Impeachment hearings

Trump entered office wealthy unlike most politicians who leave office far far better off financially than when they entered. Actually the payoff comes after leaving where they receive their 30 pieces of silver.

Establishment hates him.
 
Last edited:
vanzandt said:
Which law?
More...
At obvious glance:
U.S. Code § 30121 (a)ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—
(1)a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A)
a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
^that would be the Ukranians breaking the law under extortion and/or bribery, establishing the "quid" in "quid pro quo"
(2)
a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
^that would be the Trump et.al breaking the law for just entertaining the idea out loud w/a foreign power & securing assurances from said power.

violation of International Anti-Bribery Act of 1998
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ366/pdf/PLAW-105publ366.pdf

I'm sure a meticulous enough lawman could pursue violations of the oaths of office, endangering national security, and/or sequestering duties from another branch (control of the purse).

but if that's still too murky to follow, the media will do a good job of walking everyone through it:
 
Last edited:
Here4money said:
At obvious glance:
U.S. Code § 30121 (a)ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—
(1)a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A)
a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
^that would be the Ukranians breaking the law under extortion and/or bribery, establishing the "quid" in "quid pro quo"
(2)
a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
^that would be the Trump et.al breaking the law for just entertaining the idea out loud w/a foreign power & securing assurances from said power.
More...
Can you cite one instance in the history of our country where courts have ruled that information is considered a thing of value in reference to this law? A lot of people make this argument, but I can't find a single instance of legal precedence to back it up.
 
LS1Z28 said:
Can you cite one instance in the history of our country where courts have ruled that information is considered a thing of value in reference to this law? A lot of people make this argument, but I can't find a single instance of legal precedence to back it up.
More...
There isn't one.
 
Wallet said:
I was referring to Taylor’s responses to Schiff. His response to majority counsel was what you’d expect. When he retires he has a future doing voice parts. :D
More...

If you say so, I'm just catching up on what I missed. He sounds perfectly normal. I heard until questions moved to Kent and left to fix something at the hospital.


All the republicans have is introducing a lot of something something, their aim is to keep their base dazed and confused which is pretty easy. Over this evening and tomorrow morning the cretins will get told what to think by Hannity and Tugger.

We may get to see the 'Being There' defence for Bone Spurs come to life tomorrow.

Anyone who is thinks a "thing of value" can't be quantified might read this. https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/aos/2007-22/2007-22.pdf

They will be forced to argue that the POTUS is just a simpleton who somehow even after all the Stormy Daniels stuff never grasped campaign finance violations.

Was it going to cost Ukraine more than $2000 to investigate for him? Yep. Was it going to be worth more than $25,000 to him? Sure was.
 
Last edited:
LS1Z28 said:
Can you cite one instance in the history of our country where courts have ruled that information is considered a thing of value in reference to this law? A lot of people make this argument, but I can't find a single instance of legal precedence to back it up.
More...

I'm no legal scholar, but courts appeared to have ruled on info being "of value" in other cases. The DOJ certainly considered it with AMI's catch and kill stories. Would likely be a 1st
Good read on the subject:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/justice-department-trump-call-ukraine-thing-value

which begs the question: Should I be prosecuted for trafficking in insider information when it concerns trading? Why did the RNC pay a private eye to put together a dirt "dossier" on Trump? Why was Trump withholding defense money to Ukraine if he found their cooperation on the Biden sham of no value?
 
vanzandt said:
Didn't you just say "no crime may have been committed"?
More...
no, i said:

Removal will be unsuccessful there's no doubt about it, of that much, we can agree on, regardless if a crime is proven to have been committed.
 
! EXCLUSIVE BOMBSHELL: Documents Released by Ukrainian General Prosecutor's Office Reveal MILLIONS Funneled to Hunter Biden and the John Kerry Family
Thursday, November 14th 2019, 4:12:02 am
article
views: 996
Oh My. Documents released this evening tie millions from foreign sources to the Hunter Biden, Devon Archer and John Kerry and his family! Documents reportedly leaked from the Ukrainian General Prosecutor’s office show complex money transfers from foreign sources into former President Obama’s Vice President and Secretary of State’s families – BOMBSHELL: Leaked documents from …
See more at thegatewaypundit.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top