Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #6951  
Old 01-21-2020, 04:36 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
So, UltraVires, are you aware that your argument is that the United States cannot arrest, prosecute, and deport "those here illegally"?
It is not my argument. I disagree with the argument. But it is AN argument that would not get you laughed out of court. It certainly is not, as the poster and the article suggested, an argument that the 14th Amendment is "unconstitutional." NOBODY has argued that.

Again, if I argue that flag burning should be prohibited, I am not saying, just as the 4 Justices in dissent, including Stevens, that the First Amendment is "unconstitutional." That article was absurd.

However, to address your point, and after I've said I don't want to hijack the thread, but certainly everyone here can be arrested. An invading army or the Indian tribes back in the day, would have been dealt with by U.S. justice when necessary, but they wouldn't have been "subject to the jurisdiction." The question is not that absurd.
  #6952  
Old Yesterday, 07:35 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
You are correct.
Meaning what, exactly? If I may, let me just paraphrase part of what I said earlier.

Quote:
Alan Dershowitz recently said that while no actual crime on the books is necessary for impeachment, criminal-like acts are sufficient, but they must be similar to treason and bribery as mentioned in the constitution. Again, Dershowitz's own words. He has said that "abuse of power" as stated in the first article of impeachment doesn't rise to the level necessary. What he has not said is anything about the specific way the article says he abused that power, specifically that Trump directed military aid to be withheld unless a Biden investigation was announced. Even though this is not technically a bribe, it has the same effect. To me, it is essentially the same thing.
I want to add to it, because maybe I wasn't clear. So, if Dershowitz were to say to Rachel Maddow, "abuse of power doesn't rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor", wouldn't a logical response from Maddow be, "but Alan, you are simply using the phrase abuse of power because it's in the first part of the first article of impeachment, but ignoring what Trump is actually accused of in the rest of it. If you were to acknowledge what the other part of the article says, you would have to admit that since it claims that Trump in effect committed bribery, that obviously means it rises to level of an impeachable offense and therefore you argument here is nonsense."

Assuming there is a problem with this and I am missing something, fine. But if it's accurate, it truly boggles my mind that I have not heard one House rep, nor senator, nor any TV personality bring it up.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; Yesterday at 07:37 PM.
  #6953  
Old Yesterday, 11:36 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Meaning what, exactly? If I may, let me just paraphrase part of what I said earlier.
Meaning that you ended your post asking if you were wrong.

You were not wrong. You were correct.
  #6954  
Old Yesterday, 11:57 PM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Assuming there is a problem with this and I am missing something, fine. But if it's accurate, it truly boggles my mind that I have not heard one House rep, nor senator, nor any TV personality bring it up.
I think there just isn't time to get to it. There are so many bad faith arguments here that schiff et al already have to spend a lot of their time firefighting. And I think they're right not to focus on arguments that it should not be impeachable -- because it's a dreadful argument not only legally but in terms of public opinion too.

It's essentially saying "OK, just five minutes ago we were saying the whole thing was a hoax and a sham, but now I want to pivot across to saying that, OK, the president put himself ahead of the country and abused his power, but we should let him off on a technicality. Vote Trump 2020!"

Last edited by Mijin; Yesterday at 11:58 PM.
  #6955  
Old Today, 12:14 AM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Meaning what, exactly? If I may, let me just paraphrase part of what I said earlier.



I want to add to it, because maybe I wasn't clear. So, if Dershowitz were to say to Rachel Maddow, "abuse of power doesn't rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor", wouldn't a logical response from Maddow be, "but Alan, you are simply using the phrase abuse of power because it's in the first part of the first article of impeachment, but ignoring what Trump is actually accused of in the rest of it. If you were to acknowledge what the other part of the article says, you would have to admit that since it claims that Trump in effect committed bribery, that obviously means it rises to level of an impeachable offense and therefore you argument here is nonsense."

Assuming there is a problem with this and I am missing something, fine. But if it's accurate, it truly boggles my mind that I have not heard one House rep, nor senator, nor any TV personality bring it up.
Explain how Trump is guilty of bribery. When did that happen?
  #6956  
Old Today, 01:02 AM
Senegoid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 15,349
I am more and more tired of people using the word "bribery" and also "quid pro quo" in this thread, and all threads on this subject, and in all the newspaper and radio and on-line commentary, and coming from all the lawyers everywhere and in the once-esteemed Halls of Congress.

Coming from Trump supporters, that's just semantic nit-pickery (argle-bargle?) to downplay Trump's malfeasance.

Coming from Trump critics, that's just taking the bait and falling into the trap.

What Trump did wasn't bribery, actual or attempted, by any definition I know.

And what Trump did wasn't a "quid pro quo", actual (well, maybe attempted).

What Trump did was outright attempted extortion at least. This particular incendiary word is only infrequently mentioned throughout the whole sordid history of this case. Why?

Trump was in a position to threaten outright harm to Ukraine if he didn't get his way, and he did so threaten. That's attempted extortion. And in fact, he really did withhold the money for a while, to Ukraine's harm. So more than attempted extortion, there was extortion threatened and performed.

Extortion.

That's a crime even more dangerous and major than mere "bribery". And much worse than "quid pro quo", which per se is not necessarily wrongful at all.
  #6957  
Old Today, 01:23 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senegoid View Post
I am more and more tired of people using the word "bribery" and also "quid pro quo" in this thread, and all threads on this subject, and in all the newspaper and radio and on-line commentary, and coming from all the lawyers everywhere and in the once-esteemed Halls of Congress.

Coming from Trump supporters, that's just semantic nit-pickery (argle-bargle?) to downplay Trump's malfeasance.

Coming from Trump critics, that's just taking the bait and falling into the trap.

What Trump did wasn't bribery, actual or attempted, by any definition I know.

And what Trump did wasn't a "quid pro quo", actual (well, maybe attempted).

What Trump did was outright attempted extortion at least. This particular incendiary word is only infrequently mentioned throughout the whole sordid history of this case. Why?

Trump was in a position to threaten outright harm to Ukraine if he didn't get his way, and he did so threaten. That's attempted extortion. And in fact, he really did withhold the money for a while, to Ukraine's harm. So more than attempted extortion, there was extortion threatened and performed.

Extortion.

That's a crime even more dangerous and major than mere "bribery". And much worse than "quid pro quo", which per se is not necessarily wrongful at all.
Extortion is to use threats to compel someone to do something for you.

Solicitation of a bribe is to refuse to perform your professional or legal obligations, unless someone pays an extra fee that they should not have to. Bribing is to pay someone to do something for you that they should not.

Trump solicited a bribe, under extortative circumstances.

Last edited by Sage Rat; Today at 01:26 AM.
  #6958  
Old Today, 01:27 AM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senegoid View Post
I am more and more tired of people using the word "bribery" and also "quid pro quo" in this thread, and all threads on this subject, and in all the newspaper and radio and on-line commentary, and coming from all the lawyers everywhere and in the once-esteemed Halls of Congress.

Coming from Trump supporters, that's just semantic nit-pickery (argle-bargle?) to downplay Trump's malfeasance.

Coming from Trump critics, that's just taking the bait and falling into the trap.

What Trump did wasn't bribery, actual or attempted, by any definition I know.

And what Trump did wasn't a "quid pro quo", actual (well, maybe attempted).

What Trump did was outright attempted extortion at least. This particular incendiary word is only infrequently mentioned throughout the whole sordid history of this case. Why?

Trump was in a position to threaten outright harm to Ukraine if he didn't get his way, and he did so threaten. That's attempted extortion. And in fact, he really did withhold the money for a while, to Ukraine's harm. So more than attempted extortion, there was extortion threatened and performed.

Extortion.

That's a crime even more dangerous and major than mere "bribery". And much worse than "quid pro quo", which per se is not necessarily wrongful at all.
But throughout history we have conditioned foreign aid on another country doing or not doing a certain thing. For example for years we refused to trade with South Africa because of apartheid. I fail to see how the term "extortion" wouldn't apply to that if we are using such an expansive definition.

I mean, if I don't give my daughter her allowance unless she cleans her room, is that extortion?

I can hear the string of replies now that this is different because Trump did it for corrupt personal motives, and withholding benefits from South Africa was for a noble goal, but the motive doesn't change whether it is extortion or not. That seems to me a deliberately pejorative term that doesn't apply to Trump's actions, even if he did what he is alleged to have done.

I still don't understand bribery, though. Who took money or another thing of value?
  #6959  
Old Today, 01:32 AM
BeepKillBeep is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senegoid View Post
I am more and more tired of people using the word "bribery" and also "quid pro quo" in this thread, and all threads on this subject, and in all the newspaper and radio and on-line commentary, and coming from all the lawyers everywhere and in the once-esteemed Halls of Congress.

Coming from Trump supporters, that's just semantic nit-pickery (argle-bargle?) to downplay Trump's malfeasance.

Coming from Trump critics, that's just taking the bait and falling into the trap.

What Trump did wasn't bribery, actual or attempted, by any definition I know.

And what Trump did wasn't a "quid pro quo", actual (well, maybe attempted).

What Trump did was outright attempted extortion at least. This particular incendiary word is only infrequently mentioned throughout the whole sordid history of this case. Why?

Trump was in a position to threaten outright harm to Ukraine if he didn't get his way, and he did so threaten. That's attempted extortion. And in fact, he really did withhold the money for a while, to Ukraine's harm. So more than attempted extortion, there was extortion threatened and performed.

Extortion.

That's a crime even more dangerous and major than mere "bribery". And much worse than "quid pro quo", which per se is not necessarily wrongful at all.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bribery

Quote:
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.
Quote:
Solicitation of a bribe also constitutes a crime and is completed regardless of whether the solicitation results in the receipt of a valuable gift.
  #6960  
Old Today, 01:37 AM
squeegee's Avatar
squeegee is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Aptos CA
Posts: 8,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I mean, if I don't give my daughter her allowance unless she cleans her room, is that extortion?
If you don't give her allowance until she punches some guy she doesn't even know, what is that? Or - more on point - if she lies to the cops that this guy she doesn't know committed a crime?

Last edited by squeegee; Today at 01:38 AM.
  #6961  
Old Today, 01:39 AM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Extortion is to use threats to compel someone to do something for you.

Solicitation of a bribe is to refuse to perform your professional or legal obligations, unless someone pays an extra fee that they should not have to. Bribing is to pay someone to do something for you that they should not.

Trump solicited a bribe, under extortative circumstances.
First, it seems fairly clear that the bribery talked about in the Constitution ("treason, bribery, and other high crimes or misdemeanors") refers to an official in the United States receiving a bribe from a foreign power to do their bidding. It's right there next to treason in the list and has to be taken in that context. I doubt the framers would have cared if we paid a bribe to a foreign country to get them to do what we want. We paid "tribute" to the Barbary corsairs for years.

Also, like with extortion, such an expansive definition calls into question any action. Am I bribing my daughter with an allowance to clean her room? Is my (hypothetical) employer bribing me to perform tasks at work? Were we attempting to bribe South Africa to end apartheid?

After all, South Africa was/is a sovereign nation and had every right to enact whatever social policies they liked within their own country. Was that an attempted bribe?
  #6962  
Old Today, 01:43 AM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by squeegee View Post
If you don't give her allowance until she punches some guy she doesn't even know, what is that? Or - more on point - if she lies to the cops that this guy she doesn't know committed a crime?
It would definitely be an illegal contract; probably violate a few criminal laws against solicitation of a crime, and I would be liable in tort law at minimum. She would probably be in the juvy system if she agreed. But how is it bribery or extortion?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017