Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, November 16, 2019

U.S. Code 201(b)(2)(A):

(b) Whoever ... (2) being a public official ... directly or indirectly, corruptly ... seeks ... anything of value personally ... in return for: (A) being influenced in the performance of any official act ... shall be fined under this title ... or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

U.S. Code 201(b)(2)(A) - - entitled "bribery" - - specifically makes it a crime for a public official even to just "seek" a bribe.

That's all the evidence needs to show.

Comments

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

Is your theory that the official act that Trump was giving in exchange for the thing of value was a meeting at the White House or the selling of javelins that the Ukraine was not yet ready to purchase?

#1 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-11-16 12:14 PM | Reply


Is your theory that the official act that Trump was giving in exchange for the thing of value was a meeting at the White House or the selling of javelins that the Ukraine was not yet ready to purchase?

No Avigore its what focus groups are saying might stick ....

"[T]he Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee conducted focus groups in key House battlegrounds in recent weeks, testing messages related to impeachment," the Washington Post reports. "Among the questions put to participants was whether quid pro quo,' extortion' or bribery' was a more compelling description of Trump's conduct."
www.washingtonexaminer.com

drudge.com

#2 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-16 12:20 PM | Reply

Just an ever changing goal post in an ongoing attempt to find something, anything.....

#3 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-11-16 12:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Don't worry MSGT.

When Trump wins reelection he'll really destroy our nation.

#4 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-16 12:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#4 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Democrats are doing a fine job of that on their own ... just ask Obama.

#5 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-16 12:53 PM | Reply

Congress need not constrain itself to the narrow definition of bribery stated in the statute. The Founders understood bribery to be much broader. "For example, William Hawkins's "A Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown," which was originally published in 1716, contains the following description of bribery:

Bribery in a large sense is sometimes taken for the receiving or offering of any undue reward, by or to any person whatsoever, whose ordinary profession or business relates to the administration of publick justice, in order to incline him to do a thing against the known rules of honesty and integrity; for the law abhors any the least tendency to corruption in those who are any way concerned in its administration, and will not endure their taking a reward for the doing a thing which deserves the severest of punishments."
www.lawfareblog.com

#6 | Posted by et_al at 2019-11-16 01:01 PM | Reply

Congress need not constrain itself to the narrow definition of bribery stated in the statute.

Why should it ..

www.lawfareblog.com

LOL ... no they aren't partisan ...

If you want to be taken seriously regarding impeachment, I wouldn't use this source any longer.

If you don't know why ... I understand.

#7 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-16 01:10 PM | Reply

Democrats are doing a fine job of that on their own ... just ask Obama.

About what? If he thinks democrats are destroying our nation?

Why don't you stop to think before you hit post?

#8 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-16 01:15 PM | Reply

#7

Devolving into slaughter the source is so unbecoming, and telling, especially when the quote is from a treatise published in 1716.

Don't like that one? Try this one, "Theory, History, and Practice of the Bribery-Extortion Distinction" www.google.com

A taste from page 11, "In Bribes, Judge Noonan argues:

The notion of fidelity in office, as old as Cicero, is inextricably bound to the concept of public interest distinct from private advantage. It is beyond debate that officials of the government are relied upon to act for the public interest not their own enrichment. When government officials act to enrich themselves they act against the fabric on which they depend, for what else does government rest upon except the expectation that those chosen to act for the public welfare will serve that welfare?37"

#9 | Posted by et_al at 2019-11-16 02:03 PM | Reply

Just an ever changing goal post in an ongoing attempt to find something, anything.....

#3 | POSTED BY MSGT

Only an idiot would view the current situation like this.

The breach of public trust and corruption has been found. All that's left is fully defining the breadth and depth to which it runs.

It must suck being such a brainless sycophant that one must ignore the reality that's clearly unfolding.

#10 | Posted by jpw at 2019-11-16 06:06 PM | Reply

"Congress need not constrain itself to the narrow definition of bribery stated in the statute."

Sure, that's true, too. I'm only pointing out that U.S. Code 201(b)(2)(A) bribery statute is not narrow. If a public official even just "seeks" a bribe from someone, and that someone immediately rejects the idea, that public figure has already violated the bribery statute and committed a crime - - just seeking the bribe. ... Like Trump did. No "quid pro quo" needed.

#11 | Posted by nimbleswitch at 2019-11-16 06:49 PM | Reply

I'm only pointing out that U.S. Code 201(b)(2)(A) bribery statute is not narrow.

I couldn't fault anyone for reading the statute and coming to that conclusion. However, consider McDonnell v. United States which significantly narrowed the definition of "official act" under 18 U.S.C. 201(a)(3).

#12 | Posted by et_al at 2019-11-16 07:44 PM | Reply

Just an ever changing goal post in an ongoing attempt to find something, anything.....

#3 | Posted by MSgt

Go ahead. laugh it off. Pretend it s a "joke".

THAT is an excellent strategy and I think you should stick to it.

Dems just knoecked humpys feet out from under him.

With a simple phrase change.

Humpy wanted to rail and rail "No Quid Pro Quo"! Because he thinks Americans don't know what it means.

Like his rant of "No Collusion"! (never mind that "collusion" is not even a legal term... it worked!)

Now Humpy has to rant .. No Bribery! No Extortion! No Obstruction! No Witness Tampering! No Abuse of Power!

Just doesn't sound as good as "No Collusion!"

#13 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-11-17 12:52 PM | Reply

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