Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ridgerunner said:
No it isn’t. Cite the statute.
Click to expand...
This is the extreme Dershowitz Alaska defense, that makes the President accountable to no one during the term of office.

Please, please read the beautiful article by Professor Nikolas Bowie that destroys this totally dangerous idea.
40.png
Alan Dershowitz admits Trump's actions toward Ukraine will affect his DECISION ON WHO TO VOTE FOR IN 2020: 'I'M A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT' World News
President Trump’s defense falls apart for precisely the same reason. As with burglary, American legal treatises and judicial opinions have long recognized the criminal offense of “abuse of power,” sometimes called “misconduct in office.” In 1846, the first edition of the pre-eminent treatise on American criminal law defined this common-law offense as when “a public officer, entrusted with definite powers to be exercised for the benefit of the community, wickedly abuses or fraudulently exceeds t…
Click to expand...
 
Ridgerunner said:
No it isn’t. Cite the statute.
Click to expand...
Don’t proof-text me.

It’s extortion.
Ridgerunner said:
Not it isn’t. No investigation was ever had.
Click to expand...
And there has never been an investigation into the tooth fairy. I wonder how we know it isn’t true. Well, we can explore all the available evidence, especially that which is closest in time to the action. There was no controversy. Shokin was corrupt and a lot of people (US, EU, IMF, anti-corruption Ukrainians) that wanted him gone.
 
drcube said:
Shokin was corrupt and a lot of people (US, EU, IMF, anti-corruption Ukrainians) that wanted him gone.
Click to expand...
There were a lot of people who wanted him gone; particularly the anti-nationalists. But he has been charged with nothing, anywhere.
 
Ridgerunner said:
There were a lot of people who wanted him gone; particularly the anti-nationalists. But he has been charged with nothing, anywhere.
Click to expand...
And you keep saying that as if it is meaningful in a country suffering from a high level of corruption.
 
Obama is the executive branch.
And you keep saying quote the statute.
How many statutes existed as Federal crimes when the founders signed the Constitution? Let me help you. ZERO! How could they intend something that didn’t exist? Please don’t try to say how. It would be a train wreck
 
EricF said:
If Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump are the gold standard of what constitutes a “Republican” then I don’t want to be one anymore.
Click to expand...
The alternatives are Pelosi, Schiff, Schumer and Nadler as the “gold standard” for what constitutes “Democrat.” Or AOC, Omar, Tlaib, Biden, Sanders, Booker, Harris, Hollywood celebrities, Northam, etc., etc. 🥴

I would challenge you to listen to a couple of libertarian Democrats (Richard Epstein and John Yoo) discussing impeachment and why it is such a horrible exercise for the entire country.


Epstein, explicitly, makes the case that McConnell handled it (pre-trial in the Senate, since the discussion occurred Jan 15, 2020) correctly and the Democrats blew it. Both would say what Trump did was not impeachable (although not a good thing) and that putting the country through the process is far worse than what Trump could be accused of.
 
Last edited:
drcube said:
It’s extortion.
Click to expand...
It’s actually not. Read what extortion actually says in criminal code. There’s a reason why it wasn’t charged in the Articles, because it’s not extortion and because quid pro quo (if you think it’s that) is not illegal.

18 U.S. Code § 872 - Extortion by officers or employees of the United States | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute - click on the word “extortion” for a pop up legal of when when considered extortion.
 
Last edited:
mrad25 said:
It’s actually not. Read what extortion actually says in criminal code. There’s a reason why it wasn’t charged in the Articles, because it’s not extortion and because quid pro quo (if you think it’s that) is not illegal.

18 U.S. Code § 872 - Extortion by officers or employees of the United States | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute - click on the word “extortion” for a pop up legal of when when considered extortion.
Click to expand...
Some think it’s bribery, I think it’s extortion. You are misreading criminal code if you think it’s neither.
 
It is neither at no time in his call did President Trump ever even mention JB Never did he once offer Zalensky an ultimatum
Never did Zakensky ever once go public with exposing JB and he received the promised funds
Again this has all been just a projection of JB actions and the Dems desperate attempts to place the focus on Trump
 
It’s not me misreading criminal code. Again the legal definition of what extortion is and when it’s existent

www.law.cornell.edu

18 U.S. Code § 872 - Extortion by officers or employees of the United States

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

18 U.S. Code § 872.Extortion by officers or employees of the United States​

" extortion

(2) Definitions .— For purposes of this subsection— (A) the term “assault with intent to commit rape” means an offense that has as its elements engaging in physical contact with another person or using or brandishing a weapon against another person with intent to commit aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse (as described in sections 2241 and 2242 ); (B) the term “arson” means an offense that has as its elements maliciously damaging or destroying any building, inhabited structure, vehicle, vessel, or real property by means of fire or an explosive; (C) the term “extortion” means an offense that has as its elements the extraction of anything of value from another person by threatening or placing that person in fear of injury to any person or kidnapping of any person; (D) the term “firearms use” means an offense that has as its elements those described in section 924(c) or 929(a), if the firearm was brandished, discharged, or otherwise used as a weapon and the crime of violence or drug trafficking crime during and relation to which the firearm was used was subject to prosecution in a court of the United States or a court of a State, or both; (E) the term “kidnapping” means an offense that has as its elements the abduction, restraining, confining, or carrying away of another person by force or threat of force; (F) the term “serious violent felony” means— (i) a Federal or State offense, by whatever designation and wherever committed, consisting of murder (as described in section 1111 ); manslaughter other than involuntary manslaughter (as described in section 1112); assault with intent to commit murder (as described in section 113(a)); assault with intent to commit rape; aggravated sexual abuse and sexual abuse (as described in sections 2241 and 2242); abusive sexual contact (as described in sections 2244(a)(1) and (a)(2)); kidnapping; aircraft piracy (as described in section 46502 of Title 49 ); robbery (as described in section 2111, 2113, or 2118); carjacking (as described in section 2119); extortion; arson; firearms use; firearms possession (as described in section 924(c)); or attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit any of the above offenses; and (ii) any other offense punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another or that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person of another may be used in the course of committing the offense; (G) the term “State” means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and a commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States;and
 
Last edited:
(H) the term “serious drug offense” means— (i) an offense that is punishable under section 401(b)(1)(A) or 408 of the Controlled Substances Act ( 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A) , 848) or section 1010(b)(1)(A) of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act ( 21 U.S.C. 960(b)(1)(A) ); or (ii) an offense under State law that, had the offense been prosecuted in a court of the United States, would have been punishable under section 401(b)(1)(A) or 408 of the Controlled Substances Act ( 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A) , 848) or section 1010(b)(1)(A) of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act ( 21 U.S.C. 960(b)(1)(A) )."

Similarly the same under here: 18 U.S. Code § 878 - Threats and extortion against foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute - 18 U.S. Code § 878.Threats and extortion against foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons
 
Last edited:
And somehow you don’t think that Trump wanting a fake Ukrainian investigation in exchange for releasing money doesn’t qualify as “the extraction of anything of value (an investigation into his political enemies) from another person by threatening or placing that person in fear of injury (withholding money needed to protect his country from Russia)”.
 
drcube said:
And somehow you don’t think that Trump wanting a fake Ukrainian investigation in exchange for releasing money doesn’t qualify as “the extraction of anything of value (an investigation into his political enemies) from another person by threatening or placing that person in fear of injury (withholding money needed to protect his country from Russia)”.
Click to expand...
1 Not Fake. 2 No pressure per Russian President, aid released before obligated. 3 Not extortion under legal definition, and House Dems know that.
 
Last edited:
mrad25 said:
1 Not Fake. 2 No pressure per Russian President, aid released before obligated. 3 Not extortion under legal definition, and House Dems know that.
Click to expand...
  1. Most definitely fake
  2. It’s good that the Russian president was ok with withholding aid to the Ukraine.
  3. Yep, very much is.
 
drcube said:
  • Most definitely fake
  • It’s good that the Russian president was ok with withholding aid to the Ukraine.
  • Yep, very much is.
Click to expand...
  1. Not fake, was investigated in the past.
  2. The Ukraine President I think you mean.
  3. Maybe under your own contrived legal definition it is, but it isn’t under the US criminal code’s, which is the one that matters, it isn’t.
 
Last edited:
mrad25 said:
  • Not fake, was investigated in the past.
  • The Ukraine President I think you mean.
  • Maybe under your own contrived legal definition it is, but it isn’t under the US criminal code’s, which is the one that matters, it isn’t.
Click to expand...
  1. Quite fake
  2. You said Russian President, not me.
  3. It’s right there in the code.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top