titan said:

---

On reflection, you answered my question actually.

Actually we can reach an agreement. My main basis for scorn is the behavior of the Left Democrats since Inauguration 2017 (nay, even election day) as really abnormal and beyond the usual partisanship. With things like undermining attempts to secure the border by any means necessary skating pretty close to having nefarious goals. Then you have trumped up Mueller matter, and the already built-in undermining set up by the prior admin. The Democrats have been trying to come up with a way to remove him since Jan 2017. Even the Bill Clinton one wasn't quite that flaky. So this latest effort to remove carries no gravitas - no weight -- is bogus.

However, you think the same behavior since Inauguration Day is sufficiently `normal' and with precedent as to think there is no grounds for concern. Nor does the Mueller thing look shady to you. Hence, the Schiff impeachment looks legitimate to you as much as it does not to me and using the same reference point, and by that belief about 2017, it holds up.

That difference is something we can agree on. How one sees the impeachment depends on how one sees the Left DNC-MSM "resistance" all the dossier and Mueller stuff, fighting securing the border, and actions since Jan 2017.

Okay. Perfect grounds to agree to disagree. The starting lens of how 2017 is viewed is too different. Simple. Has nothing to do with conspiracy theories or anything else-- just how those actions are differently seen.

---

I think it is ludicrous for Barr and other R's to label political rhetoric and political opposition -- both which are longstanding norms in American politics and American democracy -- as some kind of nefarious undemocratic action. Freedom of association and freedom of speech are protected by the 1A and two of the cornerstones of our system.

I guarantee there are pedo pics of that chode Heck. What a pompous ass.

MetoliusAg said:

---

Ag00Ag said:

---

Oh Boy! MetoliusAg law with Hawg.... This aught to be good.

---

It was fun for me (dunno if it was for her) the previous two times she and I tangled on legal stuff. I schooled her on the case facts of the FBI's search warrant for Manafort's rented storage unit, and I cleared up some of her misunderstandings about FISA warrants.

---

The idea of your 'schooling' ANYONE (much less Mrs. Hawg) on ANYTHING is laugh-out-loud hilarious. Missed your calling...comedy is your real forte' and circus clown is your destiny.

BMX Bandit said:

---

The bribery stuff is nonsensical. The reason GOP keeps bringing it up is because they know how stupid it makes the democrats look.

---

It isn't nonsensical, and the Dems and ex-DOJ prosecutors keep bringing it up because it is what Trump, Giuliani and Sondland did. In this impeachment, both the statutory and the Constitution's meaning of bribery apply and are material.

Here's a short but interesting thread worth clicking and reading. You might not agree with what it says, but at least we'll have some common context for future reference in discussions:

nm. Not worth it.

Trump doesn't have to break any statute to be impeached. If your side believes the country will buy "the house gets to define what bribery is" as a good enough reason to impeach him, they have every right to do it. They just have to deal with the political repercussions.

This was one of the reasons the initial round of questioning of witnesses was done behind closed doors: to prevent them from coordinating their answers.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I think it is ludicrous for Barr and other R's to label political rhetoric and political opposition -- both which are longstanding norms in American politics and American democracy -- as some kind of nefarious undemocratic action. Freedom of association and freedom of speech are protected by the 1A and two of the cornerstones of our system.

---

So Bill Barr has no first amendment rights nor the right to hold a very well researched and reasoned opinion?

As opposed to your, shallow, non-legal spurious arguments?

---

Spurious legal argument...as in equating and conflating a governor having a private meeting with a political donor to discuss a favor vs. a U.S. President granting an official state visit to the WH to meet with the President of Ukraine?

Met, go on record. What happens from here.

I'll call my shot: Trump wins 2020.

MetoliusAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Setting a meeting or not setting a meeting is not an "official act" according to the Supreme Court.

Quote:

---

Holding: The federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. 201, makes it a crime for a public official to "receive or accept anything of value" in exchange for being "influenced in the performance of any official act." An "official act" is a decision or action on a "question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy"; that question or matter must involve a formal exercise of governmental power, and must also be something specific and focused that is "pending" or "may by law be brought" before a public official. To qualify as an "official act," the public official must make a decision to take an action on that question or matter, or agree to do so. Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event -- without more -- does not fit that definition of "official act." Because jury instructions in the case of former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell were erroneous, and those errors are not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, McDonnell's convictions are vacated.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 8-0, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 27, 2016.

---

LINK

---

Nice try, but the case facts are materially different, and McDonnell wouldn't apply.

The McDonnell decision had to do with a governor having a meeting with a donor to hear what "thing of value" the donor wanted in return for the donor's political donation. The Scotus ruled the meeting itself was not a thing of value nor was the decision to have a meeting with a donor an official act by the governor.

In Trump's case, we're talking about an official state visit to the White House for the President of Ukraine. The granting of a state visit to the Ukrainian head of state Zelensky was itself one of the "things of value" Trump was trading, and Trump's decision to grant it to Zelensky was indeed an official act since the President alone has the power to make that decision and meeting with foreign heads of state falls within the boundaries of official duties of the President.

Also, you conveniently didn't address the other "thing of value" that ex-DOJ prosecutor Whitis noted: the $400M+ in aid that Trump ordered withheld.

---

WAIT. You are now suggesting Trump wasn't being bribed, but was the one doing the bribing? That is a genius idea, and makes all foreign aid illegal. In addition it makes all meetings between heads of states illegal. It also makes congress guilty of bribing by even passing the military aid in the first place.

Genius, in 2021, if two heads of state meet, they are now exchanging things of value. No wonder you libs had a meltdown when Trump met Kim Jung Un. They were BRIBING EACHOTHER.

FREAKING 600 IQ BRAIN TRUST

Edit: I apologize to all the people who hate seeing Met's posts. But this one was too freaking juicy to pass up. Libs have freaking nothing.

"Bribery" is nothing more than a dastardly sounding word that Schiff and Pelosi found floating to the top from a ****ing focus group. Floating to the top like a turd just like this impeachment.

4stringAg said:

---

"Bribery" is nothing more than a dastardly sounding word that Schiff and Pelosi found floating to the top from a ****ing focus group. Floating to the top like a turd just like this impeachment.

---

He has now introduced "high crimes and misdemeanors ".

For the rest of the thread. I will proceed in this way:

Donald Trump is guilty of bribery*


*As defined by adam schiff & nancy pelosi.

4stringAg said:

---

"Bribery" is nothing more than a dastardly sounding word that Schiff and Pelosi found floating to the top from a ****ing focus group. Floating to the top like a turd just like this impeachment.

---

Ask Metolius about quid pro quos. He is in a haze of self delusion. He doesn't even realize he has already had to move the goal posts.

Hell, his arguments aren't even specious or sophist. I was going to use those words, but that presupposes ones arguments sound like they're accurate and truthful, before being disproven.

That's not the case with his comments, or most Dems. Otherwise, I'd be inclined to discuss, as many other good folks have.

Since Volker didn't give the right answers, I wonder when he will be accused of perjury?

Of course the sleazy Lt Col will be heralded as a hero.

MetoliusAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I think it is ludicrous for Barr and other R's to label political rhetoric and political opposition -- both which are longstanding norms in American politics and American democracy -- as some kind of nefarious undemocratic action. Freedom of association and freedom of speech are protected by the 1A and two of the cornerstones of our system.

---

So Bill Barr has no first amendment rights nor the right to hold a very well researched and reasoned opinion?

As opposed to your, shallow, non-legal spurious arguments?

---

Spurious legal argument...as in equating and conflating a governor having a private meeting with a political donor to discuss a favor vs. a U.S. President granting an official state visit to the WH to meet with the President of Ukraine?

---

Did you obtain a law degree with and an hire by a large law firm since the last time you pretended to be a licensed attorney? Not to mention have any clue as to how statutory construction works?

Plus are you just parroting Comey's besties, for the the hundredth time?

Wittes is not a reliable source. Try someone new.

I tried to warn you not to go down this path, because you are going to get let down again. Whatever you think in your mind isn't true.

MetoliusAg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

The bribery stuff is nonsensical. The reason GOP keeps bringing it up is because they know how stupid it makes the democrats look.

---

It isn't nonsensical, and the Dems and ex-DOJ prosecutors keep bringing it up because it is what Trump, Giuliani and Sondland did. In this impeachment, both the statutory and the Constitution's meaning of bribery apply and are material.

Here's a short but interesting thread worth clicking and reading. You might not agree with what it says, but at least we'll have some common context for future reference in discussions:

---

Are you actually going to take a strict constructionalist view of the constitution? Are you suggesting that we investigate what was considered to be bribery at the time that the document was written, and that definition shouldn't change over time? If so, can we put that whole living document thing to bed permanently?

Or, are you saying the house can define what bribery means anytime it wants, and impeach under that definition, even if it means trading a stick of gum with a secret service member?

Because, you have completely abandoned any middle ground at this point by throwing away the definitions in the US code.

SA77 for some reason is eaten up with this stuff. And he is actually a good guy. Sad because his party is corrupt and will let him down again. And I truly believe he would vote for a socialist against Trump.

Former DOJ prosecutor:

Former DOJ prosecutor / ex Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman:

Iirc, on the matters to which Sondland has already testified, he can't take the 5th....but otoh since it's Congress and not a court where a judge could throw him in jail, maybe Sondland will say 'screw it' & take the 5th anyway and refuse to speak since Congress has limited power to force him to testify on matters he already testified on.

Tomorrow will be very interesting, if Sondland shows up.

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

Metolius is the hardest working man in politics

---

The question is, what will he do when all this turns out to be a dog and pony show?

dermdoc said:

---

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

Metolius is the hardest working man in politics

---

The question is, what will he do when all this turns out to be a dog and pony show?

---

As usual, he'll come back after a while and with a brand new user name.

Quote:

---

Iirc, on the matters to which Sondland has already testified, he can't take the 5th....but otoh since it's Congress and not a court where a judge could throw him in jail, maybe Sondland will say 'screw it' & take the 5th anyway and refuse to speak since Congress has limited power to force him to testify on matters he already testified on.

Tomorrow will be very interesting, if Sondland shows up.

---

Good Lord!

dermdoc said:

---

SA77 for some reason is eaten up with this stuff. And he is actually a good guy. Sad because his party is corrupt and will let him down again. And I truly believe he would vote for a socialist against Trump.

---

I don't get it either.

Not at all. What *I* said was: read the twitter thread because it contains useful information. I didn't say Wittes' statement and the other tweets supporting it were my opinion.

If you're asking my opinion, I think Joyce Vance is correct: the actions of Trump, Giuliani, and Sondland meet the statutory definitions in the federal code.

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

Metolius is the hardest working man in politics

---

Wait until you see his workshop.

dermdoc said:

---

SA77 for some reason is eaten up with this stuff. And he is actually a good guy. Sad because his party is corrupt and will let him down again. And I truly believe he would vote for a socialist against Trump.

---

Not arguing whether or not anyone is a good guy. I just think abandoning your philosophical position on how to interpret the constitution in this one instance to try and save this sham is intellectually inconsistent / intellectually dishonest.

Oh I agree. Just sad to see an Ag so outraged and partisan that he loses all credibility.

They don't.

Which is no witneess has claimed to see bribery. The DOJ didn't call it bribery. And even democrats (untill the past 48 hrs) didn't call it bribery...

You are forcing a statute after your "quid pro quo" nonsense roused ZERO support from the general public.

Now dems are going for bribery*

*as defined by adam schiff and nancy pelosi