Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, October 21, 2019

Lindsey Graham demands that Democrats prove that Trump engaged in a "quid pro quo" deal with the Ukrainian president or they don't have an impeachable offense.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

But 52 USC 30121(a)(1) & (a)(2) make it a violation of federal law even to simply "solicit" a thing of value from a foreign national in connection with any U.S. election. "Solicit" means to "ask for." The foreign national doesn't have to say a word or agree to anything "neither side has to exchange anything. If you just ask a foreign national for any kind of assistance relating to a U.S. election, you have violated 52 USC 30121(a)(1) & (a)(2).

Lindsey Graham is a lawyer. He knows this.

There is an old saying in the law: "If you have the law, argue the law. If you don't have the law, argue the facts. If you don't have the law or the facts, pound on the table."

Lindsay Graham is a table pounder. He is demanding that Democrats prove that Trump engaged in a "quid pro quo" " an exchange of something for something " or they don't have a violation of the law. As a lawyer, he knows his argument is fraudulent. He would not have to resort to such a table-pounding fraud of a tactic if he didn't know that Trump violated the law by simply asking Kelensky to investigate Biden for him.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"demands that Democrats prove that Trump engaged in a "quid pro quo" "

For someone who claims to be so smart, Lindsay sure is dumb.

Fat Nixon and his chief of staff admitted it.

#1 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-10-21 06:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

An impeachable offense is anything that the majority says it is.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2019-10-21 08:38 AM | Reply

"Fat Nixon and his chief of staff admitted it."

Exactly.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2019-10-21 08:39 AM | Reply

I still do not believe that opening an investigation into Biden's activities, and presumably publicly releasing that information, is a contribution to the Trump campaign. It may be beneficial to the Trump campaign (as well as every Democratic voter), but being beneficial isn't a donation or contribution. If Bill Gates decided to release patent information for 1 of his products for public use, that would also be beneficial to the Trump campaign, but would not be a donation to the Trump campaign.

#4 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-21 09:50 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Avigdore, Under the applicable US Code section, Trump only had to solicit a contribution of "a thing of value" to his campaign. Certainly, an investigation of Biden for Trump by Kelensky was a thing of value to Trump's campaign - - that's why he solicited it.

Your Bill Gates example is not an election law violation because (1) you don't have Trump soliciting it, and (2) Gates isn't a foreign national.

#5 | Posted by nimbleswitch at 2019-10-21 10:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Somebody please show me wherein the 52 USC 30121 election law requires, or even mentions, a quid pro quo type requirement. Nowhere. That's like saying soliciting a guy to murder someone for money isn't really a crime unless the guy agrees to do it.

#6 | Posted by nimbleswitch at 2019-10-21 10:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Somebody please show me wherein the 52 USC 30121 election law requires, or even mentions, a quid pro quo type requirement. Nowhere. That's like saying soliciting a guy to murder someone for money isn't really a crime unless the guy agrees to do it.

#7 | Posted by nimbleswitch at 2019-10-21 10:58 AM | Reply

Avigdore, Under the applicable US Code section, Trump only had to solicit a contribution of "a thing of value" to his campaign. Certainly, an investigation of Biden for Trump by Kelensky was a thing of value to Trump's campaign - - that's why he solicited it.
Your Bill Gates example is not an election law violation because (1) you don't have Trump soliciting it, and (2) Gates isn't a foreign national.
#5 | Posted by nimbleswitch at 2019-10-21 10:40 AM

The 'thing of value' to his campaign still is not a donation or contribution to his campaign, as my Gates comparison illustrates. Ukraine investigating Biden may be beneficial to Trump's campaign, but it is not a donation to the campaign.

#8 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-21 11:06 AM | Reply

Let's try a different example and perhaps you'll understand my position:
Trump calls Ukraine and requests that they give $100 to every US citizen. News of the $100 windfall for every American would be a positive for the Trump campaign, but it would not be a donation to the Trump campaign.

#9 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-21 11:14 AM | Reply

Avignore, lets stick to the facts of the case and put a merciful stop to your comedic and tragic lack of ability to effectively use analogy.

#10 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2019-10-21 11:24 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Disregarding your childish labelling, the facts of the case:
Trump's request does not constitute a contribution to the campaign, making the likelihood of it being a solicitation of an illegal campaign contribution vanishingly small.

#11 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-21 12:14 PM | Reply

The 'thing of value' to his campaign still is not a donation or contribution to his campaign,

After 2016 if you think he would not use an investigation into Biden as campaign material to be regurgitated by everyone at every campaign rally everywhere until election day you are too stupid to help.

#12 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-10-21 12:25 PM | Reply

Trump's request does not constitute a contribution to the campaign,

You're right. It is soliciting something of value for a campaign from a foreign national. Also illegal.

www.law.cornell.edu

(a) ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for"

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make"
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

#13 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-10-21 12:28 PM | Reply

Once again, Ukraine opening an investigation is not a donation or a contribution to the Trump campaign. It wasn't being done with the campaign, for the campaign, or as part of a joint goal with the campaign.

(a) ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for"
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make"
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

#14 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-21 12:57 PM | Reply

Trump did this deliberately for his campaign. No other company, no other name was given to investigate. Just his (at the time) likely competitor.

Asking Ukraine to spend their money on bogus investigations for Trump's to get opposition research materials is clearly a violation of campaign finance law.

#15 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-21 01:33 PM | Reply

Perhaps if they sent that information to the Trump campaign for the Trump campaign's use, but there's no evidence of that being a plan. Since there is no evidence that it was being given to the Trump campaign, it -still- isn't a donation or contribution to the campaign.

#16 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-21 01:41 PM | Reply

Ahhh avigdore. The perpetual literalist for Trump.

#17 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-21 10:32 PM | Reply

...it -still- isn't a donation or contribution to the campaign.
#16 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

No it's not. It doesn't have to be. Why are you making up your own definition of a law that seems pretty clear?

#18 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2019-10-22 08:33 AM | Reply

Avigdore, if investigating Trump's political opponent's son was not going to contribute to Trump's campaign, do you really suppose Trump solicited that particular investigation specifically out of the goodness (choke) of his heart?? ... Perhaps you believe Trump gives a hoot about general corruption in the Ukraine?? Really?? You do??

#19 | Posted by nimbleswitch at 2019-10-22 06:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort