are quid pro quo’s wrong or not?

[Jim in CT]

This week on the campaign trail, Princess Liz Warren said she’d consider halting US aid to Israel, unless they stopped building settlements where Palestinians don’t want them.

If Trump engaged in quid pro quo and that's wrong, is this not also wrong?

[Got Stripers]

Push pull, give and take for advance foreign policy goals which benefit US interests are one thing, extorting a foreign power to dig up dirt on an upcoming political foe and influence our elections for PERSONAL gain is something different. Bribery is impeachable and written right into the constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

This week on the campaign trail, Princess Liz Warren said she’d consider halting US aid to Israel, unless they stopped building settlements where Palestinians don’t want them.

If Trump engaged in quid pro quo and that's wrong, is this not also wrong?

You’re not serious right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

I like how she teamed up to prevent for-profit colleges from porking poor people.🤡👍🏿
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

This week on the campaign trail, Princess Liz Warren said she’d consider halting US aid to Israel, unless they stopped building settlements where Palestinians don’t want them.

If Trump engaged in quid pro quo and that's wrong, is this not also wrong?

Trump knew beforehand about the Republican plan to barge in on Laura Cooper’s testimony. This entire charade needs to be investigated. Trump and the House GOP are clearly conspiring to intimidate witnesses, obstruct Congressional investigations. This is all criminal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Push pull, give and take for advance foreign policy goals which benefit US interests are one thing, extorting a foreign power to dig up dirt on an upcoming political foe and influence our elections for PERSONAL gain is something different. Bribery is impeachable and written right into the constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ok, let’s stick with this. you’re saying quid pro quo is wrong if it's used to leverage dirt on a political for.

So when senate democrats wrote a letter to ukraine asking them to look into manafort and trump, was that impeachable?

id also argue that getting to the bottom of what the biden’s did there, is also in our best interests.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

In light of the money trail to Rudy’s pay and it being all tied into Manafort and his Russian Mafia, gee wiz I guess there was a good reason to look at illegal activities and money. Nobody has found anything wrong with Hunter, maybe he benefited (he not Joe being the key pint there) by leveraging daddy’s reputation, but that’s what kids do when parents come from money, are famous, actors, it’s a long list.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

In light of the money trail to Rudy’s pay and it being all tied into Manafort and his Russian Mafia, gee wiz I guess there was a good reason to look at illegal activities and money. Nobody has found anything wrong with Hunter, maybe he benefited (he not Joe being the key pint there) by leveraging daddy’s reputation, but that’s what kids do when parents come from money, are famous, actors, it’s a long list.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Didn’t some of your liberal heroes go to jail for doing just that with the college admissions scandal? Oh wait,that was different.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Wow that a desperate leap😁
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

actually it was embarrassing.

[Pete F.]

If there was a quid pro quo is not the issue, it has already been publicly admitted, when quid pro quo becomes self-dealing is.

If you have a job and negotiate what you are supposed to efficiently, then you get to keep your job. That's the benefit to you.

If you have a job and negotiate what you are supposed to and you tell the party you are negotiating with that in order to make the deal they have to give you personally something of value in addition to your legal purpose. That's self-dealing.

When Mulvaney was asked about a quid pro quo, he said, on Oct. 17, “We do that all the time with foreign policy.” That is correct.

But there is a profound difference between using governmental power in a quid pro quo as part of a public (or fiduciary) duty to advance the public interests of the United States versus using governmental power as a quid pro quo to advance the private interests of Donald Trump or Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani, a private citizen, said in May that he was working to advance the interests of “my client.”

There are many jail inmates and former executives who could not distinguish between public (or fiduciary) interests and their private interests.

Any public corruption prosecutor familiar with the federal bribery statute and self-dealing cases will recognize that firsthand witnesses, such as Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland, Mulvaney, and Trump himself, have now offered evidence to all the elements of the offense. The bribery law—18 U.S.C. § 201(b)—is easy to understand. The elements, as they pertain here, are as follows:

Whoever, being a public official …

corruptly

directly or indirectly demands or seeks …

anything of value

for himself or some other person

in return for being influenced in the performance of any official act …

has committed the felony.

I believe the federal bribery crime, a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison, also gets at the heart of the self-dealing issue more effectively than some alternative theories of criminal behavior, such as “honest services fraud” (which has some complex legal issues associated with it) or foreign campaign finance violations (which tend to involve monetary help apparently lacking here).

Anyone joining knowingly in the commission of the above could be liable as well, probably under the conspiracy statute (18 U.S.C. § 371). That might include Giuliani, who is not a public official.

There are a number of people involved in this that are hoping their defense of their actions holds up in court. It will very likely end up there.

The moving defense that has been used here is typically a sign of weakness and guilt.

Not always, but more often then not.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If there was a quid pro quo is not the issue, it has already been publicly admitted, when quid pro quo becomes self-dealing is.

It has been publicly denied.

If you have a job and negotiate what you are supposed to efficiently, then you get to keep your job. That's the benefit to you.

If you have a job and negotiate what you are supposed to and you tell the party you are negotiating with that in order to make the deal they have to give you something of value. That's self-dealing.

your second paragraph is actually an extension and clarification of your first paragraph. The negotiation referred to in paragraph one is seeking something of value. That's what negotiations are for.

When Mulvaney was asked about a quid pro quo, he said, on Oct. 17, “We do that all the time with foreign policy.” That is correct.

But there is a profound difference between using governmental power in a quid pro quo as part of a public (or fiduciary) duty to advance the public interests of the United States versus using governmental power as a quid pro quo to advance the private interests of Donald Trump or Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani, a private citizen, said in May that he was working to advance the interests of “my client.”

His "client" was the President of the U.S. who represents the interests of the U.S.

There are many jail inmates and former executives who could not distinguish between public (or fiduciary) interests and their private interests.

Any public corruption prosecutor familiar with the federal bribery statute and self-dealing cases will recognize that firsthand witnesses, such as Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland, Mulvaney, and Trump himself, have now offered evidence to all the elements of the offense. The bribery law—18 U.S.C. § 201(b)—is easy to understand. The elements, as they pertain here, are as follows:

Whoever, being a public official …

corruptly

directly or indirectly demands or seeks …

anything of value

for himself or some other person

in return for being influenced in the performance of any official act …

has committed the felony.

I believe the federal bribery crime, a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison, also gets at the heart of the self-dealing issue more effectively than some alternative theories of criminal behavior, such as “honest services fraud” (which has some complex legal issues associated with it) or foreign campaign finance violations (which tend to involve monetary help apparently lacking here).

Anyone joining knowingly in the commission of the above could be liable as well, probably under the conspiracy statute (18 U.S.C. § 371). That might include Giuliani, who is not a public official.

There are a number of people involved in this that are hoping their defense of their actions holds up in court. It will very likely end up there.

Trump was acting in the interests of the U.S.

The moving defense that has been used here is typically a sign of weakness and guilt.

Not always, but more often then not.

Vague postulation.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

In light of the money trail to Rudy’s pay and it being all tied into Manafort and his Russian Mafia, gee wiz I guess there was a good reason to look at illegal activities and money. Nobody has found anything wrong with Hunter, maybe he benefited (he not Joe being the key pint there) by leveraging daddy’s reputation, but that’s what kids do when parents come from money, are famous, actors, it’s a long list.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so you applaud investigations that uncover the truth about Giuliano’s corruption. yet it was wrong for trump to ask for an investigation that might have revealed truth about what the biden’s did.

seems like you’re guided by partisanship as opposed to actual principles. whatever your issue is with what trump did, there are concrete, recent examples of democrats doing similar things.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Pete, it’s not settled there was a quid pro quo.

if quid pro quo is wrong when used for personal benefit, is t it worth investigating what the biden’s did? you said where there’s smoke there’s fire. isnt there a meaningful amount of smoke suggesting the bidens were dipping their fingers in the ukrainian cookie jar?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Pete, it’s not settled there was a quid pro quo.

if quid pro quo is wrong when used for personal benefit, is t it worth investigating what the biden’s did? you said where there’s smoke there’s fire. isnt there a meaningful amount of smoke suggesting the bidens were dipping their fingers in the ukrainian cookie jar?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who are the Bidens (plural) - I'm guessing you mean Joe? What did Joe do wrong? What is the "corruption" that Hunter (and I guess Joe) were involved in?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Pete, it’s not settled there was a quid pro quo.

if quid pro quo is wrong when used for personal benefit, is t it worth investigating what the biden’s did? you said where there’s smoke there’s fire. isnt there a meaningful amount of smoke suggesting the bidens were dipping their fingers in the ukrainian cookie jar?

I said days ago it's fine to investigate the Bidens in a legal and aboveboard manner.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trumps claims to date

1. Fake News, smoke and mirrors

2. this is all overblown, the real transcript will prove there’s nothing there.

3. the whistleblower has no first-hand knowledge of any of this

4. but there was no explicit quid pro quo

Now we have evidence, from the president’s own Ukraine envoy, that there was an explicit quid pro quo and everybody knew about it.
Trump hasn't claimed there was none since yesterday.

Here is what comes next from Trumplicans, this will be more right than wrong.

The quid pro quo wasn’t real because only the U.S. knew it existed.

For a quid pro quo to be real, both sides must be party to it.

Maybe both sides knew about it, but it was never enforced.

Because the quid (withholding military aid) was illegal, then by definition it couldn’t have been an actual thing.

Maybe it was illegal and maybe both sides knew about it and maybe it was enforced, but executive authority allows all of this.

Maybe executive authority doesn’t actually allow any of this, but the impeachment process in the House was tainted, so whatever the Senate thinks of Trump’s actions, they’re duty-bound to acquit him because they have to think about future precedent.

And as far as the whining about the process, while 25% of the Republican house members are on the committees in the meetings is ridiculous.

The trial will be in the Senate, per the Constitution.
The House gets to decide how the process of deciding whether or not to impeach is done, per the Constitution.

If the issue is secrecy and leaks go back to Ken Starr's reign.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Who are the Bidens (plural) - I'm guessing you mean Joe? What did Joe do wrong? What is the "corruption" that Hunter (and I guess Joe) were involved in?

you know what i’m referring to, stop wasting my time.

after Joe was named our country’s point person on ukraine, hunter got a very lucrative position on the board of a ukrainian energy company. this was fishy enough that Hunters private equity partner, John Kerry’s son, stepped away from dealing with Hunter Biden. the company that hired hunter was suspected of being corrupt even by ukrainian standards.

Enter joe. who demanded that a prosecutor be fired, who may possibly have been on the path to uncovering some cronyism.

none of that means anything to you, none of it is worth looking into, because they are democrats.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Pete, if it’s “legal
and above board” for joe biden and liz warren to use quid pro quo to get what they want, why isn't it legal and above board for trump to do the same.

you say, when democrats do it at least, that using quid pro quo is acceptable to achieve worthy goals.

you also say it’s worth finding out what the biden’s did.

if you put your two principles together, why isn’t it ok for trump to use quid pro quo to achieve what you concede is the worthy goal of seeing what the biden’s were up to?

if a=b, and b=c, doesn’t a=c?

yes, unless trump is involved.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Pete, if it’s “legal
and above board” for joe biden and liz warren to use quid pro quo to get what they want, why isn't it legal and above board for trump to do the same.

you say, when democrats do it at least, that using quid pro quo is acceptable to achieve worthy goals.

you also say it’s worth finding out what the biden’s did.

if you put your two principles together, why isn’t it ok for trump to use quid pro quo to achieve what you concede is the worthy goal of seeing what the biden’s were up to?

if a=b, and b=c, doesn’t a=c?

yes, unless trump is involved.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My original post was not entirely clear.
I corrected it to explain the difference.

If you have a job and negotiate what you are supposed to efficiently, then you get to keep your job. That's the benefit to you.

If you have a job and negotiate what you are supposed to and you tell the party you are negotiating with that in order to make the deal they have to give you personally something of value in addition to your legal purpose. That's self-dealing.

Like do me a favor.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

My original post was not entirely clear.
I corrected it to explain the difference.

If you have a job and negotiate what you are supposed to efficiently, then you get to keep your job. That's the benefit to you.

If you have a job and negotiate what you are supposed to and you tell the party you are negotiating with that in order to make the deal they have to give you personally something of value in addition to your legal purpose. That's self-dealing.

Like do me a favor.

there’s a real likelihood that biden also receives something of personal value, when he used a quid pro quo with ukraine.

you’re twisting yourselves into knots trying to differentiate what trump did from what some democrats did.

and if the standard is you can’t do anything that helps you win the next election ( which is what you’re saying trump did), then they all should have been impeached. they all put pressure on others to get results they think will help them
get re elected.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

there’s a real likelihood that biden also receives something of personal value, when he used a quid pro quo with ukraine.

you’re twisting yourselves into knots trying to differentiate what trump did from what some democrats did.

and if the standard is you can’t do anything that helps you win the next election ( which is what you’re saying trump did), then they all should have been impeached. they all put pressure on others to get results they think will help them
get re elected.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quid pro quo is normal
Self dealing is not
Look at the other thread “comes to roost” for the holes in the defense you claim
Ask your corporate attorney about self dealing aka bribery
What did Biden ask for?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If biden received something of personal value, when he used a quid pro quo with ukraine and on the off chance it was impeachable, I guess the republicans were asleep at the helm.

I apologize for twisting myself into knots trying to somehow prove what trump did isn’t impeachment worthy
and it’s driving me crazy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Probably in the back of your mind that’s what your feeling.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Probably in the back of your mind that’s what your feeling.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Considering how hard he's being spun by Trump I'm not sure he can tell the back from the front.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Considering how hard he's being spun by Trump I'm not sure he can tell the back from the front.

well we can't all be as honest as you are, i never criticize trump and you often criticize liberals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Probably in the back of your mind that’s what your feeling.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you said you applaud the investigation that u covered Giulianis corruption, so why are you opposed to trump wanting a similar investigation into biden?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

keeps getting better



Oct. 24, 2019, 12:05 PM EDT
By Laura Strickler and Rich Schapiro

In the final year of the Obama administration, an American lawyer traveled to Romania to meet with a businessman accused of orchestrating a corrupt land deal.

The businessman was Gabriel “Puiu” Popoviciu, a wealthy Romanian real estate tycoon. The lawyer brought in to advise him was Hunter Biden, the son of then-Vice President Joe Biden, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Hunter Biden’s work for Popoviciu in 2016 went unreported at the time, but Joe Biden’s involvement in Romania was very much public. The vice president was among the leading voices pushing the government to crack down on corruption.

There’s no evidence that Hunter or his father acted improperly or violated any laws. But the arrangement, government ethics experts say, raises concerns that Hunter Biden was used as a prop in Popoviciu’s effort to dodge criminal prosecution.

“We don’t know what [Hunter Biden] was paid or what he was paid for but it does raise questions of whether this Romanian individual facing criminal charges was actually paying for a connection to the American vice president,” said Kathleen Clark, a Washington University law professor who specializes in government ethics.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

keeps getting better



Oct. 24, 2019, 12:05 PM EDT
By Laura Strickler and Rich Schapiro

In the final year of the Obama administration, an American lawyer traveled to Romania to meet with a businessman accused of orchestrating a corrupt land deal.

The businessman was Gabriel “Puiu” Popoviciu, a wealthy Romanian real estate tycoon. The lawyer brought in to advise him was Hunter Biden, the son of then-Vice President Joe Biden, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Hunter Biden’s work for Popoviciu in 2016 went unreported at the time, but Joe Biden’s involvement in Romania was very much public. The vice president was among the leading voices pushing the government to crack down on corruption.

There’s no evidence that Hunter or his father acted improperly or violated any laws. But the arrangement, government ethics experts say, raises concerns that Hunter Biden was used as a prop in Popoviciu’s effort to dodge criminal prosecution.

“We don’t know what [Hunter Biden] was paid or what he was paid for but it does raise questions of whether this Romanian individual facing criminal charges was actually paying for a connection to the American vice president,” said Kathleen Clark, a Washington University law professor who specializes in government ethics.

Does that mean you have concerns
Poor thing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you said you applaud the investigation that u covered Giulianis corruption, so why are you opposed to trump wanting a similar investigation into biden?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’m pretty sure the only corruption Trump is worried about is the stuff he wasn’t invited to participate in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I’m pretty sure

Because if you say so, it must be true.

[Got Stripers]

You are beginning to look like SD using single sentence responses, you can’t possibly be out of words, say it isn’t so?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device