Quid Pro Quo took place for sure, now what?

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It's trivially obvious that it is the lib-retards who are the born "suckers", per your "Rainbow Buddies" Smollett and Schitty.

looks like pencilneck Schiff should hire Jussie's racist redneck Nigerian bro's to get pumped up.


BAHHAHHAAAAAAAAAA

[gnadfly]

Two peas in a pod looking for WTF!

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Two peas in a pod looking for WTF!

yep.


https://twitter.com/realjameswoods/s...29836973015040

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

looks like pencilneck Schiff should hire Jussie's racist redneck Nigerian bro's to get pumped up.


BAHHAHHAAAAAAAAAA

[LexusLover]

Quid Pro Quo took place for sure, now what?

Indict all of the Presidents before Trump for "bribery" ....

... .according to Reps ShitFace and PissLousy.

Oh, yea. And according to the LameStreamMedia.

Carter is still alive ..... kinda ....

The Carter administration's human rights record was mixed. The President and his advisers denounced human rights violations by the Soviet Union and its East European allies. In addition, American allies like South Korea also came under tough criticism for repressing democratic dissent. Moreover, the United States took tangible actions—including the suspension of military or economic aid—to protest the human rights practices of the governments of Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Uganda. On the other hand, the Carter administration toned down its human-rights based criticisms of the Soviet Union after the Brezhnev government threatened to end arms control talks. Moreover, Carter refused to halt the sale of military supplies to Iran, whose government violently repressed its opponents, even though some of his advisers urged him to do so.

https://millercenter.org/president/c...oreign-affairs

Not since Theodore Roosevelt's efforts to end the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 had a president so effectively mediated a dispute between two other nations. Begin made several concessions to Carter, including agreeing to the principle of Egyptian sovereignty over the entire Sinai, and complete Israeli withdrawal from all military facilities and settlements. In return, Carter agreed to provide Israel with funds to rebuild Israeli military bases in the Negev Desert. Because Sadat and Carter had positions that were quite close, the two men became good friends as the conference progressed. Sadat also made some concessions to Carter, which alienated some of his own delegation. His prime minister resigned at the end, believing that Sadat had been outmaneuvered by the Americans and Israelis.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Indict all of the Presidents before Trump for "bribery" ....

... .according to Reps ShitFace and PissLousy.

Oh, yea. And according to the LameStreamMedia.

Carter is still alive ..... kinda ....


https://millercenter.org/president/c...oreign-affairs

Did Carter condition the assistance with help to get him reelected? Sounds like your getting pretty fuckin' desperate.

Carter believed in the rule of law in international affairs and in the principle of self-determination for all people. Moreover, he wanted the United States to take the lead in promoting universal human rights.

Robert A. Strong

Professor of Politics
Washington and Lee University

[eccielover]

Wasn't this thread rendered moot with the recent Dem focus group to decide what name they are going to call all this made up shit.

Quid Pro Quo lost I think.

[oeb11]

DPST's have hoisted the "Bribery" balloon.

Let's have a Senate trial and put all their BS under the light of open trial, and see how far it flies.

Trump should call for and lead the republicans to a vote in favor of Impeachment - and watch the roaches run as he seizes the initiative for open examination of all the Schiff and Nadler's BS MCCarthyite "evidence"..
It will blow the DPST's out of the water,expose their lies, and cost them big time in Nov. 2020

[WTF]

Originally Posted by oeb11

DPST's have hoisted the "Bribery" balloon.

Let's have a Senate trial and put all their BS under the light of open trial, and see how far it flies.

Trump should call for and lead the republicans to a vote in favor of Impeachment - and watch the roaches run as he seizes the initiative for open examination of all the Schiff and Nadler's BS MCCarthyite "evidence"..
It will blow the DPST's out of the water,expose their lies, and cost them big time in Nov. 2020

Wow.....you know how the 2020 election is going to play out.

Shall we review your 2018 predictions?



.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by WTF

Wow.....you know how the 2020 election is going to play out.

Shall we review your 2018 predictions?



.

Or your 2016 predictions?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by bambino

Or your 2016 predictions?

Exactly....

One would think after 2016 and 2018 people would not be stupid enough to make a prediction in 2020 and expect to be taken seriously. oeb11 obviously hasn't gotten that memo.

bambino , care to dig up your opinion of Trump before he secured the GOP nomination?

[oeb11]

Vit D deficiency from never exiting the Mom's basement into the sunlight.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by oeb11

Vit D deficiency from never exiting the Mom's basement into the sunlight.

Another silly prediction?

Mother Mary is my Momma and she had no basement.

[winn dixie]

Damn you stoopid wtf. Iam not Rey.
What would you like to bet wtf??? I will have one of your fellow lefties prove you wrong!
Iam calling you out. Put your money or eccie membership on the line!

[HedonistForever]

We keep hearing that multiple witnesses have confirmed that what the whistle blower said in his complaint was true. So what was the complaint? That Trump asked a foreign national to investigate his political opponent. That's it, that's the charge no matter how Democrats want to dress it up now that they have asked a focus group what is the best way to describe this complaint. They started with quid pro quo thinking that best described what happened but found out that wasn't playing in Peoria. Bribery would be better because it says that right there in the Constitution but when legal scholars weigh in they tell us what was in the minds of the founders when they added that to the Constitution. Where they thinking about Adams asking Russia to investigate Jefferson in hopes they would provide information that Adams could use against his opponent or where they taking about a President taking a bribe to provide something of value to a foreign national or country? They were thinking about the later.


What this boils down to is, did the President violate federal election law in soliciting something of value from a foreign national to be used against a political opponent. That's it folks no matter how Dem's want to dress it up.


https://www.justsecurity.org/66277/t...n-ukrainegate/


Late last week allegations surfaced in The Wall Street Journal that during a July 25th phone call President Donald Trump had repeatedly pressured Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Hunter Biden and 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden. If these allegations are true, some of which were admitted by the President himself on Sunday, it looks like Trump has violated federal campaign finance laws.


Federal law prohibits a foreign national from directly or indirectly making a “contribution or donation of money or other thing of value” in connection with a U.S. election, and prohibits a person from soliciting, accepting or receiving such a contribution or donation from a foreign national. Federal law defines “contribution” to include “any gift … of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” And the FEC by regulation defines “solicit” to mean “to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.”


And that’s all the law requires. Whether or not Ukraine came through, whether or not the communications involved a quid pro quo, the solicitation of a thing of value from the Ukraine President in connection with a U.S. election could be a federal crime.
Here's the problem with that.


Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigated the Trump campaign for possible illegal solicitation of contributions from Russian intelligence assets during the 2016 election. As I explained in a summary of a section of the Mueller Report that I wrote for Just Security, Mueller weighed charging Trump Campaign officials with crimes in connection with a June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, in which Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with several Russian nationals to follow up on an “offer” from Russia’s “Crown prosecutor” to “the Trump campaign” of “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to [Trump Jr.’s] father” as “part of Russia and its government’s support to Mr. Trump.”
Mueller concluded there were reasonable arguments that the offered opposition research would constitute a “thing of value”—i.e., a “contribution” under the law. However, Mueller determined that the government would not be likely to obtain a conviction for two reasons.


First, to establish a criminal campaign-finance violation, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted “knowingly and willfully”—i.e., that the defendant knew generally that his conduct was unlawful. Yes, this peculiar area of election law allows defendants to escape liability for ignorance of the law. And Mueller concluded he lacked evidence likely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump campaign officials acted with knowledge that their conduct was illegal.


Second, Mueller concluded the government would have difficulty proving that the value of the promised information exceeded the $2,000 threshold for a criminal violation and/or the $25,000 threshold for felony punishment. Evidence of the value of the offered information would likely be unavailable, especially given that the offered information apparently was not produced.


Given the need, in a criminal prosecution, to establish that Trump campaign officials knew their activities were illegal, combined with the presumed difficulty of establishing the monetary value of information that was offered, but never produced, Mueller decided not to pursue criminal campaign-finance charges for Trump campaign officials relating to the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting.


That could be construed as setting a precedent. Trumps phone call and what subsequently happened should be measured against Mueller's decision.
At best, this is a campaign violation and campaign violations usually end in a civil penalty, not impeachment.