- Messages
- 6,211
- Reactions
- 10,937
Disclaimer......I did not write this.
Since President Trump's inauguration, Democrats have been concocting fake reasons to "Impeach" him. Since before he took office, Democrats have made dozens of fake charges against the President, including supposed violation of "the emolument clause;" Russia "collusion;" improper dealings with women; rude political statements; evil business dealings, abuse of power; obstruction, blah, blah, blah, all shown to be false and fake.
According to Nancy Pelosi, the latest fake "Impeachment" scam is "Bribery," U.S. Code sec. 201. This latest fake claim by Democrats is based on the President's phone call with President Zelensky of Ukraine. We note that the Democrats and their fake witnesses exhibit extreme arrogance in placing their own narrow political opinions above those of the elected leader of the Country, who has the Constitutional duty under Article 2 to serve as Chief of Foreign Relations and Law Enforcement.
Bribery is a specific intent crime, meaning not only must each specified criminal element be proved, but it must also be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed, "an evil intent to violate the law." Schneider v. United States (1951). Keep in mind, the usual Bribery case involves payment of money or a thing of value, such as a house, car, jewelry, etc. Here, it is a ridiculous warping of the law to claim that requesting an investigation of crime and corruption is a "thing of value" to the President under the Bribery statute. Even a non-attorney can review the Bribery statute and case law, and see it is completely and utterly inapplicable to the acts of the President.
For the sake of argument only, we dismiss the Democrats' silly argument that "Quid Pro Quo" is significant here. First, there is no evidence alleged showing a "quid pro quo," that is, the President telling someone he requires something in exchange for something else. President Zelensky, President
Trump, and others, confirm they had no understanding of a quid pro quo. The fake understanding of others is irrelevant.
Second, even if there were "Quid Pro Quo," only "corrupt" (illegal) acts are proscribed by the law. Case law is very clear, an official, particularly the President acting in his Article 2 role, can request "Quid Pro Quo," particularly where, as here, there is an obvious benefit to the U.S. in investigating corruption and bringing criminals to justice. Third, the Supreme Court has stated that the bribery law must be construed "narrowly," and that "quid pro quo" alone is not enough for a violation. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965); United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California (1999).
Thus, even assuming the Democrats' nonsense "Quid Pro Quo" argument were valid, much more would be required to prove Bribery. Moreover, given that the statute must be construed narrowly, the Court must give an interpretation of the President's acts favoring a legitimate purpose. Here, in the phone call itself, the President provides that purpose; investigating crime and stamping out corruption. Again, only for the sake of dismissing the Democrats' fake argument, even if there were a supposed dual-purpose in the President's request, a Court would have to narrowly construe the law to find the President's acts reasonable and legitimate.
In conclusion, facts alleged by Democrats and testimony to date, in no way support the elements of a Bribery claim. The President was acting within his Article 2 duties, as Chief of Foreign Relations and Law Enforcement, and was free to condition payment of foreign aid on Ukraine conducting a corruption investigation, even if there were some other possible benefit to the President in investigating the Bidens. In short, the Democrats' latest Impeachment scam may be dismissed in short order as simply "more of the same" fake attacks on the President we have seen since the President's election. The only real crimes proved by Democrats are their own in obstructing the Executive Branch and interfering with the President's exercise of his Article 2 duties and obligations.
Since President Trump's inauguration, Democrats have been concocting fake reasons to "Impeach" him. Since before he took office, Democrats have made dozens of fake charges against the President, including supposed violation of "the emolument clause;" Russia "collusion;" improper dealings with women; rude political statements; evil business dealings, abuse of power; obstruction, blah, blah, blah, all shown to be false and fake.
According to Nancy Pelosi, the latest fake "Impeachment" scam is "Bribery," U.S. Code sec. 201. This latest fake claim by Democrats is based on the President's phone call with President Zelensky of Ukraine. We note that the Democrats and their fake witnesses exhibit extreme arrogance in placing their own narrow political opinions above those of the elected leader of the Country, who has the Constitutional duty under Article 2 to serve as Chief of Foreign Relations and Law Enforcement.
Bribery is a specific intent crime, meaning not only must each specified criminal element be proved, but it must also be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed, "an evil intent to violate the law." Schneider v. United States (1951). Keep in mind, the usual Bribery case involves payment of money or a thing of value, such as a house, car, jewelry, etc. Here, it is a ridiculous warping of the law to claim that requesting an investigation of crime and corruption is a "thing of value" to the President under the Bribery statute. Even a non-attorney can review the Bribery statute and case law, and see it is completely and utterly inapplicable to the acts of the President.
For the sake of argument only, we dismiss the Democrats' silly argument that "Quid Pro Quo" is significant here. First, there is no evidence alleged showing a "quid pro quo," that is, the President telling someone he requires something in exchange for something else. President Zelensky, President
Trump, and others, confirm they had no understanding of a quid pro quo. The fake understanding of others is irrelevant.
Second, even if there were "Quid Pro Quo," only "corrupt" (illegal) acts are proscribed by the law. Case law is very clear, an official, particularly the President acting in his Article 2 role, can request "Quid Pro Quo," particularly where, as here, there is an obvious benefit to the U.S. in investigating corruption and bringing criminals to justice. Third, the Supreme Court has stated that the bribery law must be construed "narrowly," and that "quid pro quo" alone is not enough for a violation. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965); United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California (1999).
Thus, even assuming the Democrats' nonsense "Quid Pro Quo" argument were valid, much more would be required to prove Bribery. Moreover, given that the statute must be construed narrowly, the Court must give an interpretation of the President's acts favoring a legitimate purpose. Here, in the phone call itself, the President provides that purpose; investigating crime and stamping out corruption. Again, only for the sake of dismissing the Democrats' fake argument, even if there were a supposed dual-purpose in the President's request, a Court would have to narrowly construe the law to find the President's acts reasonable and legitimate.
In conclusion, facts alleged by Democrats and testimony to date, in no way support the elements of a Bribery claim. The President was acting within his Article 2 duties, as Chief of Foreign Relations and Law Enforcement, and was free to condition payment of foreign aid on Ukraine conducting a corruption investigation, even if there were some other possible benefit to the President in investigating the Bidens. In short, the Democrats' latest Impeachment scam may be dismissed in short order as simply "more of the same" fake attacks on the President we have seen since the President's election. The only real crimes proved by Democrats are their own in obstructing the Executive Branch and interfering with the President's exercise of his Article 2 duties and obligations.
