theFallGuy
I Love the Smell of Napalm In the Morning
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2008
- Messages
- 78,226
- Likes
- 79,306
Nope because we would have never known about it since none in the MSM would have reported on it. Anyone else reporting it would have just been shouted down as a racist crackpot.
Karlan had made a point earlier during the House Judiciary Committee's hearing about impeachment in response to a question from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, on how Trump as president was different from a king.
Karlan said kings could do no wrong because their word was law. But Karlan said Trump was wrong to say that Article 2 of the Constitution allows him to do anything he wants.
“The Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility, so while the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron,”
I’ll give whoever wrote that credit. It’s cerrtainly well thought out and written but the problem is that it is one legal opinion and that it is far from a black and white issue. It’s so gray and the line is so thin between what is normal political action and what is bribery from the way the article lays everything out that there’s no way either side will ever cross over.I honestly don't follow any logic here.
Please read this piece. It's legal, but sums up the issues you seem to be batting around pretty well.
Did President Trump Commit the Federal Crime of Bribery?
TLDR...
"To the extent Trump solicited an announcement unrelated to any actual investigation, he was not soliciting an official act that may be described as part of “logrolling.” Trump thus went beyond the exchange of public acts that constitute political or diplomatic logrolling. His conduct would support a finding of an exchange of official acts (by Trump) for things of value (the public statement sought from Zelensky) and as no public justification for seeking the statement has been offered, the corrupt intent necessary to maintain a bribery charge. "
How does requesting a public statement from Zelensky on opening an investigation of the Bidens have anything to do with looking into the 2016 election? Trump wanted to politically damage a potential future opponent of his. To pretend that the point of this involved anything else, is playing dumb.So when he says he is looking into 2016 election interference, whether you believe that to be a valid reason or not, is that not the offered justification? I will say that I at least appreciate you trying to hold a rational discussion unlike others on here. We may disagree but we can still respect each other.
Trump is President and your gal hill never will be.Trump might pretend he's a king but Barron will never be a Barron!
That's obviously a shot to his dad and not Barron but again too many people in this thread can't think for themselves.
Trump might pretend he's a king but Barron will never be a Barron!
That's obviously a shot to his dad and not Barron but again too many people in this thread can't think for themselves.
Trump is President and your gal hill never will be.
And the comments today were from a worthless lib triggered by walking by a Trump hotel and has donated thousands to socialists candidates so she’s a partisan hack and no one other than you wack jobs, care about her opinions on anything
Trump is President and your gal hill never will be.
And the comments today were from a worthless lib triggered by walking by a Trump hotel and has donated thousands to socialists candidates so she’s a partisan hack and no one other than you wack jobs, care about her opinions on anything
So your brilliant legal scholar and self proclaimed white man hating lesbian is so smart that she could draw any comparison in the world to her point and that was the one that just came of the top off her head? LOL and you question others thinking LOL
I can. It was an incredibly dumb thing to say. She should be smart enough to know better or at least know what the reaction would be.Trump might pretend he's a king but Barron will never be a Barron!
That's obviously a shot to his dad and not Barron but again too many people in this thread can't think for themselves.
So your brilliant legal scholar and self proclaimed white man hating lesbian is so smart that she could draw any comparison in the world to her point and that was the one that just came of the top off her head? LOL and you question others thinking LOL
I can. It was an incredibly dumb thing to say. She should be smart enough to know better or at least know what the reaction would be.