8 Nov 2019 3:50 pm
That's not a **** talking point you imbecile.Termin8tor » 08 Nov 2019 2:15 pm » wrote:There's the latest Official Democrat Talking Point Lie, which she claims she NEVER tells.Misty » 08 Nov 2019 2:09 pm » wrote:Bribery as mentioned in the Constitution was understood by the Founders as an officeholder’s abuse of the power of an office to obtain a private benefit rather than for the public interest.
And it is an impeachable offense.
First of all, the Justice Dep't under Barr is totally corrupt.Termin8tor » 08 Nov 2019 2:15 pm » wrote:Except that the pertinent legal office of the Justice Dept. examined the conversation and determined that zero crimes were committed.
And secondly you do NOT have to violate any specific statute to be impeached.
I have told you that many times, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in to your thick skull.
Maybe Lindsey Graham can make you understand.
There were no bribery statutes when the Constitution was written, yet the Constitution lists "Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" as impeachable offenses.
And one more thing........This was not just about the one phone call, so stop pretending that it was.As former Justice Department lawyer Ben Berwick argues, “the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors can’t be limited by statutes” since, until the mid-20th century, criminal law “followed the common law model” and the “same goes for bribery,” since “there was no general federal bribery statute at all until 1853.”
There’s not much logic, then, to invoking contemporary laws to resolve whether the president’s conduct is impeachable, when the conduct fits within an impeachable offense already spelled out in the Constitution’s text.
[....]
The Founders had no intent of tying the constitutional definition of bribery to federal criminal statutory law.
On the most basic level, no federal criminal code existed at the time that the Constitution was drafted.
Beyond that, the Framers had no reason to believe that Congress would enact federal criminal statutes in the future.
As Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz explain in their comprehensive book on impeachment, “To End a Presidency,” criminal law was understood to be the province of the states, and there was very little federal criminal law at all until the mid-20th century.
To the extent there was federal criminal law, it followed the common law model.
That is why the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors can’t be limited by federal statutes.
The same goes for bribery—as there was no general federal bribery statute at all until 1853.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/constitution-says-bribery-impeachable-what-does-mean
There was an ongoing campaign, by Trump, Giuliani and his two buddies Lev and Igor, Sondland and others to pressure the Ukrainian president to open investigations that would benefit Trump politically in exchange for the military aid that was approved by Congress, which Trump was withholding.
That is what all the career diplomats have been testifying about, but of course you won't read any of their testimony as you always prefer to remain willfully ignorant.