Trump impeachment

[historia]

On September 24, 2019, the US House of Representatives began an impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump.

Most political analysts agree that the House, which has a Democratic majority, is likely to vote in favor of impeachment. While the Senate, which has a Republican majority, is unlikely to reach the two-thirds majority needed to remove Trump from office.

Questions for debate:

1. Should Trump be impeached?

2. Should Trump be removed from office?

3. If the process plays out as analysts expect, will this redound to the Democrats' or the Republicans' benefit in the 2020 elections?

[historia]

1. Should Trump be impeached?

For what? No crime or impeachable offense has been committed.

2. Should Trump be removed from office?

For what?

The purpose of the inquiry is to determine what, if any, articles of impeachment will be brought against the President.

If you are unfamiliar with the background to this story, may I suggest Trump impeachment inquiry: A simple guide from the BBC.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 11 by historia]

President Trump is accused of pressuring Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky to dig up damaging information on one of his main Democrat challengers, Joe Biden, and his son Hunter.

Hunter worked for a Ukrainian company when Joe Biden was US vice-president.

Asking foreign entities for help in winning a US election is illegal.

Exactly my point what is the issue here. What law did he brake?

[Bust Nak]

Exactly my point what is the issue here. What law did he brake?

This one:United States Code TITLE 52, Subtitle III, CHAPTER 301, SUBCHAPTER I, § 30121a

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 13 by Bust Nak]

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;

1. the spirit of the law is of some sort of monetary donation.
2. If Trump did receive some thing from the Ukraine what was it he received?

[Bust Nak]

1. the spirit of the law is of some sort of monetary donation.

Is it? The wording of the law explicitly include non-monetary contribution re: other thing of value.

2. If Trump did receive some thing from the Ukraine what was it he received?

The receiving part is irrelevant, as it is unlawful for a person to soliciting monetary donation or other thing of value. The "thing" in question in, is service to provide dirt on his political rivals.

[Danmark]

Before the impeachment inquiry, there was probable cause to believe Trump violated several laws, including felony election law violations. The argument back then was that a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime. Assuming one agrees with that opinion, there is but one alternative, impeachment.

In addition to emolument clause violations, election law felonies, and obstruction of justice for ordering key witnesses not to testify, there is now clear evidence from Hill, Holmes, Sondland, Lt. Col. Vindman and others that Trump tried to bribe (or extort) Ukraine President Velensky by threatening to withhold Congressionally authorized funds to help Ukraine defend itself against the Russians unless Velensky agreed to announce he would investigate the Bidens for corruption. Bribery is one of crimes specifically mentioned in the Constitution in the impeachment clause.

Trump not only has no defense to these charges, he admitted the quid pro quo in the transcript of the phone call to Zelensky. If Trump had any true belief in his innocence, he would not order key witnesses not to testify. That he is guilty of these crimes is not in doubt. However, he will not have an impartial jury. He will have the Republican controlled Senate to decide whether he should be removed.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 15 by Bust Nak]

T

he receiving part is irrelevant, as it is unlawful for a person to soliciting monetary donation or other thing of value. The "thing" in question in, is service to provide dirt on his political rivals.

What are you talking about there was no dirt delivered on his opponents. Are you talking about Hillary and the democrats?

[Bust Nak]

What are you talking about there was no dirt delivered on his opponents.

You are not listening. To hammer home my last point: the receiving part is irrelevant, delivery is just the other side of the same coin. It is unlawful for a person to solicit service to provide dirt on his political rivals from foreign nationals, whether he received that service or not is irrelevant; whether that service delivered what he wanted or not is irrelevant. Merely asking is enough to book Trump.

A gangster cannot say he is not guilty of racketeering because the shopkeeper he tried to shakedown refused to pay up. In the same way, whether the gangster received the money or not is irrelevant; whether shopkeeper delivered the money or not is irrelevant.

I am not a lawyer, so I have no idea what technicities that could still be in play, but as far as the spirit of the law goes, the only thing that could still be debatable, is whether investigating Biden's son counts as getting dirt on political rivals. That's where I would steer the debate, if I were you.

[Danmark]

What 'EarthScienceGuy' does not appear to understand, along with much of the GOP leadership pretending to not understand, is that an attempt to commit a crime is still a crime.
An attempt to commit a crime occurs if a criminal has an intent to commit a crime and takes a substantial step toward completing the crime, but for reasons not intended by the criminal, the final resulting crime does not occur.
If one intends to kill and takes a 'substantial step' such as acquiring a firearm, pointing it at his intended victim, firing with intent to kill and misses the target, he or she is guilty of attempted murder.
The punishment for an 'attempt' is generally 75% of the penalty for a successful attempt. You get 25% off for bungling.

Trump attempted to get a personal favor, the announcement of an investigation of the Bidens, in exchange for releasing the financial aid to Ukraine, which he had long delayed. As Bust Nak says, this is also a solicitation of a crime.

Furthermore, the crime of bribery occurs when the mere solicitation of the crime takes place. "Bribery refers to the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bribery
The criminal need not actually give or receive the 'item of value.' Offering or soliciting is sufficient to constitute 'bribery.'

Thus Donald Trump became guilty of the crime of bribery as soon as he asked for the favor in order to release funds he should already have released.

Bribery is one of the few crimes specifically mentioned in the Constitution as cause for impeachment and conviction.

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.

__ United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 4

[Daedalus X]

Thus Donald Trump became guilty of the crime of bribery as soon as he asked for the favor in order to release funds he should already have released.

Are you reading the same transcript that I am reading? Where did Trump say to Zelenskyy "when you grant me the favor, I will release the funds"?

This is the transcript that I am reading

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u ... 9.2019.pdf