Well... we don’t know that but I’ll give you it looks pretty strange. And, I’d guess you’re one who’d afford people due process right? At least in a criminal trial. And to use your analogy, it would seem that Sec. Perry ‘used’ his influence to gain a contract for a ‘friend’ and political contributor so I guess he should also be investigated. Right?

If Biden did that it should be an investigation undertaken by the Justice Dept not used as a attempted bribe by the POTUS for the purpose of gaining political leverage over an opponent.

 

Says who? What law was broken?

 

The Federal Bribery Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b) for one.

 

I don't accept the premise that a person has to look the other way when someone committed a crime because they're a political opponent. I don't see bribery sticking. If Biden and his son have committed crimes, asking for help from the country where the crimes were committed seems perfectly acceptable, even if they have to be prodded a bit.

Regardless, you failed to answer either of my direct questions.

 

Let me ask it a different way. Let's say Jeffrey Epstein (who didn't hang himself) was vying for the democrat presidential nomination and he has a place in England where he does his nasty things. All the democrats are looking the other way with respect to Epstein's pedopheilia because he's the front runner. Are you saying it's not okay for Republican President Trump to ask the Brits for help to prevent this theoretical Epstein from becoming POTUS because he's a democrat?

 

I hope you shared this ironically...

 

What exactly was bribed? Did trump try to influence an official act of Ukraine? Did Trump ask him to perform fraud? Did Trump ask him to break a law? If so, what exactly was offered?

Is gaining potential political leverage over a potential opponent against the law, or named in Federal Bribery Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)?

Is threatening Tariffs or Sanctions a bribe?

 

Based upon evidence available, it does seem so.

 

what actual evidence? And is asking another country to investigate a possible crime/corruption an official act? and is it even bribery when the other country was happy to do it, and didn't know he was being "bribed" and nothing was gained/exchanged, and other countries were also being "bribed" at the exact same time, and there's zero evidence of bribery?

 

When Putin foresees impeachment so he pushes up the timeline.
"

TRUMP SAID U.S. IS 'GETTING RAPED' BY NATO, HAS PUSHED TO EXIT ALLIANCE ACCORDING TO WHITE HOUSE INSIDER"

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-said-...nsider-1473434

 

The testimony of several people who were first-hand witnesses to the events in question.



Your post is the first time I've heard the word "bribery" in this context.

Which is interesting, because I don't think that anyone has alleged bribery. Defending against an accusation which no one has made?

That strategy actually kind of makes sense. Projecting forward, I assume that the Republican party are at this point fabricating nonsensical allegations against which they can easily defend themselves. If they can reasonably prove that they did not conspire with Martians to protect Jesus from being murdered by the Mole People, that will create a great deal of confusion as the Democrats hunker down and try to figure out whether they ever accused the President of being involved in that situation.

 

Joe, are you referring to the original Superman black and white TV series with the beings that came out of the oil derrick that could shoot a hole through your body? OMG, that was the first show that scared the **** outta me. I was probably seven or eight.

 

I believe in the context of the Constitution "bribery" has nothing to do with the President bribing another country to do something. It is focused on the President being bribed to betray the United States for personal gain. Constitutional lawyers will shove this bribery thing back up Shiff's rectum.

 

No ****. Bribing countries is an American pastime.

 

So none. Not one witness had testified with first hand knowledge of any bribery.

Uh, the Democrats polled quid pro and decided to use term bribery instead.

you have clearly not followed this dog and pony show whatsoever.

 

An interesting read on the subject of ‘The Constitution Says ‘Bribery’ Is Impeachable. What Does That Mean?’

I’m quite sure there are “Constitutional Lawyers” that’d argue both sides so I’d be interested in reading a like minded article from the opposing view. I found today’s Dilbert (11/24/19) strip to be apropos.

 

That is correct. I honestly have neither the time nor the interest to really follow this soap opera in a meaningful way. There are more important things to do, such as positively contributing to the US GDP, and making fun of evangelical anti-vaxers.

 

Yall enjoy your consensual rapes?

 

here's a timeline for you:


Roger Stone in 2017: Soros has planted a mole infiltrating the national security apparatus - a woman named Fiona Hill.

 

So, a former member of the Trump campaign has been convicted of crimes he committed during and in relation to that campaign.

I think we all knew this already.

How is it relevant that, as part of his criminal conduct, he created a disinformation campaign accusing a security adviser of being a mole?