Posted on 12/06/2019 4:28:30 AM PST by karpov
...
Adam Schiff, the leading House impeachment advocate, has been floating a capacious definition of bribery that bears no relation to current law. “Well, bribery, first of all, as the Founders understood bribery, it was not as we understand it in law today. It was much broader,” he told NPR. “It connoted the breach of the public trust in a way where you’re offering official acts for some personal or political reason, not in the nation’s interest.”
...
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Schiff’s bribery definition is correct and should be the impeachment standard. Why then wouldn’t Joe Biden’s actions in Ukraine in 2015 also be an impeachable bribe?
Mr. Biden has admitted that he threatened Ukrainian officials with the denial of U.S. aid if they didn’t fire a prosecutor who was investigating Burisma, which was paying Hunter Biden some $50,000 a month. That sure looks like an official act that had “some personal or political reason,” under the Schiff definition. It was certainly something “of value personally” under the Blumenthal definition.
Mr. Biden might object that he was representing the Obama Administration “in the nation’s interest.” But defining national interest is in the eye of the beholder. Is it in the U.S. interest for Ukraine officials to see that a company can escape scrutiny for corruption if it hires the son of the U.S. Vice President? Is it in the nation’s interest if other countries and companies observe this behavior and hire relatives of other American politicians?
At the very least, this is a question the U.S. Senate should be eager to explore in Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial. Mr. Biden would be essential to call as a leading witness, perhaps for the Trump defense team.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
Even a narrow definition.
Oh, no, this is completely wrong. DemocRAT Socialists, by definition, cannot be corrupt. Therefore, Schiff-for-brains’ definition does NOT apply to Biden (or Pelosi or Sanders or any other leftist who uses public office for personal gain).
What is initially stated in the Constitution has been further refined by subsequent Supreme Court decisions, which have greatly narrowed the definition of bribery. Turley spoke of this process in his testimony, and the Dims ignored his statements to keep a nebulous and overly broad definition of bribery to suit their fantasies.
I’d be interested in learning more about how the Iran deal, where the Obama administration literally gave pallets of cash to terrorists, was in the nation’s interest and not bribery by this newly revised definition.
The Dims don’t care about Slow Joe; their hatred of Trump, er, trumps everything. They’ll willing to sacrifice anyone to bring him down.
When they lose BIG next November, it’ll be interesting to see where they point their wrath. Someone has to be the scapegoat. Shifty (and Nadler) bungled the impeachment, so they may be the target.
*They’re
Can anyone give a reasonable explanation on why no prominent D has stepped to a microphone and question what Joe Biden said in that video? And why Hunter Biden and others were paid enormous sums of money by a shady Ukraine energy company?
Not one Democrat will ask the question or demand to know what was going on.
As others had said on FR, Trump is being impeached for what Joe Biden actually did in Ukraine.
If the standard is you can’t investigate a political rival running for office, than Democrats shouldn’t investigate Trump. Incidentally, that is exactly what Obama did in 2016 with Hillary’s foreign sourced dossier.
Thank God for alternative media.
Good point.
Also, the Schiff standard seems to be that Congress sets foreign policy in the area of aid, and the President (if he's Trump) can't intervene or improvise. Did Congress authorize Obama to send pallets of cash in the night to Iran? Wouldn't a check have done just as well? (Answer: No, because bank transfers can be tracked. Cash can purchase terror, or be kicked back in various ways.)
Biden also directly implicates Obama in the Bribery/Extortion scheme. the Senate shuld Impeach Both Obama and Biden as soon as they get the case.
The rationale for the Iran deal was different. The Obama administration stated the cash given to Iran was the release of assets frozen by the US after the Shah was deposed.
Obama was “technically” returning Iran’s money back to them. Truth be known, it was done in cash in multiple currencies so there was no electronic signature to the funds. The old 1 for you, 2 for me scheme.
Had the Obama administration used conventional means,ie: wire transfers, there would have been an electronic record of money in and money out. This way no one knows where the money went after it was delivered to Iran.
I’m sure not all the money went to Iran. I would bet some of it made its way to some private accounts controlled by US politicians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.