Donald Trump is digging his own grave

[Subduction Zone]

I think even threatening to kill someone is illegal in itself. That's an actual law. But this is different -it's nowhere near the level of murder, so there are different standards based on severity.

I can think of no other laws where speech not related to physical harm is punishable. Why would anyone assume this be different?

Right, and even asking for help from a foreign country in an election is a illegal in itself. I just ran across this in my email feed not too long ago:

Trump asking foreign countries for help against Biden violates law, Election Commission chair warns

 

[SkepticThinker]

But with law, there needs to be evidence. Without evidence, there can be no prosecution.

Even if there were just a couple witnesses, or people who testified to his plan of foiling Bidens candidacy -that would at least be some kind of evidence.

When we're talking about impeachment, we're talking about:

"treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"

 

[SkepticThinker]

Even though the law has a stipulation that includes the language: "with the intent to influence"..?

18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments

Justice Department veterans say Trump could be accused of breaking 4 laws in the Ukraine whistleblower scandal

 

[Cooky]

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read about this topic. It's right up there with the talking point that when Zelenskyy said they wanted to buy missiles and Trump responded "I need a favor though", there was zero connection between the missiles and the favor.

The fact that team Trump has to resort to such incredibly stupid arguments to defend the president's behavior tells me a lot about just how weak their position is.

You can't prosecute based on assumptions... This is the United States!

 

[Jose Fly]

I just thought that under freedom of speech, we are allowed to talk to anyone in the world we want to, at any time...

Then you know next to nothing about the subject.

Sheesh.......

 

[Subduction Zone]

But with law, there needs to be evidence. Without evidence, there can be no prosecution.

Even if there were just a couple witnesses, or people who testified to his plan of foiling Bidens candidacy -that would at least be some kind of evidence.

LOL, Trump released the evidence himself. Not only that he openly asked other countries for help yesterday. I even switched my TV to FOX News for a while and Shepard Smith was explaining how what Trump said was stupid and illegal.

 

[Jose Fly]

You can't prosecute based on assumptions... This is the United States!

That's right there with "I robbed the bank, but it's not a crime until I actually spend the money".

 

[Cooky]

Right, and even asking for help from a foreign country in an election is a illegal in itself. I just ran across this in my email feed not too long ago:

Trump asking foreign countries for help against Biden violates law, Election Commission chair warns

Still can't be proved that there is any connection with a U.S. election.

If there were evidence of that, then I'd agree with Ellen Weintraub.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still can't be proved that there is any connection with a U.S. election.

If there were evidence of that, then I'd agree with Ellen Weintraub.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

 

[Ouroboros]

Actually the rule says: "with the intent of".... How can we know the intent, before anything concrete occured?

IOW, there's no way to know for sure what Trump would have done with that information, since nothing occured... So the rule cannot apply.

The impeachment process is the method with which this is investigated. The impeachment is an administrative process of fact finding, and such questions if he intended it or not is part (or should be part of at least) to figure that out. To say that we don't know isn't an excuse for not investigating it. It's because we don't know all facts, like intent, that we have to have an inquiry.

 

[Cooky]

LOL, Trump released the evidence himself. Not only that he openly asked other countries for help yesterday. I even switched my TV to FOX News for a while and Shepard Smith was explaining how what Trump said was stupid and illegal.

I never heard Trump admit that he was planning on using the information to incriminate Biden prior to the next election as a candidate.

...I never heard anyone admit to that.

 

[Ouroboros]

But with law, there needs to be evidence. Without evidence, there can be no prosecution.

Evidence comes from inquiry and fact finding, which is the impeachment process. Impeachment has the purpose to find out if that fact support the claim. Trump will still be president while the inquiry goes on.

Even if there were just a couple witnesses, or people who testified to his plan of foiling Bidens candidacy -that would at least be some kind of evidence.

Part of the evidence is the transcript from the White House. There might be more, who knows, and that's what the whole thing is about, to see if there's evidence or not. The Dems of course are certain there is, but it might be yet another wild goose chase... we'll see.

 

[Jose Fly]

I never heard Trump admit that he was planning on using the information to incriminate Biden prior to the next election as a candidate.

...I never heard anyone admit to that.

Riiiiiiiiiight.....I never heard the bank robber say he was going to spend the money. For all we know, he just wanted it for his own curiosity about serial numbers.

Good lord......

 

[Cooky]

Riiiiiiiiiight.....I never heard the bank robber say he was going to spend the money. For all we know, he just wanted it for his own curiosity about serial numbers.

Good lord......

That's totally different.

 

[Jose Fly]

That's totally different.

Suuuuuuuure it is......completely different.

 

[Cooky]

Suuuuuuuure it is......completely different.

Remember, the crime is ultimately that Trump threw the election for Biden and he did it by using illegally obtained information... Except here, Trump never threw the election for Biden, and we're not sure if he even wanted to.

 

[Jose Fly]

Remember, the crime is ultimately that Trump threw the election for Biden and he did it by using illegally obtained information... Except here, Trump never threw the election for Biden, and we're not sure if he even wanted to.

What th.......???? Trump threw the election for Biden??? What bizarro-world are you living in?

 

[Cooky]

But the whistleblower might have thrown the election... In Trumps favor... If China really did give Bidens son $1.5 Billion for free... Yep that's BILLION.

 

[Cooky]

What th.......???? Trump threw the election for Biden??? What bizarro-world are you living in?

Yes, that's what this is all about, whether or not Trump ruined Bidens reputation as a candidate, by using foreign information.

 

[Polymath257]

If Obama or Clinton had stood on the steps of the White House and asked China to investigate Trump (or Romney, or Graham), there would have been an *immediate* call for impeachment based on treason. And that would have been the right thing to do.

If you think that the Bidens have done something wrong (for which there is *no* evidence*), then investigate, potentially using the FBI, and charge them with a crime.