Bribery is a loser

[Oddball]

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.
View attachment 289969
Cornell University › law › wex › bri...
Bribery | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Corrupt intent is required.

18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses

U.S. Code § 201.Bribery of public officials and witnesses
(b)Whoever-
(1)directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—

 

[Slade3200]

To assume that past presidents never leveraged foreign aid by placing conditions on the aid is naïve. The state Dept witnesses this week admitted that conditions are routinely placed on aid.

Now the Biden's, there has never been a more clear cut case of a personal conflict of interest IN APPEARANCE at a minimum. State Dept witnesses testified that this should be looked into and that they voiced their concerns at the time. This muddies the water with respect to what favor Trump may have asked Ukraine for.

This wasn't a fishing expedition looking for dirt based on nothing. We have Biden bragging about what he did on video in public. So while this may benefit Trump personally it also benefits the American people and is potentially corruption at the highest levels in government with American tax payer money involved. Patronage, abuse of public office to enrich friends and family. YET DEM'S SEEM COMPLETELY UNINTERESTED in investigating this, talk about your double standards.

Dem's and the idiot fake news have been fomenting the "irregular back channels" talking point for a couple of weeks. Ignoring that even their beloved FDR famously did this. Routinely did end runs around the State Dept and Sec of State engaging foreign leaders directly on foreign policy.

Biden’s actions were mandated by our congress, president and other countries. It’s all documented. Your point is a loser. Find something else

You skipped right over avoiding conflicts of interest even in appearance and the state dept's concerns and recommendation to investigate. Your blatant double standards Biden vs Trump tells me you are not interested in serious discussion.

A fair complaint can be made for the appearance of impropriety. That’s very different than calling Biden a criminal with no evidence of wrong doing

And yet the State Dept is recommending Biden be investigated.

they are? Do you have a link?

 

[Slade3200]

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.
View attachment 289969
Cornell University › law › wex › bri...
Bribery | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Corrupt intent is required.

18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses

U.S. Code § 201.Bribery of public officials and witnesses
(b)Whoever-
(1)directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—

Here’s the problem with that definition:


public official
(1) the term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;
Source
18 USC § 201(a)(1)

 

[BluesLegend]

To assume that past presidents never leveraged foreign aid by placing conditions on the aid is naïve. The state Dept witnesses this week admitted that conditions are routinely placed on aid.

Now the Biden's, there has never been a more clear cut case of a personal conflict of interest IN APPEARANCE at a minimum. State Dept witnesses testified that this should be looked into and that they voiced their concerns at the time. This muddies the water with respect to what favor Trump may have asked Ukraine for.

This wasn't a fishing expedition looking for dirt based on nothing. We have Biden bragging about what he did on video in public. So while this may benefit Trump personally it also benefits the American people and is potentially corruption at the highest levels in government with American tax payer money involved. Patronage, abuse of public office to enrich friends and family. YET DEM'S SEEM COMPLETELY UNINTERESTED in investigating this, talk about your double standards.

Dem's and the idiot fake news have been fomenting the "irregular back channels" talking point for a couple of weeks. Ignoring that even their beloved FDR famously did this. Routinely did end runs around the State Dept and Sec of State engaging foreign leaders directly on foreign policy.

Biden’s actions were mandated by our congress, president and other countries. It’s all documented. Your point is a loser. Find something else

You skipped right over avoiding conflicts of interest even in appearance and the state dept's concerns and recommendation to investigate. Your blatant double standards Biden vs Trump tells me you are not interested in serious discussion.

A fair complaint can be made for the appearance of impropriety. That’s very different than calling Biden a criminal with no evidence of wrong doing

And yet the State Dept is recommending Biden be investigated.

they are? Do you have a link?

You didn't watch the first day of Schiff's show trial when diplomats recommended this? Or are you playing dumb?

 

[Siete]

Biden’s actions were mandated by our congress, president and other countries. It’s all documented. Your point is a loser. Find something else

You skipped right over avoiding conflicts of interest even in appearance and the state dept's concerns and recommendation to investigate. Your blatant double standards Biden vs Trump tells me you are not interested in serious discussion.

A fair complaint can be made for the appearance of impropriety. That’s very different than calling Biden a criminal with no evidence of wrong doing

And yet the State Dept is recommending Biden be investigated.

they are? Do you have a link?

You didn't watch the first day of Schiff's show trial when diplomats recommended this? Or are you playing dumb?

so you dont have a link supporting your bs-

I'M SHOCKED !

 

[BluesLegend]

You skipped right over avoiding conflicts of interest even in appearance and the state dept's concerns and recommendation to investigate. Your blatant double standards Biden vs Trump tells me you are not interested in serious discussion.

A fair complaint can be made for the appearance of impropriety. That’s very different than calling Biden a criminal with no evidence of wrong doing

And yet the State Dept is recommending Biden be investigated.

they are? Do you have a link?

You didn't watch the first day of Schiff's show trial when diplomats recommended this? Or are you playing dumb?

so you dont have a link supporting your bs-

I'M SHOCKED !

Shut up shit for brains.

 

[Slade3200]

Biden’s actions were mandated by our congress, president and other countries. It’s all documented. Your point is a loser. Find something else

You skipped right over avoiding conflicts of interest even in appearance and the state dept's concerns and recommendation to investigate. Your blatant double standards Biden vs Trump tells me you are not interested in serious discussion.

A fair complaint can be made for the appearance of impropriety. That’s very different than calling Biden a criminal with no evidence of wrong doing

and thats why trump wanted a full investigation,,,

sorry but that’s not why he wanted an investigation. If you don’t understand what Trump was doing then you are way more gullible than I thought.

the same can be said about you,,,at least I have more of the facts than you do,,or at least I am willing to see them where you ignore what hurts your view

Exactly what about the narrative I’ve been presenting do you think is false? I’ve asked you this many times and you don’t answer. What have I said that think is not true

 

[Slade3200]

A fair complaint can be made for the appearance of impropriety. That’s very different than calling Biden a criminal with no evidence of wrong doing

And yet the State Dept is recommending Biden be investigated.

they are? Do you have a link?

You didn't watch the first day of Schiff's show trial when diplomats recommended this? Or are you playing dumb?

so you dont have a link supporting your bs-

I'M SHOCKED !

Shut up shit for brains.

You haven’t shown any evidence that the state department is recommending investigation. And if that’s true then why isnt trumps fbi/DOJ investigating?

 

[Slade3200]

Biden’s actions were mandated by our congress, president and other countries. It’s all documented. Your point is a loser. Find something else

You skipped right over avoiding conflicts of interest even in appearance and the state dept's concerns and recommendation to investigate. Your blatant double standards Biden vs Trump tells me you are not interested in serious discussion.

A fair complaint can be made for the appearance of impropriety. That’s very different than calling Biden a criminal with no evidence of wrong doing

And yet the State Dept is recommending Biden be investigated.

they are? Do you have a link?

You didn't watch the first day of Schiff's show trial when diplomats recommended this? Or are you playing dumb?

I watched and the only thing close that I heard was when Kent voiced concerns about Hunter joining the board years ago because of an appearance of a conflict. He then followed that statement by saying that he never saw evidence of anybody doing anything improper or subversive of US policy. If you have e something else to add the. Please do so but I didn’t hear a thing about a current recommendation for an investigation

 

[progressive hunter]

You skipped right over avoiding conflicts of interest even in appearance and the state dept's concerns and recommendation to investigate. Your blatant double standards Biden vs Trump tells me you are not interested in serious discussion.

A fair complaint can be made for the appearance of impropriety. That’s very different than calling Biden a criminal with no evidence of wrong doing

and thats why trump wanted a full investigation,,,

sorry but that’s not why he wanted an investigation. If you don’t understand what Trump was doing then you are way more gullible than I thought.

the same can be said about you,,,at least I have more of the facts than you do,,or at least I am willing to see them where you ignore what hurts your view

Exactly what about the narrative I’ve been presenting do you think is false? I’ve asked you this many times and you don’t answer. What have I said that think is not true

not so much as not true than you are only seeing part of the facts and ignore others that debunk your POV,,,

 

[Siete]

And yet the State Dept is recommending Biden be investigated.

they are? Do you have a link?

You didn't watch the first day of Schiff's show trial when diplomats recommended this? Or are you playing dumb?

so you dont have a link supporting your bs-

I'M SHOCKED !

Shut up shit for brains.

You haven’t shown any evidence that the state department is recommending investigation. And if that’s true then why isnt trumps fbi/DOJ investigating?

its the same state dept that recommended Obamas birth certificate be investigated - you know the one.

 

[progressive hunter]

You skipped right over avoiding conflicts of interest even in appearance and the state dept's concerns and recommendation to investigate. Your blatant double standards Biden vs Trump tells me you are not interested in serious discussion.

A fair complaint can be made for the appearance of impropriety. That’s very different than calling Biden a criminal with no evidence of wrong doing

And yet the State Dept is recommending Biden be investigated.

they are? Do you have a link?

You didn't watch the first day of Schiff's show trial when diplomats recommended this? Or are you playing dumb?

I watched and the only thing close that I heard was when Kent voiced concerns about Hunter joining the board years ago because of an appearance of a conflict. He then followed that statement by saying that he never saw evidence of anybody doing anything improper or subversive of US policy. If you have e something else to add the. Please do so but I didn’t hear a thing about a current recommendation for an investigation

this is what happens when you only look at part of the facts and ignore the rest because it changes your desired outcome,,

here is a link to kent saying yes to an investigation,,,

Democrats' Star Witness Admitted Burisma Should Be Investigated

 

[ph3iron]

They can't quit.

They're the kamikaze pilot who is already in the dive on the target, with the entire plane in flames.....They're going to completely disintegrate and die, in the name of The Party.

Maybe Hillary has some sake in her stash for them.

that sounds more like an emotional hope rather than an educated analysis. The Dems will be fine, they are fueled by hate for Trump and there is plenty... just like Trump has been fueled by his base. He can do no wrong for that 35%. Welcome to team politics

2018 again?

 

[ph3iron]

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.

Nothing like a very small zero college made up mind.
Extortion is fine?
Looked at ivana and Jr ?

 

[progressive hunter]

Rep. Stefanik exposes how Obama State Dept was so concerned about Hunter Biden it prepped Yovanovitch with practice questions…

 

[Siete]

A fair complaint can be made for the appearance of impropriety. That’s very different than calling Biden a criminal with no evidence of wrong doing

And yet the State Dept is recommending Biden be investigated.

they are? Do you have a link?

You didn't watch the first day of Schiff's show trial when diplomats recommended this? Or are you playing dumb?

I watched and the only thing close that I heard was when Kent voiced concerns about Hunter joining the board years ago because of an appearance of a conflict. He then followed that statement by saying that he never saw evidence of anybody doing anything improper or subversive of US policy. If you have e something else to add the. Please do so but I didn’t hear a thing about a current recommendation for an investigation

this is what happens when you only look at part of the facts and ignore the rest because it changes your desired outcome,,

here is a link to kent saying yes to an investigation,,,

Democrats' Star Witness Admitted Burisma Should Be Investigated

ya see, the problem I have with your bs is this -

Trump Was Repeatedly Warned That Ukraine Conspiracy Theory Was ‘Completely Debunked’


BULLSHIT FROM THE GETGO !

THE END.

 

[Slade3200]

A fair complaint can be made for the appearance of impropriety. That’s very different than calling Biden a criminal with no evidence of wrong doing

and thats why trump wanted a full investigation,,,

sorry but that’s not why he wanted an investigation. If you don’t understand what Trump was doing then you are way more gullible than I thought.

the same can be said about you,,,at least I have more of the facts than you do,,or at least I am willing to see them where you ignore what hurts your view

Exactly what about the narrative I’ve been presenting do you think is false? I’ve asked you this many times and you don’t answer. What have I said that think is not true

not so much as not true than you are only seeing part of the facts and ignore others that debunk your POV,,,

did you just say that my points are true but also debunked... how does that work? Can you give an example?

 

[progressive hunter]

and thats why trump wanted a full investigation,,,

sorry but that’s not why he wanted an investigation. If you don’t understand what Trump was doing then you are way more gullible than I thought.

the same can be said about you,,,at least I have more of the facts than you do,,or at least I am willing to see them where you ignore what hurts your view

Exactly what about the narrative I’ve been presenting do you think is false? I’ve asked you this many times and you don’t answer. What have I said that think is not true

not so much as not true than you are only seeing part of the facts and ignore others that debunk your POV,,,

did you just say that my points are true but also debunked... how does that work? Can you give an example?

that they are true to you because you only have part of the facts,,,

 

[Slade3200]

A fair complaint can be made for the appearance of impropriety. That’s very different than calling Biden a criminal with no evidence of wrong doing

And yet the State Dept is recommending Biden be investigated.

they are? Do you have a link?

You didn't watch the first day of Schiff's show trial when diplomats recommended this? Or are you playing dumb?

I watched and the only thing close that I heard was when Kent voiced concerns about Hunter joining the board years ago because of an appearance of a conflict. He then followed that statement by saying that he never saw evidence of anybody doing anything improper or subversive of US policy. If you have e something else to add the. Please do so but I didn’t hear a thing about a current recommendation for an investigation

this is what happens when you only look at part of the facts and ignore the rest because it changes your desired outcome,,

here is a link to kent saying yes to an investigation,,,

Democrats' Star Witness Admitted Burisma Should Be Investigated

That’s an investigation into the CEO of Burisma who was suspected of stealing money... that’s not a Biden investigation. You are twisting the narrative and not being honest. Nice try.

 

[Slade3200]

sorry but that’s not why he wanted an investigation. If you don’t understand what Trump was doing then you are way more gullible than I thought.

the same can be said about you,,,at least I have more of the facts than you do,,or at least I am willing to see them where you ignore what hurts your view

Exactly what about the narrative I’ve been presenting do you think is false? I’ve asked you this many times and you don’t answer. What have I said that think is not true

not so much as not true than you are only seeing part of the facts and ignore others that debunk your POV,,,

did you just say that my points are true but also debunked... how does that work? Can you give an example?

that they are true to you because you only have part of the facts,,,

Well then then point out the facts that I’ve made that you find debunked.