Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aquinas11 said:
40.png
drcube:
The articles of impeachment talk about bribery
Click to expand...
🤣

“talk about” Bribery
Click to expand...
From my reading they often (134 times) talk about “Bribery,” as in…
An equally capacious view applies to the impeachable offense of “Bribery.” Applying the constitutional definition of “Bribery” here, there can be little doubt that it is satisfied.
Click to expand...
Scare quotes (also called shudder quotes , sneer quotes , and quibble marks) are used liberally around the word bribery in the articles. Schiff must be trying hard to “scare” the president by representing bribery as “Bribery,” whatever that is.

It is interesting, though, that according to the salient description of “Bribery” (scare, shudder, sneer, and quibble) in the articles…
Starting with the federal anti-bribery statute, criminal bribery occurs when a public official (1)
“demands [or] seeks” (2) “anything of value personally,” (3) “in return for being influenced in the
performance of any official act.” Additionally, the public official must carry out these actions (4)
“corruptly.” (p.121)
Click to expand...
The “four statutory elements” apply in spades to Joe Biden who 1) “demanded” for 2) personal value 3) in return for US aid in a 4) corrupt manner.

Unlike with Biden who targeted a victim (Shokin), Schiff has conveniently have left out who it was who was victimized by Trump’s apparent attempt at “Bribery.” Crimes (like criminal bribery) require a victim, none are named.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
Scare quotes (also called shudder quotes , sneer quotes , and quibble marks) are used liberally around the word bribery in the articles. Schiff must be trying hard to “scare” the president by representing bribery as “Bribery,” whatever that is.
Click to expand...
If you read the document, you’ll see the quotes are because they have just finished an extensive discussion of the differences between different kinds of “bribery” (e.g. criminal, impeachable)
 
JapaneseKappa said:
The FBI and CIA have both indicated that this is not the case, and that the story has been promoted by Russian disinformation campaigns:
Click to expand...
Have you been watching what the FBI was doing and the CIA for the last four years? Before the last election and you think there might not be another point of view? Just to say it’s Russian disinformation without checking into it would be silly for a serious person… like Hilary did nothing illegal, nothing to see here. Loretta Lynch did nothing illegal (or unseemly on the tarmac) nothing to see there… or who was that woman at the the Income Tax Department (Lois Learner) who targeted conservatives??? Nothing to see there, said then President BO… I guess you don’t believe there have been bad actors that have lied to the American people about what they were doing and we should just accept it blindly like good little stooges… you approve of the “deep state” because they must be singing a song you like…
 
Judge not, lest you be judged. You crossed off a lot of qualities that conservatives hold dear…
 
Aquinas11 said:
Wow!! Another post pointing out how Dems dropped the ball on this by not including Bribery Article!!
Click to expand...
Wow. Read the actual articles of impeachment.
petra22 said:
Thank you for saying this but those opposed to President Trump won’t listen or read it. They won’t accept it, they are too stuck on the story made up by AS…
Click to expand...
Naw, we just can see the falsehoods in the post.
petra22 said:
Dr. Cube if you are considering the President’s enemies as those on the Dem side who conspired to trash DT and set up an unlawful intervention into the 2016 election that should NEVER HAPPEN TO ANY PRESIDENT, then yes he did ask for investigation into the part Ukraine could have played… if it involved Joe Biden, then that’s on Joe Biden…
Click to expand...
62 word sentence. Impressive. And a bunch of falsehoods.
 
JapaneseKappa said:
40.png
petra22:
Judge not, lest you be judged. You crossed off a lot of qualities that conservatives hold dear…
Click to expand...
Feel free to click on the links and see that each is well evidenced.
Click to expand...
“Well-evidenced” means there are certain standards for that evidence. Kind of like…

It is interesting that Joe Biden’s campaign has issued a directive to journalists regarding how they should treat the Burisma affair.
According to the Associated Press, it’s “incorrect to say that Biden, now a 2020 Democratic
presidential candidate, pressed to have the prosecutor fired while the prosecutor was
investigating Burisma, the energy company in Ukraine where Biden’s son Hunter sat on the
board of directors. In fact, by the time Biden came out against the prosecutor [March 2016], the investigation into the company was dormant. Biden, among other international officials, was pressing for a more aggressive investigation of corruption in Ukraine, not a softer one.”
The Washington Post’s Fact Checker has also weighed in on this many times: “The prosecutor
general, Viktor Shokin, let that investigation and others go dormant, and the United States and
its allies decided he was not effective in his job and in fact let corruption flourish.”
DocumentCloud
Click to expand...
The “dormant” claim is evidentially untrue, and Joe knows it. He claimed the case was dormant when he threatened in March 2016 to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid. However, Burisma’s own American lawyer, John Buretta, claims the Burisma case was not concluded until Sept 2016.

In September 2016, the Pechersk District Court of the City of Kyiv concluded that no criminal procedures should be taken against Mr. Zlochevskyi. In other words, the Pechersk District Court reached the same conclusion as the U.K. Central Criminal Court.

Attorney John Buretta: In the case of Burisma and Zlochevskiy I met with Prosecutor General Yury Lutsenko | Ukrainian news

The irony here is in the statement that…
“The prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, let that investigation and others go dormant, and the United States and its allies decided he was not effective in his job and in fact let corruption flourish.”

Perhaps, letting the corruption flourish is coded language for Shokin letting the corruption at Burisma flourish by being “not effective” after he was fired because of Biden’s “Bribery.”
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
“Well-evidenced” means there are certain standards for that evidence. Kind of like…

It is interesting that Joe Biden’s campaign has issued a directive to journalists regarding how they should treat the Burisma affair.
According to the Associated Press, it’s “incorrect to say that Biden, now a 2020 Democratic
presidential candidate, pressed to have the prosecutor fired while the prosecutor was
investigating Burisma, the energy company in Ukraine where Biden’s son Hunter sat on the
board of directors. In fact, by the time Biden came out against the prosecutor [March 2016], the investigation into the company was dormant. Biden, among other international officials, was pressing for a more aggressive investigation of corruption in Ukraine, not a softer one.”
The Washington Post’s Fact Checker has also weighed in on this many times: “The prosecutor
general, Viktor Shokin, let that investigation and others go dormant, and the United States and
its allies decided he was not effective in his job and in fact let corruption flourish.”
DocumentCloud
Click to expand...
And this comes in the very same thread where you challenge me that I am somehow wrong when I say that some are vastly underestimating how many people get their ‘news’ from propaganda sources and come on sites like this and Facebook to defend the indefensible.
Click to expand...
 
drcube said:
And this comes in the very same thread where you challenge me that I am somehow wrong when I say that some are vastly underestimating how many people get their ‘news’ from propaganda sources and come on sites like this and Facebook to defend the indefensible.
Click to expand...
Missing your point here.

Are you claiming that a Team Biden Memo and the statement of Burisma’s own lawyer are ‘news’ from propaganda sources?

So are you admitting that Biden’s campaign memos ought not be considered truthful, or that lawyers are untrustworthy? Both?
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
Missing your point here.

Are you claiming that a Team Biden Memo and the statement of Burisma’s own lawyer are ‘news’ from propaganda sources?

So you are admitting that Biden’s campaign memos ought not be considered truthful, or that lawyers are untrustworthy? Both?
Click to expand...
No, I am claiming that Biden stated pretty clearly what happened, but you added in some commentary at the end of your post worthy of the conspiracy theories one might find from a propaganda source and repeated it here.
 
drcube said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Missing your point here.

Are you claiming that a Team Biden Memo and the statement of Burisma’s own lawyer are ‘news’ from propaganda sources?

So you are admitting that Biden’s campaign memos ought not be considered truthful, or that lawyers are untrustworthy? Both?
Click to expand...
No, I am claiming that Biden stated pretty clearly what happened, but you added in some commentary at the end of your post worthy of the conspiracy theories one might find from a propaganda source and repeated it here.
Click to expand...
So Burisma’s lawyer admitting that the criminal case was not concluded until Sept 2016 – contrary to Biden’s memo – is spouting “propaganda.”

Funny, we would suppose that Burisma’s lawyer if he was good at propaganda would spout stuff that agrees with the “narrative” that looks good for the Biden’s. Somehow he didn’t get the memo.

Oh, wait…

…now I get you. You are claiming that Ukraine News is the propaganda source and are likely spreading false information by misrepresenting Burisma’s lawyer.

AND you are claiming that without any evidence to support that, merely that it doesn’t align with what you believe. So it isn’t evidence that is required from you, just your assertion or determination – without evidence – as to which outlet is propaganda and which is accurate? I see. You don’t need evidence, but everyone else does.
 
Last edited:
JapaneseKappa said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Scare quotes (also called shudder quotes , sneer quotes , and quibble marks) are used liberally around the word bribery in the articles. Schiff must be trying hard to “scare” the president by representing bribery as “Bribery,” whatever that is.
Click to expand...
If you read the document, you’ll see the quotes are because they have just finished an extensive discussion of the differences between different kinds of “bribery” (e.g. criminal, impeachable)
Click to expand...
So “bribery” that is not criminal is still impeachable? Is that your point?

So if I “bribe” my cat with a treat, [i.e., a “bribery” that isn’t criminal] I ought to be impeached as a pet owner guardian vassal servant caregiver.

I see. 😉
 
Last edited:
Trumpism is often described as a cult.
Your ," worship people," idea is a minority position
 
Trump predictions? I only have a few.
He will continue to taunt, bully, and call people names.
I will look negatively on this. Trump people will act as if it is a virtue.
He will continue to feel entitled to seek foreign help in elections. I will view this via the history of our nation and violation of law.
Trump people will consider this OK , because it serves the greater good of Trump. A mindset consistent with a King rather than a public servant subject to law. The nation requires me to be unyielding on this point if we expect to hold onto the Republic.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
Trump predictions? I only have a few.
Click to expand...
No, a ton of wrong past predictions

Losing to Hillary
Not winning GOP nomination
Impeached for Comey firing
Impeached for Mueller report
Impeached for shole countries remark
Impeached for Putin meeting
Impeached for separating kids/families
Etc
Etc

When someone is wrong repeatedly on a certain subject, only a fool listens to them
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top