Can impeachment be legitimate if no laws are broken?

Well, you'd better start talking about it, because that's the only place where he can present one, because that's where the trial will be. You're still not understanding that "mitigate his defense" doesn't mean anything. It's like saying the moon is 50 miles per hour away from the earth. Or "cook the chicken until it's raw."

I think maybe you are trying to say "mitigate the offense," but it's hard to tell. If I were giving Trump advice, and if he wanted to remain in offense, I would tell him not to offer mitigation because there is no "lesser charge" to plead to. He either is guilty of impeachable offenses or not. He can't say "yes, but ..." in this context. It won't help avoid removal from office. In fact, it may guarantee removal from office.

 

I was obviously referring to people in power, Congressmen who matter, who have dropped the bribery talk. Of course you are still talking about it. There are also people in rural Oklahoma still talking about Bigfoot and the faking of the moon landing.

Read the impeachment articles. There's nothing about bribery. Men really have landed on the moon, there is no Bigfoot, and Trump hasn't been and won't be charged with bribery. I know you're disappointed.

 

An affirmative defense, "if proven by the defendant, defeats or MITIGATES the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct.". Also, an affirmative defense, LIMITS or excuses a defendant's criminal culpability or civil liability. Finally,

"In general legal terms, an affirmative defense is an admission by a defendant that a crime or a violation has been committed, but that the circumstances were such that the action was necessary or beyond the defendant’s control and thus some level of liability is negated. An example is injuring a person in self defense. While the defendant admits to inflicting the injury, a successfully pleaded affirmative defense would mitigate or remove any subsequent sentence or penalty.".

I guess it is all about semantics, or just your level of creative cherry-picking? Can we move on? You have said that an affirmative defense is a defense, that is used to defeat/acquit(not mitigate) the defendant of the charges against him(statute of limitation, duress, negligence, mistake, alibi, burden of proof, insanity, double jeopardy, etc). So lets try again.

With over 100 types of affirmative defences to choose from, surely you can suggest just one that can defeat/acquit the impeachment charges against Trump? Or, are you now saying, that he has no affirmative defense to acquit him from being impeached? He is either guilty or innocent. So, why bring it up an affirmative defense, when it has zero relevance?

You are correct, I should have said, "Trump should use to mitigate his offences/charges/crimes", and NOT his defenses. A senior's moment.

 

Noob? Personal insults are prohibited on the forum. Very revealing.

It's unsurprising that you would cite the awful Ms. Karlan. She's the one who had to apologize for dragging Trump's teenager's name into the impeachment hearings. She also has bragged about refusing to walk on the same side of the street as Trump Tower. I disagree with the professor (an obvious nut) and with you, as does Prof. Dershowitz of Harvard, and so does, evidently, the majority of even the Democrats on the judiciary committee.

Trump isn't charged with bribery. There's a reason for that.

I call on you to apologize and to fiscontinue calling me names on the forum.
,

 

You're no expert... not my fault.

Yeah well... you go make personal attacks on them professors all you want. You're just deflecting away that people who know what they are talking about, as still talking about Donald and that he was bribing around. And that bribing around is something that aint legal. Your entire defense is in shatters.

 

What do you mean "surely"? I think I already told you I didn't vote for Trump. The impeachment proceeding is an absurd waste if time. Anyway, no, I never said there was any affirmative defense available to him, other than the one I cited about 6 times already in this thread.

Since he is defiant that he is not guilty of anything, I can't imagine that he would permit his attorneys to invoke an affirmative defense. Your own post says it's reserved for defendants who admit a crime or violation has occurred.

 

Also, you cited a Trump-hating law professor as a rebuff to my clarification that I was referring to "congressmen who matter." She isn't in Congress. I guess you didn't know. And her opinion, which controls nothing, and therefore "shatters" nothing, is tainted by her manifest hatred.

My "entire defense " has been thus far limited to statutory interpretation. 18 usc 201 and 15 usc ... can't remember the rest. I never said a case could not be made under some other provision, and I even invited you, or someone up above, to find one.

I see you're determined to continue with the personal insults. Sad.

 

You're just making up she hates Trump, in order to dismiss her TESTIFY that she gave in Congress as an expert on the matter.

And it's not just her. There were more experts who said the same thing.
That shatters everything. From, nobody is talking about it anymore, from contesting Trump may bribe away.

 

I am not making it up. What kind of person makes public jokes about a young kid's name, a kid who has nothing to do with policy making? What kind of person says she won't walk on the same side of the street as where a building is located and owned by Trump? That's on youtube and probably elsewhere, but I don't want to express any interest in her by clicking and pasting it. Mind you, these are publicly expressed sentiments. What do you suppose she says about Trump in private?

I will give her this much ... she has at least not latched on to Title 15's foreign corrupt practices act, as far as we know.

But even if she did, she's at bottom just a lawyer. So her opinion, which failed to sway a Democrat controlled committee to allege that Trump is guilty of bribery, is no more important at this point than yours or mine. She doesnt vote in Congress and she controls no vote. Her testimony about constitutionally prohibited bribery was interesting, but all of that was BEFORE the articles of impeachment were drafted. She offered a theory and it was rejected. By the democrats. Before the vote. She fought the good fight. She lost. It's over. Those who matter have moved on.

But here's another one from a Trump detractor, since we are citing inconsequential experts and all:

Frank O. Bowman III, a law professor at the University of Missouri and author of “High Crimes & Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump.” [said] “If asked to defend Trump on abuse of power, I couldn’t do it in good faith,” Bowman tweeted. “But I could advance a plausible legal defense to bribery.”

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/house-democrats-abandon-crimes-impeachment-articles

Shall we move on at some point to the real world, that is, the actual (though also doomed) articles of impeachment?

 

I am sure that you surely would know the meaning of the word, "surely". If not, the word was used to emphasize my firm belief, in your ability to advise Trump on the best affirmative defense he could use, to avoid impeachment. Why do you keep telling me, who you didn't vote for? You have said that Trump should be afforded an affirmative defense. You have also spent a lot of time mis-correcting me on my understanding of an affirmative defense.

So which is it? That you have never said there was an affirmative defense for Trump, or that there is only one that you have mentioned six times before? Trump is being charged with 2 impeachment charges, so please give me an example of that ONE, from over 100 affirmative defenses that he could use? Sorry, I must have missed those 6 times. Do you think that the impeachment proceedings are a waste of time, because Trump says so, or because the evidence and the witnesses are all wrong?

Anyone with more than 3 working brain cells, would know that if you withhold funds to someone, to get them to perform a service that would benefit you personally, that this is a form of Bribery. Trump withheld funds to the Ukraine, to obtain an investigation to discredit a political rival and his son. This is a blatant misuse of the power of his office for a personal gain. Plain and simple. It is irrelevant, if others have done this, or that making a phone call is not a crime, or speculating partisan motives, or implying that if he isn't charged with a crime, that he is innocent of the crime, or just cherry-picking the language of the statute. Maybe it is YOU that is refusing to look up, when people are saying that the sky is green. He then tried to cover it up, but was caught and exposed. All easily provable beyond a reasonable doubt.

You are joking? Listen to the 598, divisive, bigoted, racists, misogynistic, sick, insensitive, nationalistic, sexists, lying, and intolerant remarks, by this narcissistic sociopath. And, his policies are just as consistent as his rhetoric. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html Her personal remarks or opinions about Trump, has zero relevance on her legal opinion. In fact, I think most rational people would agree with her personal opinion about Trump. We are talking about a Stanford Law Professor's legal opinion of Bribery. Not her opinion on the Theory of Evolution or Trump. Cleary, all you and other Trump supporters(whether you voted for him or not) can do, is smear her personally to discredit her legal opinion(Ad Hominem attacks). Like Trump, you misrepresent posters, take their words out of context, manipulate the general definition of terms, create straw man, avoid and deflect request for clarity, and above all, you will never admit(without reservations) when you are wrong. Just like Trump.

When you use the word "commie", whom are you referring to? Bernie, Tulsi, or someone else? It is ironic, that the two most qualified progressive candidate are being attacked by untrue smeared and innuendoes, or, by being called communists puppets, socialists lovers, dictator lovers, white nationalists, religious cultists, and other lies by the MSM, and not a peep, or fake outrage out of you. But someone with a clear history of provable dishonesty and lies, and whose guilt is clearly obvious(even by his own admission), and you pull out all stops to disseminate misinformation and silly distractions.

 

It depends on the definition of legitimate.

I don't know why I'm bothering to write a thoughtful response on page 10 here, where no one will likely read it and this post will disappear into oblivion.

Of course it can be legitimate, it can also be illegitimate in other circumstances.

Things don't run as strictly according to laws as people think. They run according to people's interpretations of laws. Thus it is not only a legal question but also an ethical and moral one, as it relates to the legal one.

Almost every simple word that carries any plain obvious semblance of meaning also has biased meanings.

 

Last time I checked, she's still a professor at a highly esteemed university. And she aint the only expert who said this.
You are trying to make your personal opinion about her valid, while your personal opinion is completely irrelevant.

so what

Last time I checked, she's the expert on the matter.
And the people who had a vote on it are not.

You have to do better than your ranting your silly opinion and opinions of politicians.

 

Because you are implying that I'm a Trump supporter. I'm not. But I would defend the devil himself if I thought the charges bogus, unfounded, or politically motivated.

It is what I said. I only know one affirmative defense he might use, but only if charged under the FCPA

They don't "know." They have an opinion. My opinion is that the service requested is not subject to valuation like a Rolex or a wad of cash. Or a cushy job with a specific salary like young Biden's, LOL.

All that means is that Trump shouldn't sit in judgment of victims of his obloquy either. She is off the jury. Anyway she had her chance to make the case for bribery to her democrat fans on the committee. She failed.

Which should be a unanimous opinion among the law professoriate if it's so obvious. I have already named two anti Trump professors who don't see it that way.

LOL. Who honeymooned in Moscow? Figure it out.

Look, your every post is more and more aggressive and personal. Not allowed. You don't like my opinions, don't read my posts.

 

I read it. Good post.

 

Odd that the word "bribery" doesn't appear anywhere in the articles of impeachment.

Why do you reckon that is?

 

I just heard a Trump skeptic in an NBC focus group opine in a way none of us here have, on either side. I confess that it never occurred to me....

He said, and I'm paraphrasing, that "It's not clear that the phone call with Ukraine was about 2016, or rather about 2020. If it was about 2020, it's a problem [he didn't say absolutely impeachable, which is where I am]. If it was about 2016, it's not a problem."

Trump's detractors and haters will of course hate this guy too, but here's the thing ... if he is thinking this way, then other Trump skeptics/detractors are thinking this way.

And that's what's know as reasonable doubt.

 

And now for a real shocker ... the NY Times just came out in favor of impeachment.

Say it ain't so!

 

What political gain? That could only be true of Biden were the nominee. Democrats determine the nominee, not Trump. So unless Democrats fixed the primaries all the way back before this call, your claims are unfounded. Are the Democrat primaries already fixed? No surprise...

 

I don't think "for political gain" gets you to bribery because you can't put a value on it. Not to mention that the presidency is not making Trump any money anyway. There's also a fact we cannot know. Did Trump subjectively think, even if wrong, that there was something wrong with the Biden Jr. job that merited review? How can you know, other than give full and free rein to cynicism? That isn't justice, or giving Trump the benefit of the doubt. And he deserves that.

 

Not to mention the fact Democrats have virtually said that Biden is incapable of corruption, or that to avoid any investigation someone just has to run against a Republican...

 

Not sure I understand. Can you elaborate?

 

Believe me, I am extremely restrained in my response to your posts. I personally find them self-serving, biased, uninformed, evasive, and inaccurate. But, I will defend your right to freely express your opinion, no matter what you have to say. You also have the right NOT to read or respond to my posts as well. Surely, you are not the type of person, who only want people to listen to your opinions, but are not interested in any other dissenting opinions? As I have said before, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts, or your own logic. If my opinion is based on mistakes, poor comprehension, lies, half-truths, rumors, poor reasoning, poor understanding and interpretation, and popularity, I would hope that someone would point this out to me. It is through this discourse of vetting the free exchange of ideas, that will allow the objective truth to emerge. Not by a consensus of opinions alone. If you get 3 people to agree with you, and I get 6, does this mean that I am right, and you are wrong? The truth must be logically consistent, and above scrutiny. Or, do you think that anything you say should be accepted as true, simply because you say so?

You are just projecting. I have said nothing to imply or state, that you are a Trump supporter. I don't care who you support. My arguments would still be the same, regardless of who you support. What specifically did I say, to imply that you were a supporter of Trump?

You stated that an affirmative defense was ONLY used to defeat/acquit someone whose is clearly guilty of a crime. And, is NOT used to mitigate the charges against them. This is just a false assertion. I deposited 3 definitions of an "affirmative defense", that included "mitigation" as a part of its definition. I've also demonstrated the logic in using mitigating or extenuating circumstances, to mitigate the charges(murder to manslaughter).

I asked you to provide one affirmative defense to defeat/acquit the impeachment charges against Trump, and you tap-dance around the answer. I am not interested in the senate trials, or your distracting hypothetical involving the FCPA and Bribery. Obviously, the question was more complicated than I thought?

You try and cherry-pick the Bribery law, by creating unnecessary doubt on the "thing of value" and a "public official", rather than the obvious intent and sprit of the totality of the elements of Bribery. No one would agree, that Bribing a leader of a foreign country, to achieve a personal gain, should be a good political practice. This is the point, IMHO that should be emphasized, and NOT the letter and language of the law. It is because Trump's legal staff would only exploit these two elements of the definitions of Bribery, that Trump is NOT being charged with Bribery. But clearly, he did bribe another head of state, for his own personal gain. Just because the committee decided not to charge Trump with Bribery, doesn't mean that he didn't commit Bribery. That would be a logical fallacy. Why are you not focused on the charges that Trump IS being charged with? Why didn't Trump just go through his State Dept. to get information on Biden? Why did he have to make any personal calls to Zelensky? Just dumb. Does anyone even know the gravity of Trump's actions? Well, look again. https://edition.cnn.com/interactive...ukraine-impeachment-inquiry-report-annotated/

I was talking about YOU, your fake outrage, and your Ad Hom attacks on a Stanford Law Professor. You purposely highlighted her opinions on Trump("It's unsurprising that you would cite the awful Ms. Karlan. She's the one who had to apologize for dragging Trump's teenager's name into the impeachment hearings. She also has bragged about refusing to walk on the same side of the street as Trump Tower. I disagree with the professor (an obvious nut)..", instead of challenging her legal opinions on Bribery. Why am I not surprised? Compared to the years of shameful conduct, racist rhetoric, and as a complete international embarrassment, her personal opinion of Trump, is rather tame in comparison..

I take it that you are talking about the Washington's Post hit piece on Sanders 10 day honeymoon to the Soviet Union, 31 years ago.https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...543e18-6a9c-11e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html Unfortunately, Russia was a Socialist Country(not a Communist Country), even back then(USSR). But of course you realise, that our own government is a Democratic Socialist government. Without it 80% of our population would be screwed. https://twitter.com/i/status/1100207689454497793. 31 years forward, Tulsi has been called a "Putin Puppet", a "Russian Asset", "Groomed by the Kremlin", and is "Supported by the Russian Media". So, I was not sure who you meant. You can call them both socialists, but you can't call them "commies", since it has no application to Russia(Russia is NOT a communist country).

Finally, robbery, rape, fraud, homicide, idiocy, negligence, assault, forgery, kidnapping, genocide, treason, drug trafficking, and terrorism, are other crimes that Trump is not being charged with. So when we get tired of talking about Bribery, we can begin talking about these other crimes. Right?

 

We disagree on fundamentals, including the rules of the forum, so we won't agree on any details. So I'll go my way and you go yours.

Adios.

 

You go buy a siri or alexa and come up with the answer.

 

Oh please.