If #3 isn't bribery according to the now fashionable Democrat definition .. I don't know what is.

#4 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

You can call it whatever you want. The problem is that Trump "bribed" the President of Ukraine for his PERSONAL gain, not in furtherance of US policy.

If you can prove that Joe Biden "bribed" that official primarily to protect/enrich his son, then I would agree with you that he has violated public trust and should NEVER hold another public office again.

I am willing to draw that line in the sand. Are you willing to say the same sort of thing about Trump?

I very much doubt it, because conservatives like you have been very consistent in being unable to identify ANYTHING that you think would justify a conservative President being impeached or barred from running for any future public office.

#14 | POSTED BY ET_AL

But, if you follow the statutory definition, then Trump committed bribery. He is a "public official" that "directly or indirectly" "corruptly demands" "[something] of value personally" for "being influenced in the performance of any official act".

The only thing I am unsure about is whether he falls under the definition of "public official" as this statute defines it, but it is clear that he is covered under the constitutional definition. So we can all agree that he is a "public official".

Did he corruptly demand something of value personally? Well, it pretty clear that he demanded the announcement of the investigation into the Bidens. Was that something he would "value personally"? I believe that we can all agree he "values" being re-elected personally. And that having a public announcement of Joe Biden being under investigation would contribute towards him being re-elected.

Did he "corruptly" demand it though? I don't actually know what the definition of "corruptly" in this context actually is, but it seems to me it is going to intent. If he were to "demand" something in the course of US policy that happened to benefit him personally (like they accuse Biden of, getting the prosecutor fired furthered US policy but, "supposedly", personally benefited Joe Biden's son) then that would not be "bribery" because he had a legitimate reason to demand it. But, if it was solely for personal gain, then it would be "corruptly" demanded.

Finally, I think we can all agree that giving Ukraine aid or scheduling a presidential visit are both "official acts".

I see where people could possibly argue that what Trump did was not "bribery", but it is a very big stretch considering the testimony that has come out.

I don't think he is necessarily corrupt but his son damn sure is and he allowed him to profit from a poor nation that he never even visited.

#16 | POSTED BY DANNI

He "allowed him" to profit off Ukraine? How could he have stopped him?

I have a good relationship with my dad, but if he told me what I was "allowed" to do in my personal life I would tell him where he could shove it. I am an adult and can make my own decisions. And I HAVE that good relationship with my dad BECAUSE he was a good parent and WOULD NOT tell me (as an adult) what I was and was not "allowed" to do.

And I am detecting a little racism from you as well. You don't think the Ukrainians are smart enough to make their own decisions? That they are inferior and so cannot be trusted make good decisions without Americans like you protecting them? That, by the way, was one of the biggest justifications for racial slavery in the US. I don't think that Hunter Biden took advantage of the poor natives in Ukraine. They are adults and can make their own decisions. THEY may have had corrupt intentions in hiring Hunter Biden, but they are fully capable of making their own decisions and I don't think he was taking advantage of a "poor nation".

I would not vote for Hunter Biden for any elected office. But, as far as I can tell, Biden handled this situation with his son with integrity. His choice was either be a bad parent, or piss off people like you. He chose to be a good parent. I think he made the right decision. If you think that is worth letting Trump get re-elected (if Biden happens to win the nomination) then that is YOUR choice. Just know that is the CHOICE that YOU are making and take responsibility for it.

To clarify... I am not planning on voting for Biden in the primary. I was not planning on voting for him even before all of this BS with Burisma and his son came out.

But if he does win the nomination, then I WILL vote for him over Trump.

#24 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Biden got the prosecutor fired for the benefit of the US. He was furthering a US policy. Also, there has been no evidence presented that Biden personally benefited from it. And there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that him benefiting was his motivation. Just conjecture and assumption.

Trump would personally benefit from an investigation into Biden being announced. There is no requirement in the definition of "bribery" that you be the ONLY person who benefits. I don't know why you had that impression, but you might want to actually read up on what bribery is before you embarrass yourself more. Here is the statutory definition for reference (the constitutional definition could be different or more encompassing, but this is a good starting point)...