The real Ukraine controversy: an activist U.S. embassy and its adherence to the Geneva Convention

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

You slow to the race speedy. The focus group werd is now bribery. 

  Bill was asking about the meme though. Although memes in general are a lazy and manipulative substitute for formulating an actual discussion, so in retrospect, it probably wasn't worth trying to clarify something that was never intended to be clear in the first place. 

[90DayFinancier 910]

39 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

 

   Quid quo pro is central to every contract involving goods or services being traded for something of value. The better question to ask is under what conditions is quid quo pro illegal. 

 

    

In the age of Trumpism, I guess we need to be explicit about such things. 

 

If I go to the store I hand off Quid and I get to leave the store, legally, with goods (pro quo) = appropriate.

If I get pulled over by traffic police for speeding, I cannot offer $200 (quid) in cash to the officer and promise to slow down in exchange for no ticket= inappropriate and a felony.  

 

Did you want more examples \s ?

I am average IQ, have never read an ethics book and Don't have a law degree. Somehow I know right from wrong.

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

18 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

In the age of Trumpism, I guess we need to be explicit about such things. 

 

If I go to the store I hand off Quid and I get to leave the store, legally, with goods (pro quo) = appropriate.

If I get pulled over by traffic police for speeding, I cannot offer $200 (quid) in cash to the officer and promise to slow down in exchange for no ticket= inappropriate and a felony.  

 

Did you want more examples \s ?

I am average IQ, have never read an ethics book and Don't have a law degree. Somehow I know right from wrong.

 

 

  How about if you are ever an elected official, don't offer financial incentive that is conditional on investigation of a potential political rival? I only bring this hypothetical example because the SC court recently weighed in on quid quo pro as it relates here.

Edited November 17, 2019 by Steeleballz

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Bribery is a better word here, and it's important to note that as far as it is used in the context of impeachment, it's a term of art rather than law. "Bribery" means, normally, the corrupt influence of a public official by the offering, giving, receiving or transfer of a thing of value in return. (Extortion is a different kettle of fish, and involves coercion.) But from my reading, "bribery" at the time of the drafting of the Constitution was a wider one. Under English common law, which we adopted wholesale on July 4, 1776 (everything we have after then is of our own making), bribery meant the abuse by an officeholder of his office for his own private benefit rather than for the public interest. There needn't be a quid pro quo; what there must be is a public official misusing the trust placed in him to perform in the interest of those who elected him (or for whom he was appointed to serve) in order to achieve a private gain.

 

So, here's a nice little hypothetical: would Trump's acts fall within the purview of bribery at the time of the drafting of the Constitution? We start with the definition, stated above. We have an officeholder, Trump: check. What is the public interest vis-à-vis Ukraine? To ensure that we help our ally in a time when they have been invaded by Russia by providing monetary assistance. What is the alleged abuse of the office of the president? To have withheld the aid, contingent on what is claimed to be concerns about corruption within the Ukrainian government that Joe Biden (allegedly) had some role in. (Let's put aside that I think these claims are pretty damn spurious given that they appear to have been ginned up after the scheme was cracked open as a form of cover.) What is the private benefit to Trump? This is also open to interpretation, but the most obvious candidate is that Trump wished to fling mud at the man he believed would be his likely candidate in the 2020 general election, thereby depressing potential Democratic support and aiding a Trump re-election.

 

Now, we don't have all the evidence right now, so it's premature to say whether or not this is a case of bribery. We need to let the process play itself out, and just because some people in the media find it "boring" doesn't mean it should be ended right now. We need to hear from both sides in this matter; that the White House refuses to defend itself within Congress is baffling to me. Surely there must exist some exculpatory evidence that the Republicans could present. Surely there must be better tactics than misrepresenting the rules set by the committee itself for the conduct of these hearings in order to make it look like Schiff is a big bad meanie. Will it come as any great surprise that the House will vote for impeachment when the opportunity to present a compelling counterargument is passed up for grandstanding and obfuscation?

[90DayFinancier 910]

8 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Bribery is a better word here, and it's important to note that as far as it is used in the context of impeachment, it's a term of art rather than law. "Bribery" means, normally, the corrupt influence of a public official by the offering, giving, receiving or transfer of a thing of value in return. (Extortion is a different kettle of fish, and involves coercion.) But from my reading, "bribery" at the time of the drafting of the Constitution was a wider one. Under English common law, which we adopted wholesale on July 4, 1776 (everything we have after then is of our own making), bribery meant the abuse by an officeholder of his office for his own private benefit rather than for the public interest. There needn't be a quid pro quo; what there must be is a public official misusing the trust placed in him to perform in the interest of those who elected him (or for whom he was appointed to serve) in order to achieve a private gain.

 

So, here's a nice little hypothetical: would Trump's acts fall within the purview of bribery at the time of the drafting of the Constitution? We start with the definition, stated above. We have an officeholder, Trump: check. What is the public interest vis-à-vis Ukraine? To ensure that we help our ally in a time when they have been invaded by Russia by providing monetary assistance. What is the alleged abuse of the office of the president? To have withheld the aid, contingent on what is claimed to be concerns about corruption within the Ukrainian government that Joe Biden (allegedly) had some role in. (Let's put aside that I think these claims are pretty damn spurious given that they appear to have been ginned up after the scheme was cracked open as a form of cover.) What is the private benefit to Trump? This is also open to interpretation, but the most obvious candidate is that Trump wished to fling mud at the man he believed would be his likely candidate in the 2020 general election, thereby depressing potential Democratic support and aiding a Trump re-election.

 

Now, we don't have all the evidence right now, so it's premature to say whether or not this is a case of bribery. We need to let the process play itself out, and just because some people in the media find it "boring" doesn't mean it should be ended right now. We need to hear from both sides in this matter; that the White House refuses to defend itself within Congress is baffling to me. Surely there must exist some exculpatory evidence that the Republicans could present. Surely there must be better tactics than misrepresenting the rules set by the committee itself for the conduct of these hearings in order to make it look like Schiff is a big bad meanie. Will it come as any great surprise that the House will vote for impeachment when the opportunity to present a compelling counterargument is passed up for grandstanding and obfuscation?

Dang, and all I had was "buy a jacket at JC Penney the Honorable Jim Jordan so you don't look like a high school coach''.  There was so much more.

 

You go girlfriend , as I want you as my lawyer!

 

 

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

2 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Dang, and all I had was "buy a jacket at JC Penney the Honorable Jim Jordan so you don't look like a high school coach''.  There was so much more.

 

You go girlfriend , as I want you as my lawyer!

 

 

By the way, My Cousin Vinny is probably the most accurate depiction of courtroom procedure out there. We watched a number of clips of it in Evidence class -- very useful in learning the basics of direct and cross-examination. It also shows how evidence can be used to build a case brick by brick by brick. Effective cross-examination of witnesses can help break up the wall that is built on direct. The Republicans really need to step up their game in that regard, and I mean that looking through a lens that isn't political. There doesn't need to be a "gotcha" moment (though those are nice) -- what's needed instead is a systematic and measured counterattack. I see some am-dram beating of chests and rending of cloth, the whole "sound and fury, signifying nothing" nonsense.

 

And Jordan? Someone get that bish a jacket.

[Dashinka 24,994]

5 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

Bribery is a better word here, and it's important to note that as far as it is used in the context of impeachment, it's a term of art rather than law. "Bribery" means, normally, the corrupt influence of a public official by the offering, giving, receiving or transfer of a thing of value in return. (Extortion is a different kettle of fish, and involves coercion.) But from my reading, "bribery" at the time of the drafting of the Constitution was a wider one. Under English common law, which we adopted wholesale on July 4, 1776 (everything we have after then is of our own making), bribery meant the abuse by an officeholder of his office for his own private benefit rather than for the public interest. There needn't be a quid pro quo; what there must be is a public official misusing the trust placed in him to perform in the interest of those who elected him (or for whom he was appointed to serve) in order to achieve a private gain.

 

So, here's a nice little hypothetical: would Trump's acts fall within the purview of bribery at the time of the drafting of the Constitution? We start with the definition, stated above. We have an officeholder, Trump: check. What is the public interest vis-à-vis Ukraine? To ensure that we help our ally in a time when they have been invaded by Russia by providing monetary assistance. What is the alleged abuse of the office of the president? To have withheld the aid, contingent on what is claimed to be concerns about corruption within the Ukrainian government that Joe Biden (allegedly) had some role in. (Let's put aside that I think these claims are pretty damn spurious given that they appear to have been ginned up after the scheme was cracked open as a form of cover.) What is the private benefit to Trump? This is also open to interpretation, but the most obvious candidate is that Trump wished to fling mud at the man he believed would be his likely candidate in the 2020 general election, thereby depressing potential Democratic support and aiding a Trump re-election.

 

Now, we don't have all the evidence right now, so it's premature to say whether or not this is a case of bribery. We need to let the process play itself out, and just because some people in the media find it "boring" doesn't mean it should be ended right now. We need to hear from both sides in this matter; that the White House refuses to defend itself within Congress is baffling to me. Surely there must exist some exculpatory evidence that the Republicans could present. Surely there must be better tactics than misrepresenting the rules set by the committee itself for the conduct of these hearings in order to make it look like Schiff is a big bad meanie. Will it come as any great surprise that the House will vote for impeachment when the opportunity to present a compelling counterargument is passed up for grandstanding and obfuscation?

Doesn’t the fact that the aid was not withheld sort of put a wrench in your hypothetical?  If that is the case, then we are back to a thought crime.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

The amount of time I was willing to exercise the idea that Trump might have done something wrong was back when Russia was first mentioned in 2016. The arguments of this which seemed genuine at first quickly turned conspiratorial and wound up being entirely made-up. Everything that has ensued, culminating to this, is more a solidifying factor to what has been a far more dangerous and contrived exercise than anything Trump alone can do. And since then, we've seen proof that not only is the media's aim to "get" Trump, but so are those in the government, and in the "establishment". 

 

This derives from the fact that, on a higher level, these people that took aim at Trump (Democrats, certain Republicans, federal bureau employees, Obama administration officials, foreign government employees, media personalities, etc.) function based off of relationships. Those relationships, from those who weren't born into them like political families, take decades , from school, to work, building trust, and so on. Power has shifted in the last handful of decades to this "permanent Washington" class of elites that should've troubled people across the political spectrum, but conveniently, only seem to trouble many on the right, middle, and independents. Trump was basically not given permission to be the GOP's winner, he didn't get permission from this special class of people who have a wide network of relationships and feel entitled, not only to decide party leaders (and ultimately, who becomes President), but to further dictate US policies. Except, clearly, the things they do, while to some minor degree is for the US benefit, is overwhelmingly to perpetuate their own success and relationships.

 

This Ukraine nonsense is an extension of largely the same problem. You have career government workers upset because Trump didn't want to listen to them, so they partner with people who want Trump gone, which is, the same idiots, in the media, Democrat party, Republican party, federal bureaus, and so on. 

 

It's clear that this show has only commenced to the point it's at in the House because Democrats are getting pressured to actually do something their nutty constituents see as tangibly toward the end result they desire, which is "Trump gone". It's been obvious when Strzok talked about "insurance policy", he meant the utilization of the most motivated members of this interconnected class to undermine Trump. Thus, the attempted invocation of the 25th amendment, the fabrication of evidence, lying to courts, etc. to get the special counsel, the Nadler committee and now Schiff committee attempts to use government powers against Trump. The end result is to get rid of Trump, whether it was through the exercise of the 25th amendment, bombard him with so much lawfare that he resigns, bombard him with so much lawfare that they scare anyone off from ever working for Trump that isn't approved by them (and thus willing to undermine Trump), bombard him with so much lawfare that they can somehow convince Congress to go through with impeachment, or bombard him with so much lawfare that keeps this in the media cycle endlessly to try and hurt Trump in the 2020 election. The odds tend to point to the very last circumstance (and somewhat to many of Trump's cabinet members being the type, having to be approved the Senate who are largely among the same types, who wound undermine him), and that's only because certain members of Congress aren't yet willing to go along with this charade because Trump has so much support throughout the large swath of US states, and those House Reps and especially Senators want to keep their jobs. Impeaching Trump based on the garbage put forth so far would be tough for all but a select few to overcome.

 

What's unfortunate is, you have a swath of people on the political left, millions, and even some swath of those on the right, whether it's just punch drunk with Trump Derangement Syndrome, and/or feeling so entitled to their way, that they're (the left are) willing to ally with many of the things they hated only a decade ago, and are completely antithetical to their own stated views, never mind to liberalism itself.. warmongering neoconservatives, US intelligence bureaus abusing power, corporations that despise Trump's anti-globalist policies, and so on, just because they want the end result they want and nothing else matters. Logic, out the window, even liberal ideals of free speech are, out of the blue, a thing of the past. Due process? Irrelevant. Presumption of innocence? Non-existent. All that matters is get rid of Trump, and all the mental gymnastics surrounding the abandonment of core principles that make the United States an envy of the free world all stem from that one very goal, which the one thing that class of elites share with them. Many of these elites never cared for freedoms, or principles, so discarding of them is of little importance. Trump is merely a threat to the relationships of many of these people, and they want things the way they want it, so the obvious solution is rid of Trump to get back to things being done their way. All of these things that encompass the left's contrived arguments (that are so bad it's embarrassing) are easily marketed to by this class of people that hate Trump. And to be clear, I'm no fan of Trump's persona, but logically speaking, I also do not care about a candidate's persona, I do not and will not ever know them personally and don't care to. I'm not a Republican, never have been, never will be, nor do I describe myself as a conservative. We agree on a number of issues, largely because despite the things the left and I have in common, they've alienated me by acting like nutcases. Nonetheless, as a husband, a parent, and an individual who can think for himself, there's little to dislike about what Trump's done, the unemployment, the economy, bringing jobs back, forcing countries that bent the US over to negotiate better trade deals, standing up for the United States. I'm watching my province go to absolute hell thanks to government chasing jobs away, to of all places, the US, while the Canadian media play this Trump stuff non-stop, with more news being about Trump than Trudeau, but because of the left's affinity for confirmation bias, and how easily marketable it is, you have them taking the easiest path to views, clicks, etc.

 

Obviously nothing comes of this Ukraine charade, it's just going to be played out as long as possible, so long as the elites mentioned can dangle this carrot over the heads of Democrat supporters. Hence why Democrats went through the trouble of using focus groups to decide how to angle the "unofficially official" "impeachment hearings", whether it be "quid pro quo", "bribery", etc, it's all about marketing to these deranged people, and dangling this carrot long enough to keep them entranced for 2020. If people were to suddenly develop critical thought, wonder why there have been no results toward their desired end goal, lowering how galvanized they were toward Democrats, or stop paying attention to the media, the Dems would be in some serious trouble. But for now, they've got their deranged viewers wrapped around their fingers, blindly anticipating who-knows-what. Ukraine is merely Part 2 of this exercise, and if it whittles away before the election, there'll be a Part 3. There's no sense in changing up the way this is going, because the people they're catering to aren't changing their thinking whatsoever yet to be more rational.

[90DayFinancier 910]

8 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Doesn’t the fact that the aid was not withheld sort of put a wrench in your hypothetical?  If that is the case, then we are back to a thought crime.

It was withheld, that is what the phone call was about. "I need a favor though"

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,394]

27 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

The amount of time I was willing to exercise the idea that Trump might have done something wrong was back when Russia was first mentioned in 2016. The arguments of this which seemed genuine at first quickly turned conspiratorial and wound up being entirely made-up. Everything that has ensued, culminating to this, is more a solidifying factor to what has been a far more dangerous and contrived exercise than anything Trump alone can do. And since then, we've seen proof that not only is the media's aim to "get" Trump, but so are those in the government, and in the "establishment". 

 

This derives from the fact that, on a higher level, these people that took aim at Trump (Democrats, certain Republicans, federal bureau employees, Obama administration officials, foreign government employees, media personalities, etc.) function based off of relationships. Those relationships, from those who weren't born into them like political families, take decades , from school, to work, building trust, and so on. Power has shifted in the last handful of decades to this "permanent Washington" class of elites that should've troubled people across the political spectrum, but conveniently, only seem to trouble many on the right, middle, and independents. Trump was basically not given permission to be the GOP's winner, he didn't get permission from this special class of people who have a wide network of relationships and feel entitled, not only to decide party leaders (and ultimately, who becomes President), but to further dictate US policies. Except, clearly, the things they do, while to some minor degree is for the US benefit, is overwhelmingly to perpetuate their own success and relationships.

 

This Ukraine nonsense is an extension of largely the same problem. You have career government workers upset because Trump didn't want to listen to them, so they partner with people who want Trump gone, which is, the same idiots, in the media, Democrat party, Republican party, federal bureaus, and so on. 

 

It's clear that this show has only commenced to the point it's at in the House because Democrats are getting pressured to actually do something their nutty constituents see as tangibly toward the end result they desire, which is "Trump gone". It's been obvious when Strzok talked about "insurance policy", he meant the utilization of the most motivated members of this interconnected class to undermine Trump. Thus, the attempted invocation of the 25th amendment, the fabrication of evidence, lying to courts, etc. to get the special counsel, the Nadler committee and now Schiff committee attempts to use government powers against Trump. The end result is to get rid of Trump, whether it was through the exercise of the 25th amendment, bombard him with so much lawfare that he resigns, bombard him with so much lawfare that they scare anyone off from ever working for Trump that isn't approved by them (and thus willing to undermine Trump), bombard him with so much lawfare that they can somehow convince Congress to go through with impeachment, or bombard him with so much lawfare that keeps this in the media cycle endlessly to try and hurt Trump in the 2020 election. The odds tend to point to the very last circumstance (and somewhat to many of Trump's cabinet members being the type, having to be approved the Senate who are largely among the same types, who wound undermine him), and that's only because certain members of Congress aren't yet willing to go along with this charade because Trump has so much support throughout the large swath of US states, and those House Reps and especially Senators want to keep their jobs. Impeaching Trump based on the garbage put forth so far would be tough for all but a select few to overcome.

 

What's unfortunate is, you have a swath of people on the political left, millions, and even some swath of those on the right, whether it's just punch drunk with Trump Derangement Syndrome, and/or feeling so entitled to their way, that they're (the left are) willing to ally with many of the things they hated only a decade ago, and are completely antithetical to their own stated views, never mind to liberalism itself.. warmongering neoconservatives, US intelligence bureaus abusing power, corporations that despise Trump's anti-globalist policies, and so on, just because they want the end result they want and nothing else matters. Logic, out the window, even liberal ideals of free speech are, out of the blue, a thing of the past. Due process? Irrelevant. Presumption of innocence? Non-existent. All that matters is get rid of Trump, and all the mental gymnastics surrounding the abandonment of core principles that make the United States an envy of the free world all stem from that one very goal, which the one thing that class of elites share with them. Many of these elites never cared for freedoms, or principles, so discarding of them is of little importance. Trump is merely a threat to the relationships of many of these people, and they want things the way they want it, so the obvious solution is rid of Trump to get back to things being done their way. All of these things that encompass the left's contrived arguments (that are so bad it's embarrassing) are easily marketed to by this class of people that hate Trump. And to be clear, I'm no fan of Trump's persona, but logically speaking, I also do not care about a candidate's persona, I do not and will not ever know them personally and don't care to. I'm not a Republican, never have been, never will be, nor do I describe myself as a conservative. We agree on a number of issues, largely because despite the things the left and I have in common, they've alienated me by acting like nutcases. Nonetheless, as a husband, a parent, and an individual who can think for himself, there's little to dislike about what Trump's done, the unemployment, the economy, bringing jobs back, forcing countries that bent the US over to negotiate better trade deals, standing up for the United States. I'm watching my province go to absolute hell thanks to government chasing jobs away, to of all places, the US, while the Canadian media play this Trump stuff non-stop, with more news being about Trump than Trudeau, but because of the left's affinity for confirmation bias, and how easily marketable it is, you have them taking the easiest path to views, clicks, etc.

 

Obviously nothing comes of this Ukraine charade, it's just going to be played out as long as possible, so long as the elites mentioned can dangle this carrot over the heads of Democrat supporters. Hence why Democrats went through the trouble of using focus groups to decide how to angle the "unofficially official" "impeachment hearings", whether it be "quid pro quo", "bribery", etc, it's all about marketing to these deranged people, and dangling this carrot long enough to keep them entranced for 2020. If people were to suddenly develop critical thought, wonder why there have been no results toward their desired end goal, lowering how galvanized they were toward Democrats, or stop paying attention to the media, the Dems would be in some serious trouble. But for now, they've got their deranged viewers wrapped around their fingers, blindly anticipating who-knows-what. Ukraine is merely Part 2 of this exercise, and if it whittles away before the election, there'll be a Part 3. There's no sense in changing up the way this is going, because the people they're catering to aren't changing their thinking whatsoever yet to be more rational.

I agree 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I agree 

 

  TLDR. Thank you for summarizing.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

26 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  TLDR. Thank you for summarizing.

 

1 hour ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I agree 

You both win the Internetz for the day.  Share nicely!

[Dashinka 24,994]

1 hour ago, 90DayFinancier said:

It was withheld, that is what the phone call was about. "I need a favor though"

They received the aid within the time period Congress dictated.  As to asking for favors, I certainly wish that all our Presidents ask for countries to do things for it.  And yes, finding corruption by the US political class is in the national interest.

[Dashinka 24,994]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I agree 

Hey, maybe another middle of the road driver?

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,394]

32 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Hey, maybe another middle of the road driver?

He appears to be treading very closely  to that deep vast right ditch. I can almost see it from here