference makes what Trump was trying to do so insidious and dangerous to the Republic..

I agree... just think this change to bribery is going to confuse things. It smells. Sounds like they are trying to hard to mood it into an impeachable crime, but is not an accurate label. Abuse of office make sense, I would have stuck with that.

Bribery is a specific act of abuse of office.

Bribery is a pay for play which happens all the time. It takes the focus off the corruption which is where it should have stayed. The messaging needs to stay simple, this is going to complicate it.

Bribery is not pay for play. Bribery is bribery.
Pay for play is Trump donors being rewarded with positions in the administration like Sondland and DeVos.

Corrupt intent is simple.

The legal definition of bribery is as follows... the corrupt intent is not there so the lines are fuzzy

—-

Bribery refers to the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty. ... Solicitation of a bribealso constitutes a crime and is completed regardless of whether the solicitation results in the receipt of a valuable gift.

Cornell University › law › wex › bri...
Bribery | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[jc456]

Sorry that won't cut it. They looked the other way when vp biden was actually involved in corrupt acts with ukraine and son. The hypocrisy is laughable. Trump broke no laws. The lib carnie show will roll on with their hate and emotion. That's all they have.

Biden broke no laws, he was mandated by his president and congress to do exactly what he did. Trump was acting in his own self interest to boost his political campaign. Big difference.

No he wasn't mandated to work favors for his son and extort the prosecutor in Ukraine. Yeah there is a big difference since trump broke no laws so dont expect anyone but the lib carnies to buy this hypocritical bearded lady donkey show.

of course he was. Public knowledge. Had nothing to do with his son... that’s a fake narrative that Trump made up.

correct, it had nothing to do with his son, the son was used to pass money to sleepy Joe. too fking funny, you all don't know how blackmail works.