Posted on Sep 30, 2019
Here Are 7 Crimes Trump Might Have Committed in This Ukraine Scandal
1.1K
34
22
5
5
0
Campaign finance violation, bribery, honest services fraud, extortion, witness intimidation, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy...
Here Are 7 Crimes Trump Might Have Committed in This Ukraine Scandal
Posted from vice.com
Donald Trump
Crime
Law
Justice
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
3
3
0
1. The Whistleblower documents did not say Pres. Trump as for any help affecting the 2020 election. What he ask was for a corruption investigation for past deeds.
2. Bribery charges works if one claims anything President Trump does will positively influence an election. What exact "thing" of value was gained?
3. What personal gain did Pres Trump received that are against the public good?
4. Extortion requires the victim to lose something of value under threat. What did the President of Ukraine lose? He didn't know about the arms deal until a month after this conversation. Plus, how can extort a good from Ukraine that they never had?
5. The Whistleblower is not a Whistleblower. The Whistleblower complaint was submitted by someone who did not have first hand knowledge of facts. Compliant is all hearsay.
6. The President can place files wherever he wants. Congress does not control how the Executive Branch does their internal business. How can the President obstruct justice long before any legal complaint is made?
7. Conspiracy claim is a hill built on air.
2. Bribery charges works if one claims anything President Trump does will positively influence an election. What exact "thing" of value was gained?
3. What personal gain did Pres Trump received that are against the public good?
4. Extortion requires the victim to lose something of value under threat. What did the President of Ukraine lose? He didn't know about the arms deal until a month after this conversation. Plus, how can extort a good from Ukraine that they never had?
5. The Whistleblower is not a Whistleblower. The Whistleblower complaint was submitted by someone who did not have first hand knowledge of facts. Compliant is all hearsay.
6. The President can place files wherever he wants. Congress does not control how the Executive Branch does their internal business. How can the President obstruct justice long before any legal complaint is made?
7. Conspiracy claim is a hill built on air.
(3)
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
LTJG Richard Bruce - Perhaps he should have asked the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE instead of trying to leverage the power of his office to leverage foreign entities against an American citizen.
(2)
(0)
SGT Lou Meza
You are correct on all you rebuttals . Facts will always prevail against alternative facts which are , to put it mildly , lies .Capt Gregory Prickett
(2)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
LTJG Richard Bruce - Trump is not the "Chief LEO" of the US and the president has never been considered that. Second, there are laws and treaties about how to conduct investigations, including investigations on political opponents. None of them were followed.
When a president is withholding Congressionally approved foreign aid unless the favor is granted, then yes, it's extortion.
You also need to look up the elements of the offense for espionage (i.e., spying) and then look up the statute on whistleblowers in the Intelligence community. Right now you're just saying stuff that makes you look silly, because nothing the whistleblower did even comes close to espionage. And it doesn't become treason just because the Cheeto said so.
There are several ways to commit obstruction of justice. Right now you have a Congressional investigation and Trump has made threatening comments about various parties to the inquiry. Then you have the fact that the OLC, under Trump, refused to allow the DNI to comply with the law and provide the report to Congress. I can keep going, but obstruction is probably going to be one of the easier crimes to prove.
Look, I get that no matter what Trump does, you'll support it. But don't think that the rest of us believe his BS.
When a president is withholding Congressionally approved foreign aid unless the favor is granted, then yes, it's extortion.
You also need to look up the elements of the offense for espionage (i.e., spying) and then look up the statute on whistleblowers in the Intelligence community. Right now you're just saying stuff that makes you look silly, because nothing the whistleblower did even comes close to espionage. And it doesn't become treason just because the Cheeto said so.
There are several ways to commit obstruction of justice. Right now you have a Congressional investigation and Trump has made threatening comments about various parties to the inquiry. Then you have the fact that the OLC, under Trump, refused to allow the DNI to comply with the law and provide the report to Congress. I can keep going, but obstruction is probably going to be one of the easier crimes to prove.
Look, I get that no matter what Trump does, you'll support it. But don't think that the rest of us believe his BS.
(2)
(0)
SSgt Richard Kensinger
LTJG Richard Bruce - Mueller finds 140 contact w/ Russians, 12 of whom are indicted. During Helsinki Putin acknowledges his clear preference of Trumps election, and POTUS reaffirms and rejects the findings of his intelligence community.
Rich
Rich
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
MSgt Steve Sweeney
What hoax? You don;t believe the INtelligence Community assessment that the Russian government used state level assets to interfere in the election? Or do you just prefer to ignore an attack on our country?
(3)
(0)
SSgt Richard Kensinger
MSgt Steve Sweeney - They are running out of alternative facts and resort to what I refer to as the defensive triad: deflect, distract and destroy those who stand up to POTUS.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Interesting times for any that study/practice law. I just hope we can become more united again, and try to remain optimistic. Tough times in politics, but we will pull through.
Edit: What are the requirements by law to prove Treason? Not suggesting, but in these strange politics someone may bring it up. Is denying aid to an ally indirectly aiding the enemy etc. ? Theme in defense now seems to be "hearsay" and "no quid pro quo" directly stated. Implication is different than actual hard evidence. Glad I'm not a Lawyer.
Edit: What are the requirements by law to prove Treason? Not suggesting, but in these strange politics someone may bring it up. Is denying aid to an ally indirectly aiding the enemy etc. ? Theme in defense now seems to be "hearsay" and "no quid pro quo" directly stated. Implication is different than actual hard evidence. Glad I'm not a Lawyer.
(1)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Well, first, there has to be a declared war, or the accused has to take up arms against the United States. Treason isn't on the table, for either side.
Second, hearsay isn't a defense, and there is no requirement that a quid pro quo be directed stated.
Second, hearsay isn't a defense, and there is no requirement that a quid pro quo be directed stated.
(2)
(0)
CWO3 (Join to see)
Capt Gregory Prickett - It's hard to tell when we actually are at war anymore, except to those in the battle. AUMFs and all...but thanks for all info on topic and my query.
(1)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
CWO3 (Join to see) - We have not been at war since 1945, so the only way to commit treason currently is to take up arms against the United States.
(2)
(0)
CWO3 (Join to see)
Capt Gregory Prickett - Thanks. It clears that up, and the other info was helpful as well.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google