• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Former Fed. Prosecutor (30 years) explains the Bribery argument against Trump et al.

OscarLevant

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
16,876
Reaction score
7,397
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Ali Melber lays the foundation, the prosecutor takes it from there, how it might be argued at the senate trial:


 
call me after impeachment:roll:
 
OscarLevant said:
Ali Melber lays the foundation, the prosecutor takes it from there, how it might be argued at the senate trial:
Click to expand...

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

NOW...

Nobody's mind is changed by this mindless partisan propaganda.

:thumbs:
 
I'll hand it too them. It's at least an argument.
Which is far and away much better than most of the left has been able to supply at this point.

Now is it a good argument? No, no it really isn't.
Given what we have from Trump's office and the Ukrainian officials that have voiced their side of the story. We know that this really isn't the story that is actually gong on. I know we have people coming out for the democrats, saying otherwise. But the problem, is that we have more evidence to say to the contrary and it's still more simple to say that this was still a favor in looking into corruption in Ukraine, and not trying to harm Biden's election prospects. Which If I'm going to be honest, were not that good to begin with.
 
Oborosen said:
I'll hand it too them. It's at least an argument.
Which is far and away much better than most of the left has been able to supply at this point.

Now is it a good argument? No, no it really isn't.
Given what we have from Trump's office and the Ukrainian officials that have voiced their side of the story. We know that this really isn't the story that is actually gong on. I know we have people coming out for the democrats, saying otherwise. But the problem, is that we have more evidence to say to the contrary and it's still more simple to say that this was still a favor in looking into corruption in Ukraine, and not trying to harm Biden's election prospects. Which If I'm going to be honest, were not that good to begin with.
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing any evidence to counter the argument presented in the OP. I listen to Fox News to Pirro , Gregg Jarrett Etc and I hear a lot of opinions / conspiracy theories out the Gazoo , but I have seen no evidence presented by them. Feel free to backup anything you might have
 
OscarLevant said:
I'm not seeing any evidence to counter the argument presented in the OP. I listen to Fox News to Pirro , Gregg Jarrett Etc and I hear a lot of opinions / conspiracy theories out the Gazoo , but I have seen no evidence presented by them. Feel free to backup anything you might have
Click to expand...

What evidence needs to be fought against?

All we're dealing with right now is "he said she said", and nothing more.

Hell we have more evidence for Biden possibly being corrupt than we do for anything untoward, actually happening between Trump and Ukraine.
 
Oborosen said:
What evidence needs to be fought against?

All we're dealing with right now is "he said she said", and nothing more.

Hell we have more evidence for Biden possibly being corrupt than we do for anything untoward, actually happening between Trump and Ukraine.
Click to expand...

If you're not going to present any evidence I'll assume that you don't have it
 
OscarLevant said:
If you're not going to present any evidence I'll assume that you don't have it
Click to expand...

Then you're in the same boat that I am every time that I ask the same question. Because have no proof of wrong doing on the part of Trump in this whole Ukraine debacle. All we have a people on both sides saying that there was, and that there wasn't any such thing to happen.

However one side has information that stays in tune with what they claim. That no such thing as extortion, nor a request for dirt to hurt anyone's political campaign was asked for.
The other has been reduced to pulling back room deals to make their own evidence just suddenly appear, and have been shown to not even be good faith actors in all of this. Much like Schiff's interaction with the WB that he lied about, all the way to him lying about the "spirit" of the conversation, when he read it directly to congress.

If I had anything substantial from the opposite side to argue against, I'd be willing to entertain the conversation.
 
Oborosen said:
What evidence needs to be fought against?

All we're dealing with right now is "he said she said", and nothing more.

Hell we have more evidence for Biden possibly being corrupt than we do for anything untoward, actually happening between Trump and Ukraine.
Click to expand...

Completely Nuts. Drink some more Kool-Aid and follow the leader right off the cliff.
 
Oborosen said:
Then you're in the same boat that I am every time that I ask the same question. Because have no proof of wrong doing on the part of Trump in this whole Ukraine debacle. All we have a people on both sides saying that there was, and that there wasn't any such thing to happen.

However one side has information that stays in tune with what they claim. That no such thing as extortion, nor a request for dirt to hurt anyone's political campaign was asked for.
The other has been reduced to pulling back room deals to make their own evidence just suddenly appear, and have been shown to not even be good faith actors in all of this. Much like Schiff's interaction with the WB that he lied about, all the way to him lying about the "spirit" of the conversation, when he read it directly to congress.

If I had anything substantial from the opposite side to argue against, I'd be willing to entertain the conversation.
Click to expand...

I would suggest then you read all the transcripts. There is so much overwhelming evidence that Ukraine military aid was held up (per Trumps instruction) until Ukraine provides 'investigations'. The aid was only released a day or so after the WB report was made public. This was a conspiracy that started many months before it became public with quite a few players.

We need to hear from Mulvaney, Bolton and Rudy. I doubt any will testify. So when all the GOP start yelling you haven't found anything, it's because the folks with all the first hand info refused to testify. Obstruction of Congress.

Personally I don't care if the senate acquits. As long as the majority of Americans know exactly what a criminal cheater we have in the WH. The rest will take place at the polls.
 
The AntiDonald said:
I would suggest then you read all the transcripts. There is so much overwhelming evidence that Ukraine military aid was held up (per Trumps instruction) until Ukraine provides 'investigations'. The aid was only released a day or so after the WB report was made public. This was a conspiracy that started many months before it became public with quite a few players.

We need to hear from Mulvaney, Bolton and Rudy. I doubt any will testify. So when all the GOP start yelling you haven't found anything, it's because the folks with all the first hand info refused to testify. Obstruction of Congress.

Personally I don't care if the senate acquits. As long as the majority of Americans know exactly what a criminal cheater we have in the WH. The rest will take place at the polls.
Click to expand...

Kinda like the last criminal cheater.

It just cycles back and forth between parties.
 
Oborosen said:
I'll hand it too them. It's at least an argument.
Which is far and away much better than most of the left has been able to supply at this point.

Now is it a good argument? No, no it really isn't.
Given what we have from Trump's office and the Ukrainian officials that have voiced their side of the story. We know that this really isn't the story that is actually gong on. I know we have people coming out for the democrats, saying otherwise. But the problem, is that we have more evidence to say to the contrary and it's still more simple to say that this was still a favor in looking into corruption in Ukraine, and not trying to harm Biden's election prospects. Which If I'm going to be honest, were not that good to begin with.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous. Say this out loud to yourself; 'Trump is documented as being corrupt and has just been fined $2 million because of it. Trump also wants to investigate corruption in a far-off country'. See how stupid that sounds?
 
Trump said:
call me after impeachment:roll:
Click to expand...

#jimjordanknew

Republicans have no morals or ethics. Hill resigns, jordan remains.

Is he your superman? Gonna save your dying ideology?
 
Strong southern men covering for a New York City adulterer, conman, criminal and tax cheat who lies constantly, isn't Christian and practices things like extortion.

Just as Jesus taught.
 
Oborosen said:
Then you're in the same boat that I am every time that I ask the same question. Because have no proof of wrong doing on the part of Trump in this whole Ukraine debacle. All we have a people on both sides saying that there was, and that there wasn't any such thing to happen.
Click to expand...

We have the testimony of the bagman. We have the televised confession of the chief of staff who orchestrated the freeze on the aid. We have Trump's own words alluding to the scheme in the notes he released. And we have the testimonies of half a dozen other people who witnessed the whole thing.

Trump held up strategically important aid authorized by Congress to force the public announcement of an investigation into his political rival. That's the definition of bribery in the U.S. code.

(2)being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A)being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B)being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C)being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;​
Click to expand...

Which happens to be explicitly impeachable under Article II of the Constitution.

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.
Click to expand...

Time for Trump to go.
 
Obscurity said:
#jimjordanknew

Republicans have no morals or ethics. Hill resigns, jordan remains.

Is he your superman? Gonna save your dying ideology?
Click to expand...

Gym Jordan is scum. The GOP placing him in this position is merely their public proclamation that they intend their role in the hearings to be that of a circus clown.
 
Hillary Clinton taught Jordan every thing she knows about covering up sex crimes.
 
Oborosen said:
Then you're in the same boat that I am every time that I ask the same question. Because have no proof of wrong doing on the part of Trump in this whole Ukraine debacle. All we have a people on both sides saying that there was, and that there wasn't any such thing to happen.

However one side has information that stays in tune with what they claim. That no such thing as extortion, nor a request for dirt to hurt anyone's political campaign was asked for.
The other has been reduced to pulling back room deals to make their own evidence just suddenly appear, and have been shown to not even be good faith actors in all of this. Much like Schiff's interaction with the WB that he lied about, all the way to him lying about the "spirit" of the conversation, when he read it directly to congress.

If I had anything substantial from the opposite side to argue against, I'd be willing to entertain the conversation.
Click to expand...

There is proof of wrong doing.
Several books have been written several people inside the White House have given testimony
If somebody is going to to commit murder they don't tell their victim I'm going to murder you especially in front of witnesses. Murderers are convicted all the time on their actions not on what they say ,

similarily you're never going to find Trump saying he's doing a quid pro quo he just does it and you have to look at the body of evidence that points to that fact and it is there--you're just ignoring it and denying it exists.

Plus it's so logical because Trump has a history of shady Behavior it's not logical that all of a sudden he's concerned about Ukraine's corruption.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Kinda like the last criminal cheater.

It just cycles back and forth between parties.
Click to expand...

There are no criminal indictments or jailings with the previous administration but there's considerable amount of that with this Administration so as much as you want them to be, there really is no equivalency
 
snakestretcher said:
Ridiculous. Say this out loud to yourself; 'Trump is documented as being corrupt and has just been fined $2 million because of it. Trump also wants to investigate corruption in a far-off country'. See how stupid that sounds?
Click to expand...

If that's all you need to say that someone is corrupt then you're a hypocrite for supporting anyone else in the republican house, or the dnc.
 
OscarLevant said:
If you're not going to present any evidence I'll assume that you don't have it
Click to expand...

Your assumption is correct. They are only connected to the real world anymore in the physical sense, meaning they wake up in a bed.

It's all froot loops and conspiracy and sycophantic drooling after that.
 
OscarLevant said:
There is proof of wrong doing.
Several books have been written several people inside the White House have given testimony
If somebody is going to to commit murder they don't tell their victim I'm going to murder you especially in front of witnesses. Murderers are convicted all the time on their actions not on what they say ,

similarily you're never going to find Trump saying he's doing a quid pro quo he just does it and you have to look at the body of evidence that points to that fact and it is there--you're just ignoring it and denying it exists.

Plus it's so logical because Trump has a history of shady Behavior it's not logical that all of a sudden he's concerned about Ukraine's corruption.
Click to expand...

I never actually said that "he" was concerned about the corruption in Ukraine. My money was on him finding the source of the whole Russiagate clown show. Which, even with that in tow. He still did nothing wrong.

Then again, all of you are completely fine with Biden doing what he did and then getting pissed at Trump. So for many of us in the middle and on the right. This does nothing more than reveal the same double standard that all you so willingly feed into.
 
Oborosen said:
I never actually said that "he" was concerned about the corruption in Ukraine. My money was on him finding the source of the whole Russiagate clown show. Which, even with that in tow. He still did nothing wrong.

Then again, all of you are completely fine with Biden doing what he did and then getting pissed at Trump. So for many of us in the middle and on the right. This does nothing more than reveal the same double standard that all you so willingly feed into.
Click to expand...

What, pray tell, did Biden do?


His son traded of his dad's name, he's an adult, he can do that, lots of politician's kids do this.

The left has acknowledged that it was swampy, that they wish Hunter hadn't done that, but beyond that, what's the problem?

You don't seem to mind if Ivanka and Jared profit off Trump's name ( Ivanka got millions worth of trademarks from China, Jared got a billion dollar bailout from Qatar )


The only reason Trump wants to "find the source" of the Russia investigation, is that it was about him. If it were about anyone else, he wouldn't give a damn.

He just wants retribution, but thing is, given the fact that there were over 140 documented contacts between his campaign and Russia, the investigators would have been derelict if they didn't investigate,

funny thing, though, crimes were uncovered and people went to jail, that's what the FBI and the DOJ do, they investigate and put people in jail, it's THEIR JOB.

And, given that Trump is listed as co-conspirator in a felony, if he weren't president, he'd probably be indicted, especially on FEC felony campaign violations, and obstructions of justice.


But, you don't seem to mind.

You don't mind all the nasty **** this despicable human being has done in his life, none of that bothers you.

But, if Biden's son trade's off his dad's name, you're all bent out of shape.
 
Last edited:
OscarLevant said:
What, pray tell, did Biden do?


His son traded of his dad's name, he's an adult, he can do that, lots of politician's kids do this.

The left has acknowledged that it was swampy, that they wish Hunter hadn't done that, but beyond that, what's the problem?

You don't seem to mind if Ivanka and Jared profit off Trump's name ( Ivanka got millions worth of trademarks from China, Jared got a billion dollar bailout from Qatar )


The only reason Trump wants to "find the source" of the Russia investigation, is that it was about him. If it were about anyone else, he wouldn't give a damn.

He just wants retribution, but thing is, given the fact that there were over 140 documented contacts between his campaign and Russia, the investigators would have been derelict if they didn't investigate,

funny thing, though, crimes were uncovered and people went to jail, that's what the FBI and the DOJ do, they investigate and put people in jail, it's THEIR JOB.

And, given that Trump is listed as co-conspirator in a felony, if he weren't president, he'd probably be indicted, especially on FEC felony campaign violations, and obstructions of justice.


But, you don't seem to mind.

You don't mind all the nasty **** this despicable human being has done in his life, none of that bothers you.

But, if Biden's son trade's off his dad's name, you're all bent out of shape.
Click to expand...

Makes me wonder what kind of crimes would be uncovered if they investigated Biden.

Seeing as he openly admitted to it being quid pro quo, and that fact of the matter is that his son was dreadfully close to the issue. Then they fired the prosecutor for "not prosecuting" only for his replacement to just drop all charges and to release all of the assets that they were holding from the company. All within a rather close time line with Biden's contact within the government.

Seems like a possible sign of corruption to me, and I'm just a shmuck who sits behind his desk in a clinic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom