Quantcast
Official Thread: The Impeachment of President Donald Trump

Forums - Politics Discussion - Official Thread: The Impeachment of President Donald Trump

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.



Around the Network

Trump will not be impeached, stop dreaming. Trump 2020!

Also I agree Ukraine is corrupted mess, I'm from Poland so I would know, 3 millions of them here.

Ukraine is definitely in top 10 most corrupted countries.



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.



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

drinkandswim said:

1). 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. 2). So corrupt even the IMF cut off funding from it. Billions of dollars of US aid has gone missing in Ukraine. 3). So you can assume that Trump withheld it for a Biden investigation which has not been proven. 4). 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.

1). This was a WH and State Department policy he was enforcing. He was tasked to do exactly what he said on that panel.

2). Correct.  And who do you think was supposed to investigate the missing IMF money?  Prosecutor Viktor Shokin.  And he did not do the investigation.  In fact, he did not do a lot of investigations. 1 of the investigations he was supposed to do but didn't was the investigation into Burisma. This is why the US, Canada, UK, EU, World Bank and IMF all wanted Shokin fired. It wasn't just Biden.

3). Well it's hard to prove something when investigators are denied access to all the documentation and people involved....illegally denied, I might add.

4). So, you've not read my second post of this thread.  "Impeachment is not a criminal procedure and the common legal framework for a criminal case do not apply."

drinkandswim said:
Bottom line though is even if you prove that he withheld aid for an Investigation into Biden (which hasnt been proven). 1). Its his responsibility to look into a potential Felony. 2). 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.

1). No, it's not his responsibility to look into potential felonies.  That would be the Attorney General.  As a law student, you should know this.  And it's certainly not a task for the president's personal lawyer.

2). Yes, and both the State Department and Department of Defense vetted the anti-corruption measures of Ukraine and they passed the requirements of that law.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network

The House Judiciary Committee has announced they will vote on 2 articles of impeachment on Dec 12th.  They will include Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress.

One the 12th, that vote will determine if either article or both will be sent to the full House of Representatives for a final vote.  If either article is accepted by the House, the president will have officially been impeached and we will begin the Senate Trial.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:

The House Judiciary Committee has announced they will vote on 2 articles of impeachment on Dec 12th.  They will include Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress.

One the 12th, that vote will determine if either article or both will be sent to the full House of Representatives for a final vote.  If either article is accepted by the House, the president will have officially been impeached and we will begin the Senate Trial.

I have mixed feelings.  On the one hand in a just world there definitely should be articles of impeachment.  On the other hand, this is almost certainly not going to be given real consideration in the Senate, so what end does it really serve?



JWeinCom said:
SpokenTruth said:

The House Judiciary Committee has announced they will vote on 2 articles of impeachment on Dec 12th.  They will include Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress.

One the 12th, that vote will determine if either article or both will be sent to the full House of Representatives for a final vote.  If either article is accepted by the House, the president will have officially been impeached and we will begin the Senate Trial.

I have mixed feelings.  On the one hand in a just world there definitely should be articles of impeachment.  On the other hand, this is almost certainly not going to be given real consideration in the Senate, so what end does it really serve?

This is definitely the crux of the situation.  Conviction being unlikely so what do we gain?

I think it's a longer term gain that short term.  It sends a clear message that corruption, abuse of power and obstruction will not go unaddressed. That the oath of office still have meaning. That Congress has not abdicated the entirety of its balance of power to the executive branch. Accountability is still a virtue that warrants its protection from indifference.

The actions of the Senate also tell the voting public where their morals lie come the next gubernatorial election cycle.

Overall....it tells the world we still elected a president, not a king.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Trump is clearly guilty, but I don’t know if it is something that he should be removed from office for. I would certainly love it if he was, and I’m no democrat. Trump is not a good president or somebody that should be in charge of anything. He appears to have a narcissistic personality disorder.

I think best case is they take away his right to hold future office... which would force the republicans to pick a competent person to run... but that is beyond a long shot. For trump to leave office the democrats are gonna have to beat him.



SpokenTruth said:

I think it's a longer term gain that short term.  It sends a clear message that corruption, abuse of power and obstruction will not go unaddressed. That the oath of office still have meaning. That Congress has not abdicated the entirety of its balance of power to the executive branch. Accountability is still a virtue that warrants its protection from indifference.

You're far more optimistic about the motives and message it sends than I. If successful, it will send the message that a political party can remove the President who belongs to the opposing party simply for politically-driven reasons, and because they simply don't like him. You can argue the specifics of their "case" all you like, but the fact is they were throwing out the word 'impeachment' from day one of him being in office, long before any of the supposed reasons they've come up with existed. They enjoyed taunting that they were going to go for impeachment over Russian collusion. That was a dud, so they came up with something else. Does it not trouble you or send up any red flags that their reasoning for why he needs to be removed has changed over the months and years, and continues to slide around as this process unfolds? The best they have is "obstruction of justice", which was him defending himself over claims that ended up not being true. What a joke.



*My signature from 2011 which I'm too lazy to change*

Currently awaiting the arrivals of:
Kid Icarus Uprising
Resident Evil: Revelations
Tekken 3D: Prime Edition
Metal Gear Solid: Snake Eater 3D
Beyond the Labyrinth
Heroes of Ruin
Luigi's Mansion 2