| drinkandswim said: Joe Biden 1 billion dollars will be withheld from Ukraine unless you fire the prosecutor. He admits it himself. As a Law Student you should know that is Bribery. Offering something of value for a political action. And he admits it on tape. Ukraine is the third most corrupt Country in the world. So corrupt even the IMF cut off funding from it. Billions of dollars of US aid has gone missing in Ukraine. So you can assume that Trump withheld it for a Biden investigation which has not been proven. But assumptions as far as I know dont hold up in a Court of Law. Pretty sure you need to prove crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| drinkandswim said: Bottom line though is even if you prove that he withheld aid for an Investigation into Biden (which hasnt been proven). Its his responsibility to look into a potential Felony. And there is a law that corruption reform is required for foreign aid. It is also the President’s responsibility to ensure American tax dollars arent being spent for corrupt purposes. |
I'm sorry professor, drinkandwim (I have to assume you're a professor since you're telling law school students what they should know) but I must say I'm vastly confused here, I'll let you know what I've learned so far, and you can tell me where I'm wrong. I'm only a 1L after all, so I'm sure your experience in the field must dwarf mine.
As a law student, I do not know that that's bribery. I know that that is inducement, which is a key element of any contract. A contract requires both sides give something of value to the other, aka consideration. If nothing of value is offered, then there is no valid contract. An inducement only amounts to bribery if the inducement is encouraging one to do something illegal, or seeks to improperly influence an official in their capacity as a public officer. Firing a prosecutor is not illegal, and assuming the prosecutor was corrupt, (which there is plenty of evidence to suggest as he was the subject of protests in the streets, he regularly attacked anti-corruption organizations, and his underlings were found with huge stashes of cash and diamonds), then there would be nothing improper about inducing Ukraine to fire him. I also might add that as vice president, Joe Biden could in no way shape or form block aid to the Ukraine. At most, he could try to convince President Obama or those within the state department to withhold the aid. I'm not sure how it could be a felony for Joe Biden to withhold money from Ukraine since he literally could not withhold money from Ukraine. Would you kindly clarify which article of the constitution or statute gives the vice president, who essentially has no power aside from tie breaking Senate votes, the ability to withhold money? Otherwise, I can't see how this would be a felony. At worst it could fall under high crimes and misdemeanors, which could be an impeachable, but not a criminal offense.
I'm also very confused about bringing up courtrooms. As far as I was aware, an impeachment trial is held by congress, is not a criminal proceeding, and there is no set standard of evidence. Please show me where I'm mistaken on this.
I'm also confused on it being the president's job to look into felonies. I imagine there are quite a few felonies being committed in the United States at any given time, not to mention in every foreign country, and it seems like investigating every particular potential felony would be too much work, even for a clearly competent man like Mr. Trump. I believe that the FBI was established to investigate domestic felonies, and the CIA for international crimes. Not to mention the state department and various congressional committees. It seems to me that it would be far more efficient to use these agencies for investigations, rather than Mr. Trump and his personal lawyer. Can you clarify where exactly it is indicated that a President is personally responsible for looking into felonies? What other felonies has Trump been investigating personally using his personal resources? I assume that it wouldn't only be felonies that involve his political opponents because that would seem awfully suspicious.
I'm glad to hear though that our watchful President is ensuring that none of my hard earned tax dollars are supporting corrupt regimes! I have to assume that Mr. Trump also demanded corruption reform from every other nation that receives US foreign aid. What investigations did he demand from Mozambique? Mexico? Venezuala? Brazil? Argentina? Saudi Arabia? Lebanon? Indonesia? The Philippines? Pakistan? Bangladesh? Afghanistan? Israel, Gaza, Iraq, Japan, Congo, India, Columbia?
I assume that Mr. Trump must have demanded that all of those countries also investigate specific instances of corruption in order to procure foreign aid, since as you said, that is a requirement. Or do none of those nations have any issue with corruption? Cause that would be a load off my mind. If he only did this in one instance, and that one instance was one that directly involved a political opponent, I must confess it would raise my eyebrows.
Look forward to your continued assistance in my effort to understand the law <3. But please include statutes and decisions that you've assuredly study. I need to know what to cite on my tests after all. It may be unfair but See drinkandswin vgchartz does not count as a valid citation, despite your vast legal expertise.
Last edited by JWeinCom - on 07 December 2019
