Who did Trump bribe? He ordered the delay of the transfer of funds that Congress had legislated should be sent to Ukraine in an appropriations bill. There’s an unsettled question on whether that was within the bounds of the president’s executive authority. I say unsettled in the sense that, as far as I’m aware, that action was never submitted for a judiciary ruling towards its legality. I note that you used as your cite the Impeachment Articles from the Democratic House of Representatives. That question of illegality has been settled in that Trump was found not guilty by the Republican Senate.
However, if you wish to make a detailed case of why Trump is guilty of honest services fraud, then please do so. I’ll admit I wasn’t aware of that particular crime, so thank you for fighting my ignorance. A quick Wikipedia read seems to indicate that Ukraine would be the aggrieved party, and not the citizens of the United States. So please do explain that part of your legal theory. Also, hopefully, you’ll be able to cite a relevant case where an elected executive was convicted of honest services fraud by delaying appropriations?
The evidence before the Committee makes clear that the President solicited from the President of Ukraine a public announcement that he would undertake two politically motivated investigations. That conduct satisfies the actus reus element of bribery under the federal criminal code.686 Section 201 prohibits a wide variety of solicitations, including solicitations that are “indirect.”687 Courts have concluded that a bribe was solicited, for example, where a public official with authority to award construction contracts requested that a contractor “take a look at the roof” of the official’s home.688 Notably, where the other elements are met, the statutory offense of bribery is complete upon the demand—even if the thing of value is not provided.689 That is because “the purpose of the statute is to discourage one from seeking an advantage by attempting to influence a public official to depart from conduct deemed essential to the public interest.”690
President Trump solicited from President Zelensky a public announcement that he would conduct two politically motivated investigations into President Trump’s political rival and into discredited claims about election interference in 2016. These demands easily constitute solicitation under federal law. To begin with, the President’s improper solicitation is apparent in the record of his July 25 phone call with President Zelensky. As the record makes clear, after President Zelensky raised the issue of United States military assistance to Ukraine, President Trump immediately responded: “I would like you to do us a favor though[.]”691 President Trump then explained the “favor,” which involved the two demands for baseless investigations. In addition, the July 25 call “was neither the start nor the end” of these demands.692 In the weeks leading up to it, for example, Ambassadors Volker and Sondland had both personally informed President Zelensky and his staff of the President’s demands and advised the Ukrainian leader to agree to them.693 These and other related actions by the President’s subordinates were taken in coordination with Rudolph Giuliani, who was understood to be “expressing the desires of the President of the United States.”694 There can thus be no doubt that President Trump’s conduct constituted a solicitation.
You believe that there’s a clear criminal case that Trump was delaying the appropriation payments to Ukraine to benefit Russia? I know there are several conspiracy theorists on this board that believe that Trump is a Russian “Manchurian Candidate”, but I’m going to decline getting involved in that particular preposterosity. But if you believe that Trump was acting on behalf of Russia, rather than purely for himself, then please do make that argument.
Tell you what, I’ll partially agree with you. If there is clear compelling evidence that Trump personally conspired with Russian agents who requested that he delay the appropriation payments, and he responded to their request, then he should be tried for treason or whatever the appropriate associated charge is. But I really want you to explain what that clear compelling argument is.
I think then, that we’re in agreement that Biden, if he wins, should not instruct his administration to aggressively prosecute Kavanaugh for criminal perjury.
If you’d like me to pull out the alleged perjurious statements related to his time in the Bush administration from the Vox article, I’ll do so. However, I’m presuming their equivalent to the WP article.
It looks like Trump threatened to withhold payments to Ukraine as part of his attempt to coerce the Ukranian government to open investigations into Joe Biden.
(bolding below is mine)
Third, the report examines the facts underlying the first charge against President Trump: abuse of power. On July 25, 2019, when he spoke by telephone to President Zelensky of Ukraine, President Trump had the upper hand. President Zelensky had been recently elected. Ukraine was locked in an 3 existential battle with Russia, which had invaded and illegally occupied eastern Ukraine more than five years earlier. The conflict was continuing and Ukraine needed our help—both in the form of vital military aid, which had already been appropriated by Congress because of our security interests in the region, and also in the form of an Oval Office meeting, to show the world that the United States continues to stand with our ally in resisting the aggression of our adversary.
On that July 25 call, President Zelensky expressed gratitude for past American defense support and indicated that he was ready to buy more anti-tank weapons from the United States. In response, President Trump immediately asked President Zelensky to “do us a favor, though.” He asked Ukraine to announce two bogus investigations: one into former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., then his leading opponent in the 2020 election, and another to advance a conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, attacked our elections in 2016. One investigation was designed to help him gain an advantage in the 2020 election. The other was intended to help President Trump conceal the truth about the 2016 election. Neither investigation was supported by the evidence or premised on any legitimate national security or foreign policy interest.
After the call with President Zelensky, President Trump ratcheted up the pressure. He continued to dangle the offer of the Oval Office meeting and to withhold the $391 million in military aid. The evidence shows that, on the same day that the call took place, Ukrainian officials became aware that funding had been withheld. The President also deployed his private attorney and other agents, some acting outside the official and regular channels of diplomacy, to make his desires known.
Thanks. That portion of the Impeachment Articles does make a clear argument that Trump was guilty of a violation of a federal code. I think there’s a defence from the Trump side that he was acting within the scope of his executive powers. But as far as a probable cause argument that Trump was engaged in an “indirect solicitation” for his personal benefit that would justify further investigation, I agree that standard has been met.
Biden has to move on. The country is suffering from Trump fatigue - we’ve had enough!
However, Biden should actively form the trump legacy. Make sure that everything Trump did is in the public domain. Any messy ends of the Trump administration should get lots of exposure. He should visibly act out the opposite of Trump - cordial relations with our traditional allies, destruction of the immigrant concentration camps, boosting science, neutral on religion etc… Trump’s legacy will self destruct.
The voting public is tired of political in fighting. Biden has an excellent opportunity to step out and move ahead.
Nope. Scorched earth. Never rest until trump, his family, and every Republican who aided/abetted his destruction of America are jailed, fined into poverty and destroyed as both a political factor and as anything other than the scum that they are. No mercy, no quarter.
If you look at my earlier post (just before the one you responded to) the area I cited is preceded by a very lengthy bit on what constitutes breaking the law under these various statutes. They repeatedly make it clear that their impeachment requires less evidence than a federal court would to prosecute someone for this stuff but even so their evidence would be far more than sufficient to get a guilty verdict in court.
Doubtless Trump’s defense attorneys would disagree but it remains that there is more than enough evidence for a case to be brought.
Impeachment isn’t up to the president, it’s up to congress.
But yes, I do think that it would be a losing battle, as I said, as it is nearly impossible to prove knowledge and intent, even if you can prove the statement is false. OTOH, I have no problem with an investigation into it to see if there is actually anything provable as to the reasons for his misinformation and misleading, and if anything is found, then prosecute based on that.
He’s a real POS, and has no business being honored with such a noble position, but we are stuck with him because the republicans did not care that he was a POS, just that he would be an activist judge that would rule from a partisan point of view.
If I were the next president and had a majority in the senate I would tell Kavanaugh to resign and get go back to the federal court where he was or I’ll pack the court till he is irrelevant.
Yup. And I would have argued against it a few years ago.
That was until the republicans stole a seat outright and then, after admonishing the dems to not go nuclear in the senate, went nuclear without hesitation when they got in power.
No sense in playing by gentlemen’s rules when the other side is actively playing dirty.
The task facing Biden is greater than Trump and Kavanaugh - he has to rebuild the country, the economy and the government. He has to mitigate the forces that are dividing the citizens. However, it is a crisis that need not go to waste. Given a Dem Senate and House he could create the new world order. Like GHW Bush after Reagan only a couple of orders of magnitude greater.
The claim from enipla is that Trump was acting to enable a foreign government gain, with apparently that foreign government being Russia. While I will concede that there’s evidence that 18 U.S.C. § 201 was violated, it’s a very different claim to state that that violation was being done for the intentional benefit of Russia as opposed to the personal benefit of Trump.
It did benefit Russia. Whether Trump did it intentionally to aid Russia, or if it was just a side effect of his selfishness is hard to prove, however, I’ll agree.
But, it can certainly be said that he did receive political assistance from Russia, and he is on tape on national television asking for help from Russia. So I do not find the idea that he did so at the behest of Russia to be very far retched.
What happens when Biden takes over, and he opens up the “server*”, and finds communications to and from Russia giving Trump specific directions in troop deployments and other actions that obviously are a benefit to Russia and a detriment to us and to our allies? Would you get behind prosecution then?
*Not that I expect it. This is really Nixon 2.0, this time much stupider, but at the same time, much better prepared from learning from Nixon’s mistakes (getting caught). That server is a smoking wreck by now, I’m sure.
I’m pretty sure that if the Biden administration made a polite, non-threatening request for Kavanaugh to step down, it would be met by a politely worded response with impolite implicities that said “No”.
I don’t think impeachment is remotely possible, unless there is also a clear-cut case that Kavanaugh was guilty of a serious crime. As discussed, my opinion is that there is no such clear-cut evidence.
I agree with you on this. What Biden should do is invite impartial experts to examine Trump’s administration. I’m talking about legal scholars and history scholars. Not political figures with axes to grind, or journalists committed to one side or the other of the bipartisan conflict, but university professors with credentials for historical and legal analysis. Bring in foreign experts. I’d trust a New Zealand professor to have a sufficiently impartial scholarly view of the Trump administration. Ask them to examine the Trump administration, make it clear that they will have access to all records except ones containing national security secrets, and task them with assessing which actions of Trump, especially his executive orders, are consistent with other past presidential actions. Biden, if he wins, should set his own political agenda. If he wants to repair Trump damages aside from that agenda, let it be based on informed assessments rather than an anti-Trump backlash.
It won’t be non threatening. It will include Impeachment- which can be guaranteed, even if no removal, and thus a stain for the rest of his life- and packing the court. Or you can get a full pension, his old job back- or some other position if he wants it. Carrot and stick.