• 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!

How Can Someone Be Bribed Or Extorted If They Don't Even Know?

How can someone be bribed or extorted if that person doesn't even know they are being bribed or extorted? Simple question.

If you are promised money and it hasn't reached your bank account explain to me how you could not know this
 
For a different angle, Andy McCarthy made an interesting point the other day related to this.
He said when the Founders defined Impeachment grounds as "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” in the Constitution, the reference to "Bribery" referred to the President (or whoever) taking a bribe to benefit a foreign power, not offering a bribe.
A couple of centuries later grounds for Impeachment came to be, let's say, more inclusive.



You have no evidence to support your claim. In fact, the meaning of "bribery" in the context of impeachment in the Founding was much broader than today, which now includes the requirement of a quid-pro-quo. However, it's your burden to prove, without which support your claim is unfounded and dismissed as worthless.
 
You didn't even see it yourself! How in the hell can I get something from you if you don't even know I was bribing you?

The elements of the crime are clear. If anyone witnesses the attempt it is bribery even if the bribee never heard it
 
Mafia walks into a grocery store. Tells the owner's wife that it's a nice store and it'd be a shame if anything happened to it.

She's confused and doesn't understand.

Extortion?
 
Yeah sorry...but a news article being published was the thing that made them aware. That's not falling into any criteria at all for what the hearings are all about.
Well, we know for a fact now that Ukraine was aware security assistance was being withheld only hours after the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky:

Cooper told the House intelligence committee that her staff received an email on 25 July from the state department saying that Ukraine’s embassy and the House foreign affairs committee were asking about military aid.

“On July 25th, a member of my staff got a question from a Ukraine embassy contact asking what was going on with Ukraine security assistance,” Cooper testified. “Because at that time we did not know what the guidance was … I was informed that the staff member told the Ukrainian official that we were moving forward but recommended that the Ukraine embassy check in with state [department]”.

Asked later if the question referred specifically to the suspended aid, Cooper confirmed: “There was an awareness of that and there was an expression of concern.”
Ukraine knew of stalled aid far earlier than White House claims, official testifies | US news | The Guardian

During testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday evening Deputy Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia Laura Cooper said that her staff received had received emails from the State Department saying that the Ukrainian embassy and House Foreign Affairs Committee were aware of "the situation" with the aid money on July 25.

Those emails were received just hours after President Trump had a call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which prompted a whistleblower complaint and launched the impeachment inquiry.

Cooper added that the emails focused "on the issue of Ukraine's knowledge of the hold or of Ukraine asking questions about the possible flow of assistance."

The first email said the Ukrainian embassy and the House Foreign Affairs committing were "asking about security assistance." The second email said that "the Hill knows about the FMF situation to an extent and so does the Ukrainian embassy," referring to the aid money.
Laura Cooper Says Ukraine Knew Of Aid Money Delay On July 25


So now we know Ukraine was fully aware that aid was being withheld, within hours of Trump's "do us a favor" phone call. But I'm sure you'll find yet another reason to not believe it, right? Or Is sworn testimony from a firsthand witness enough for you?
 
Last edited:
You have no evidence to support your claim. In fact, the meaning of "bribery" in the context of impeachment in the Founding was much broader than today, which now includes the requirement of a quid-pro-quo. However, it's your burden to prove, without which support your claim is unfounded and dismissed as worthless.

It's Andy McCarthy's claim.
Fox contributor: Even if Trump's Ukraine bribery was illegal, it wasn't egregious enough for impeachment | Media Matters for America
 
Yeah sorry...but a news article being published was the thing that made them aware. That's not falling into any criteria at all for what the hearings are all about.

You have fallen behind the testimony. Why am I not surprised.
 
How can someone be bribed or extorted if that person doesn't even know they are being bribed or extorted? Simple question.

Cooper testified they knew in July.

So yes. They knew.

You've been lied to.

Stop listening to fox.
 
Cooper testified they knew in July.

So yes. They knew.

You've been lied to.

Stop listening to fox.

100% correct though, in fairness, while I fully understand Moderate Right's intentions, when this thread was posted Cooper had not yet testified.
 
100% correct though, in fairness, while I fully understand Moderate Right's intentions, when this thread was posted Cooper had not yet testified.

Of course. But at the end of the day, these people are being lied to.

FFS they're claiming there is no quid pro quo despite Sondland confirming it's existence.

It is LUNACY.
 
When the actual testimony from witnesses is completed there well be a through-line from beginning to end and all these efforts to pull at individual threads of testimony or opinions about testimony will melt in front of that through-line. If this were a trial setting it would be called "The Summation".

So I will give you boys parts of the Summation right here. Trumpettes prepare for it because you are in several threads simply pulling at individual threads of testimony because that is all you have. That is all Rep Jordan and the rest of the minority panel has for that matter. They are in worse shape than you are. They have an unruly client, guilty as hell that has bound their hands into only presenting a defense based on a single sorryassed premise.

Examples of things that will be part of the summation:
We have witnesses claiming they could not connect Burisma with Biden and therefore missed the political implications of Burisma and the Bidens. However, Fat Donald himself mentions the Bidens in the Memo of TelCon and two witnesses have testified that the word Burisma was lacking in the Zalinskis text and the term "the company" inserted instead. That was the lead in to Trump's Biden comments in the text. From Zalinsky:
"He or she [new prosecutor] will look. into the situation, specifically to the company that you
-mentioned in :this issue"


Where did that come from? "The Company had never been mentioned before that in the Memo, nor had Burisma. So where did Zalinsky pull that from?

That was never a transcript and now you know why and now you know why there were people on that call that believed Burisma should have been inserted back into the Memo of TelCon.

Morrison simply googled Burisma and found the link to the Bidens for example. So we are to believe that all of these smart people either did not know that Burisma meant Bidens and/or did not simply do what Morrison did if they did not know?

Law requires that the WH send notifications to Congress and DOD if authorized funds are being withheld, even if temporary. The WH sent no notifications. Why is that? Hiding something are we?

Then there are the events around Sept 9th and the subsequent release of the funds. These include the WB complaint being sent to House Intel and pressure from Congress being the elements that actually got the military aid funding released no matter how much Rep Jordan blathers otherwise. Those events are also concurrent with Fat Donald's screed about "No quid pro quo" to Sondland. The game was up. Trump knew it. He released the funds and began the next phase of a coverup of his crime. Those elements will be part of the through-line.

Again, at the end of this testimony the final act of House Intel before sending its material on to House Judiciary will be to establish a very clear and easy to read through-line from start to finish and all these little (and I do mean little) efforts to pull on single threads of testimony will melt away. But I understand. The guy the Repugs are trying to protect is very likely guilty as hell and the Repugs have been left with a lousy client, guilty as heck who is tying their hands in the way they can defend him.

What will the Minority side of the panel have to counter with? They will have a bunch of disconnected tidbits of testimony for which there is no through-line and no sense of an actual defense.

Also, House Intel and DOJ are not done with "Ambassador Sondland". His smug, sorryass is not out of the woods yet either. That said, the single most important outcome from the Sundland testimony is the understanding that Trump his WH and the entire political appointment part of the Administration is massively corrupt. EVERYBODY KNEW as Sondland testified.
 
Last edited:
Because they choose not to.

And they will then cling to the fact that the Ukrainian President says there’s nothing wrong and ignore that it’s in his interest and his nations interest to do so.

Because none of whats happening now means that Trump will actually be removed from office and that he will lose the 2020 election and so if he were to confirm it, he inserts himself straight into partisan American politics and can expect a pretty chilly or downright hostile relationship with the White House for another 4 years, something his nation can not afford.

But Trump supporters aren’t really the sharpest tools in the shed and so “nuance” is a concept pretty foreign to them.

images
 
Mafia tells a store owner that is would be very good for him if he bought his liquor through them.

Owner is confused and doesn't understand.

Extortion?
 
The cover up is always worse than the crime.

If it's all bull$@!£ then why not let Rudy, Mulvaney and Bolton testify?

No innocent person would demand that none of the witness comply with congress request for testimony
 
Of course. But at the end of the day, these people are being lied to. FFS they're claiming there is no quid pro quo despite Sondland confirming it's existence. It is LUNACY.
They're deliberately conflating financial assistance quid pro quo and a White House visit quid pro quo. It's dishonest and they know it.
 
They're deliberately conflating financial assistance quid pro quo and a White House visit quid pro quo. It's dishonest and they know it.

Of course they know it, which is precisely why Ocean515 and others keep spewing nonsense to defend this worthless potus.
 
The elements of the crime are clear. If anyone witnesses the attempt it is bribery even if the bribee never heard it

If the bribee doesn't even know there was an attempt then there is nothing to witness.
 
Your rejection of a rejection is noted.
And rejected.

You are worthless to debate with. Anything that doesn't fit your preconceived agenda you reject. You offer no facts of anything. You don't even offer left wing talking points.
 
If the bribee doesn't even know there was an attempt then there is nothing to witness.

At the least on July 25th, Ukraine new it STILL did not have its aid package. In addition there is now evidence in testimony that Ukraine knew on July 25th that something had gone amiss with its aid package.

More importantly, Trump wanted the announcement of Investigations in exchange for a WH meeting for Zalinsky. He did not care about actual investigations. Trump does not have his announcement and Zalinsky does not have his WH meeting. Rep Jordan's laughable effort to try to make a UN Pressor the equivalent of a WH meeting are absurd on their face.
 
You are worthless to debate with. Anything that doesn't fit your preconceived agenda you reject. You offer no facts of anything. You don't even offer left wing talking points.

Heh, Heh, yeah project away.
That description fits you more than I.
 
Back
Top Bottom