Quid-pro-quo an example:
In a phone call to the Great Leader of North Korea: “Leader Kim Jong-un, I have an offer and a favor to ask. Firstly I will sign a treaty with your government that the United States will never use military force against your country. In return I want you to discontinue building missiles, also I want you to move your ground forces far away from the 38th parallel, stop your threats against South Korea. If you do these things I will promise that our country will ship to you food, and medicine for your people, I also promise that when I am out of office I will build for you the most beautiful of resort hotels on your most scenic coastal area. This will make your country wealthy beyond your wildest dreams. I await your answer.” This is an example of what any President may say to influence any adversary, in this case, North Korea. Quid-pro-quo --- damn straight.
Where has there been collusion? It began with the Hillary Clinton Campaign the Democrat National Committee, Fusion GPS, the Steele Dossier, the FBI and the Department of Justice. This and other factors led to the FBI initiating Crossfire Hurricane and later the appointment of a Special Prosecutor leading to the Mueller investigation. An important outtake from Wikipedia follows: “Mueller Report. Mueller concluded that Russian interference occurred in a "sweeping and systematic fashion" and that there were substantial links with the Trump campaign, but that the evidence available to investigators did not establish that the Trump campaign had "conspired or coordinated" with the Russian government.” That is a conclusion of the Mueller Report, but no investigation of HRC campaign or the DNC. Also, it appears that the Government of Ukraine may have played similar mischief favoring Hillary.
It also seems to me that Chairman Schiff not only is a leaker but a first-rate liar. If he has nothing to hide why are these hearing behind closed doors without publishing the whole transcript of the testimony?? Chairman Schiff has leaked to the major media outlets (fake news) only items derogatory to President Trump and others. If this impeachment proceeding is to be fair let all the transcripts be published so the people can judge; interesting that no Republican voted in favor and that two Democrats defected. Why is this in the Intelligence committee when previous Impeachment inquiries were instituted in the Judiciary – Chairman Nadler not good enough at lying?
Open these hearings so that we can see behind the curtain.
Regards,
John Stiegelmeyer
Comments
Submit a CommentPlease refresh the page to leave Comment.
Still seeing this message? Press Ctrl + F5 to do a "Hard Refresh".
I'm not even going to get into all of the conspiracy theories that you mentioned. There is *absolutely* no evidence to back up any one of those theories. Thus, the conspiracy qualification. Just the imagination of many of the analysts on Fox News. Those all start with someone saying "maybe this is what happened". Then, within 2 hours there are viral *conspiracy* theories all over the internet, claiming these idiotic theories are true.
Also, you throw that "Fake news" phrase around very easily. All of those conspiracy theories, that you mentioned, are exactly that, *FAKE NEWS*. Many of them have been totally debunked. Most of the information in The Steele Dossier has been proven. Many of them, through The Mueller Report.
That was a nice quote that you presented, from The Mueller Report. But, you fail to understand what it means, as explained immediately after the part you quoted. There were over 100 contacts between members of the Trump campaign, and Russians, with direct contact with Putin. Because your lifelong, con artist "president", has perfected his criminal methods, Mueller couldn't put together all of the elements of Conspiracy Against The United States (I see you use the word *collusion* which isn't a crime). You see, it takes two people to *knowingly* commit the crime of conspiracy, to qualify under the statute. The con artist in our White House, as a rule, doesn't say or do things that would incriminate himself. As Michael Cohen said, he speaks in code. When telling his henchmen what he wants done, he only implies the act to the other party. Then he asks if they understand what he was implying. So, for this reason, Mueller couldn't prove his intentions with Russia. So you understand me, here are the elements that have to be proven, to get a conviction of Conspiracy.
Elements of a Conspiracy:
Conspiracy first requires a showing that two or more people were in agreement to commit a crime. This agreement does not have to be formal or in writing. All that is required is that the parties had a mutual understanding to undertake an unlawful plan. Second, all conspirators must have the specific intent to commit the objective of the conspiracy. This means that someone who is entirely unaware that she is participating in a crime cannot be charged with conspiracy. For instance, if two sisters agree to rob a bank and ask their brother to drive them to the bank without informing him of their intent to commit a crime, he cannot be charged with conspiring in the robbery. This specific intent requirement does not require that each individual knows all the details of the crime or all of the members of the conspiracy. As long as an individual understands that the act being planned is a criminal one and proceeds nonetheless, he can be charged with conspiracy.
Finally, in most states, conspiracy requires an “overt act” taken in furtherance of the crime. This overt act does not have to be the crime itself, nor does it have to be an act that is illegal. Rather, the act must merely be a step taken in furtherance of the criminal objective, such as buying a weapon or holding a meeting to plan an attack. The act must also take place after the group of individuals has agreed to conspire. Actions taken before the agreement do not fulfill this requirement. While an “overt act” implies an affirmative action, some courts have held that silence can be an overt act where it is intentional, planned, and done in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Defenses to Conspiracy: Conspiracy first requires a showing that two or more people were in agreement to commit a crime. This agreement does not have to be formal or in writing. All that is required is that the parties had a mutual understanding to undertake an unlawful plan. Second, all conspirators must have the specific intent to commit the objective of the conspiracy. This means that someone who is entirely unaware that she is participating in a crime cannot be charged with conspiracy. For instance, if two sisters agree to rob a bank and ask their brother to drive them to the bank without informing him of their intent to commit a crime, he cannot be charged with conspiring in the robbery. This specific intent requirement does not require that each individual knows all the details of the crime or all of the members of the conspiracy. As long as an individual understands that the act being planned is a criminal one and proceeds nonetheless, he can be charged with conspiracy.
Finally, in most states, conspiracy requires an “overt act” taken in furtherance of the crime. This overt act does not have to be the crime itself, nor does it have to be an act that is illegal. Rather, the act must merely be a step taken in furtherance of the criminal objective, such as buying a weapon or holding a meeting to plan an attack. The act must also take place after the group of individuals has agreed to conspire. Actions taken before the agreement do not fulfill this requirement. While an “overt act” implies an affirmative action, some courts have held that silence can be an overt act where it is intentional, planned, and done in furtherance of the conspiracy.
The fact that Mueller couldn't indict Trump at all, made it easy for him to not make a claim that he could prove it in court. Federal prosecutors have a 93% conviction rate, because they don't indict what they can't prove *beyond a reasonable doubt*.
Obstruction of Justice is a crime too. Mueller found 10+ instances of Obstruction, during his investigation. They are well documented in his report. Those crimes can be prosecuted, after Trump leaves office in 2021.
It's incredibly sad that people of your ilk will continue to protect a man that has committed so many crimes. He's personally defied many aspects of The Constitution of The United States. Yet you still continue to defend him, and claim you're being patriotic. Someone of your prominence and age, will defy our Constitution, just because of the *R* that represents your political opinions. That's not patriotic at all. Will you continue to protect him once we know the truth about his financial crimes? I can tell you this.... Trump went completely broke in the early 90s. I can't prove this, but there's been enough evidence, over the years, that I'm certain of it. He didn't remake himself. All if his current wealth is from the hands of Putin. He's been laundering money for many Russian oligarchs for years. He made a *deal* with Putin (aka The Devil) and has been proper up by him ever since.