Are we pivoting to the “it’s not technically a crime” defense now?
Does this mean the “no quid pro quo” is officially over? Or can both be used at the same time?
The crime is Bribery and it’s spelled out in the Constitution, guys. The Constitution is silent as to whether it’s the offering or taking of bribes, so we may assume both are valid.
Art 2, Sec 4:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors.”
No, the real question is whether anyone who thinks like this ever really at risk for voting Dem. it’s not like they’re thinking “gee, if only the Dems hadn’t demanded a impeachment inquiry…totally would’ve been on Team Biden.”
Meh. It may well be a campaign finance violation or bribery. But I think it is a mistake to try to analyze it as a crime. The application of those laws to this kind of conduct is never going to be so black-and-white as to satisfy skeptics, and it only reinforces the obviously incorrect notion that it matters whether it is a crime.
The Mueller report talks about whether helping the campaign with information is a “thing of value.” Mueller thought it was. But it is an open question, legally speaking. It would be a big mistake to go down that rabbit hole again, IMO.
Fair enough, thanks.
Are we mind-reading now? You could just answer the question at face value. That’s what “Serious question” means.
It means, lets skip all the bullshit and answer the question please.
Senate Republicans split over Trump urging Ukrainian leader to investigate Biden
Side note: I know some people grouse about links to articles behind paywalls. Washington Post is doing some outstanding reporting on this whole thing, including a few scoops. If you’ve been on the fence about throwing some cash their way, maybe now’s the time?
Also you can be sure that every single angle and “rabbit hole” will be throughly explored by the most distinguished of scholars and constitutional experts. So i don’t think “What’s the crime”, “Is it a crime” and “Can one only be impeached for a literal crime” is off-limits here in this bastion of non-partisan debate.
Whoa. I had no idea the Onion would go that far to make a joke. Changing their website branding and all just for a wacky story. Bravo!
Oh, wait…Ha! What a bunch of maroons. 
Even Moscow Mitch knows this. He has said that making voting readily accessible works in favor of Democrats.
Republicans: There is no crime to investigate without explicit magic phrases of quid pro quo.
Also Republicans: Biden needs to be investigated because of vague connections for his son working in Ukraine or something.
I am not suggesting it is off limits.
I am suggesting that before we go there we ought to acknowledge that it doesn’t matter and that “technically, the element of U.S.C. 23452(c)(3) isn’t satisfied if it happened on Wednesday” will be how Trump defenders try to defend the indefensible.
I’m all for an academic discussion of federal crime. I just think we ought to do a little place-setting first.
Sounds more like extortion. i point this out only because
2, “I did not attempt to bribe the man. I can prove it because it was extortion.” is a hilarious defense.
iiandyiiii took my answer. I dunno if it’s a crime. I’m just hoping (in spite of everything I’ve seen over the past four years) that enough Republicans think it’s bad enough to remove Trump from office.
Ahh. Gotcha (no sarcasm)
Perhaps, but could you answer one question about this from the story. Are the Reps not questioning the judgement of the *release *of the partial transcript? That is, the precedent it sets?
The article strictly talks about questioning the release of the partial transcript, not questioning the president’s “Nice aid package you got, shame if something happened to it” rhetoric within the call. They’re concerned about campaign strategy, not about national security or governmental ethics.
No, fuck them, I hate paywalls.
Have a cookie!
That “mistake” has GOT TO BE deliberate on the part of a staffer who has just had enough of the bullshit.