Leon Troutsky

Pure Football
  • Content count

    45,946
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Everything posted by Leon Troutsky

  1. Capitalizing every other word doesn’t strengthen your argument.
  2. Hannity might want to hire a lawyer not named Cohen or Giuliani, because it looks like he’s neck deep in the entire Ukraine scandal right now.
  3. So instead of accusing him of an offense that’s actually listed in the Constitution as impeachable, you go with some convoluted argument about “extortion” and have to explain that falls under “high crimes and misdemeanors”, which doesn’t refer to actual crimes but you’re accusing him of violation of a criminal statute, which you then have to prove all the elements of like it was a court of law. And you think that’s the stronger argument? If a quid pro quo is proven then bribery is the easier one to explain. It’s clearly listed in the Constitution, it doesn’t involve a federal statute, and it’s easy for almost everyone to understand.
  4. He can argue that. But the fact remains that Trump was swapping military aid with a foreign government in exchange for political dirt on his opponent in the upcoming election. Trump was using foreign military aid to tamper with the 2020 election. Edit: Also, Trump has said that it was a “perfect call”. The public isn’t buying it. Trump said he did nothing wrong. The public isn’t buying it. And if there’s proof of a quid pro quo, then Trump can deny it all he wants but the public isn’t buying it. I said awhile back that there will be serious consequences for Trump’s incessant lying. We’re seeing that now. The public at large doesn’t believe his denials and they view him as a liar. So what Trump tries to say doesn’t really matter anymore if the public doesn’t buy into his bulls***.
  5. Menendez was tried under current bribery statutes. As I’ve stated numerous times, those statutes don’t apply to the Constitution and impeachment because they didn’t exist at the time. But again, you keep dodging a simple question — between extortion and bribery, which one is listed in the Constitution?
  6. The problem with emoluments is that there’s not a detailed history nor case law defining what is and is not an emolument. It’s also not a term that most people have ever heard of, let alone understand. Bribery, on the other hand, is something almost everybody understands. Try again.
  7. Right, it’s not a court of law. Yet you want to accuse him of a criminal offense (extortion) that requires all elements be proven instead of an offense listed in the Constitution (bribery) that wasn’t a criminal offense at the time and doesn’t require any of the elements of the crimInal statute to be proven. So I’ll ask again, between extortion and bribery, which one is listed in the Constitution as a reason for impeaching the president?
  8. Which one is listed in the Constitution?
  9. Go back and read my posts again. I already said multiple times that quid pro quo isn’t necessary for impeachment and that point needs to be emphasized. I said that if they can prove a quid pro quo, then that makes the corruption even worse and brings in bribery as a possible article of impeachment. That’s a stronger case than generic abuse of power. You don’t toss out that possibility if there’s strong evidence to support it. That’s like a prosecutor who can prove premeditation but saying, “naw, let’s forget about a murder charge because we can prove involuntary manslaughter without the premeditation part.” It’s silly to give up a clearer, more serious charge like that. If they can’t prove a quid pro quo then yeah, go with generic abuse of power. But it’s a harder argument to make than straight-forward bribery.
  10. I said that if a quid pro quo can be proven, that raises bribery as an article. And I said bribery is much easier to explain than “extortion” to the American public. With extortion, you have to explain that it’s a “high crime and misdemeanor”, that it doesn’t require a criminal offense, and then explain why you’re not using the legal definition of “extortion” or trying to prove each element of that crime. Or you have to try to prove each and every element of that crime, which is very, very difficult to do legally speaking. Your argument is muddled and not even consistent (e.g., forget quid pro quo but prove all the legal elements of extortion).
  11. That last point disappears if you toss out the idea of a quid pro quo. Doesn’t matter about the military aid if we don’t care about quid pro quo;’s. You just undermined your own talking point.
  12. Dismiss something that might actually be there? Uh, just no. It DOES need to be emphasized that a quid pro quo isn’t required. But if they can prove one existed, as it looks like they might be able to, then no reason to cast that aside.
  13. Calling it “extortion” is a much more complicated argument and much harder to explain. This is simple. Trump begged several foreign governments for dirt on his political opponent. That kind of abuse of power, combined with him trying to fire Mueller, is impeachable by itself. But if there’s a quid pro quo proven, the argument on bribery becomes much easier to make and it’s also an easier argument for people to understand than some kind of “extortion” charge. Basically, you can have abuse of power, bribery, and obstruction of Congress as the articles. All of those would be fairly simple to explain to the American public.
  14. Right, but there has to be a quid pro quo involved.
  15. Proving bribery requires proving a quid pro quo. I don't know how a legal expert can say that is irrelevant to bribery. That's especially true when you're talking about campaign donations (like opposition research), where the courts have said that prosecutors must show an explicit quid pro quo when it involves a campaign donation. Of course, it's looking like proving a quid pro quo is very likely based on what's coming out of the testimony so far. Even Republicans are acknowledging there was probably a quid pro quo. And legal historians have noted that the Founders used extortion and bribery in ways that overlapped significantly. So that part is true based on my readings from constitutional experts.
  16. Not sure what you're saying here. Were the people on cable news arguing Trump's behavior was criminal? Because that's the legalese trap I'm talking about.
  17. Just be careful not to get caught in the legalese trap. Making a case for bribery as it was defined by the Founders when they wrote the Constitution appears to be a legitimate option right now given what we know. Trying to prove that Trump's behavior meets each of the necessary requirements for a violation of the criminal bribery statute -- which wasn't written for another hundreds years after the Constitution was ratified -- is a very easy way to lose the impeachment argument. In fact, during the first hundred or so years of the country, bribery was virtually never prosecuted as a criminal act. It was considered corruption and a reason to remove someone from office, not a criminal offense to be prosecuted in the courts. That's VERY important for Dems to explain going forward.
  18. McKinley’s testimony flatly contradicts Pompeo’s comments on Sunday that McKinley never shared concerns about attacks on Yovanovitch. There goes whatever was left of Pompeo’s credibility.
  19. Holy s***. Sean Hannity just got wrapped up in this thing. THE CHAIRMAN: And did you ever find out when, you know, the allegations were being made or the attacks were being made by Donald Trump, )r., or Rudy Giuliani, did you ever find out what the Secretary of State's position, whether the Secretary of State was going to defend you or not, apart from the refusal by the Secretary to issue a statement in your defense? MS. YOVAN0VITCH: What I was told by Phil Reeker was that the Secretary or perhaps somebody around hjm was going to place a call to Mr. Hannity on FOX News to say, you know, what is going on? I mean, do you have proof of these kinds of allegations or not? And if you have proof, you know, telI me, and if not, stop. And I understand that that call was made. I don't know whether it was the Secretary or somebody else in his inner circle. And for a time, you know, things kind of simmered down. THE CHAIRMAN: I mean, does that seem extraordinary to you that the Secretary of State or some other high-ranking official would call a talk show host to figure out whether you should be retained as ambassador? MS . YOVAN0VITCH: Well , I 'm not sure that' s exactly what was being asked. THE CHAIRMAN: Well , they were asking if — what basis they — was Hannity one of the people criticizing you? MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: 5o some top administration official was going to him to find out what the basis of this FOX host was attacking you tor?
  20. JFC... Former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testified that she called US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland to ask for his advice earlier this year in the wake of public attacks from President Trump’s closest allies, specifically his son Donald Trump Jr., his lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Fox News host Sean Hannity. Yovanovitch testified that Sondland told her "You know, you need to go big or go home. You need to, you know, tweet out there that you support the President, and that all these are lies and everything else." She later explained the situation in more detail, saying that Sondland told her, “You know the President. Well, maybe you don't know him personally, but you know, you know, the sorts of things that he likes. You know, go out there battling aggressively and, you know, praise him or support him.”
  21. Good, I hope the GOP congressmen get their ***es sued off for trying to dox the whistleblower... Some Republican lawmakers and conservative publications have named a purported whistleblower or asserted theories about the person’s identity. The whistleblower’s lawyers released a statement on Thursday neither confirming nor denying their client’s identity but warning of the danger that comes with disclosure. “Any physical harm the individual and/or their family suffers as a result of disclosure means that the individuals and publications reporting such names will be personally liable for that harm,” they wrote. “Such behavior is at the pinnacle of irresponsibility and is intentionally reckless.”
  22. Except little of that has proven true since the Ukraine scandal broke. Yes, the GOP is sticking by him. Yes, he’s going to fight until the bitter end. However, the public has paid attention to the story and public opinion has shifted dramatically on impeachment. Trump’s message and fighting hasn’t worked. People aren’t buying his excuses and his BS this time. And that’s before the public hearings have started or the transcripts of testimony have been released. That’s before all of the evidence of a quid pro quo came out. So when the hearings start, Dems have a great chance to shift public opinion even more. That doesn’t mean the Dems will be successful, let alone that they will shift public opinion enough to force the GOP to remove Trump. But it does mean that the normal script doesn’t apply here. It doesn’t and the polls clearly show that. And currently, I see far more upside for Dems moving forward than I do for the GOP in terms of impeachment. The outcome might be the same — Trump stays in office. But this scandal is very different from the previous ones.
  23. The point is that you don’t even have to get to “high crimes” if they can prove bribery as the Founders understood it.
  24. Except that with Mueller he could make the (wrong) argument that Mueller didn't find "collusion". Even Republicans in the House/Senate are pondering whether to openly acknowledge that there was a quid pro quo. So the "no quid pro quo" talking point is crumbling under the weight of the evidence. I still argue that Dems don't have to prove a quid pro quo. But if the evidence proves one happened, then that definitely opens up bribery instead of general abuse of power (which is impeachable by itself).
  25. One last thing about the bribery stuff... I think the big tell will be when the Judiciary Committee holds hearings. The first few weeks of hearings will be the Intelligence Committee and it will still be fact-gathering. But once they’re done, they’ll send it over to Judiciary to consider articles of impeachment. The Judiciary Committee will almost definitely (like almost 100% chance) call constitutional scholars to offer public testimony about the scope and nature of impeachment. If Dems start asking those scholars about bribery then it suggests they are heading that direction. If they limit their questions to things like “abuse of power” and “high crimes and misdemeanors”, then it suggests a general “abuse of power” focus to the articles.