1. Hillary and bill got paid up to about 150 million dollars and if you take your arguments to a logical conclusion you are saying although taking bribes is a crime it does not matter because it was only one vote and and the fuel for nuclear bombs does not matter. Your arguments are illogical and not correct under the law. The de minimis arguments for bribery go away at about 50 dollars. Not 500,000 dollar speeches for putin or 100 million dollar kickbacks. 2. the walls street journal has not exactly been trumps friend. The WSJ is a very serious establishment paper with more credibility than any of your left wing propaganda sheets.
so although buzzfeed had the story right and the mannafort thing is nothing on trump... so far I want to be clear ... I did not get out and say I told you this was nothing because the Papadopoulos pleas is concerning. The fact he lied about is the issue. I suspect it means at least a few more people on Trump's team are going to have problems. so in the future when you rant and rave... be sure you don't act like I said this was nothing. I am saying Trump team may have at least a few more problems.
The problem for you here, jem, is that bribery is well defined in the law, and so far as anyone has been able to show, the required elements of bribery are not present in the transactions that led to the earning of speaking fees by the Clintons and in some cases large contributions to the Clinton Foundation. (They do seem like unusually large payments until you compare them with like payments to other ex presidents and famous personages.) Some of these Clinton speeches were rewarded by large contributions to the Clinton Foundation, something that by law the donor can not benefit from other than by receipt of admiration from their fellow man for having done a good deed. I am afraid you are, once again, barking up the wrong tree.
After I posted the comment on Rupert Murdoch below, I recalled that famous passage in Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" where he mentions the "invisible hand." Of course I couldn't remember the quote word for word, only its substance, so I looked it up; it only occurs once in the entire work. Every individual...neither intends to promote the public interest...he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. So in Murdoch, it would seem, we have a man who in pursuing personal gain has been led by the invisible hand to do ill rather than promote the public interest. Apparently this invisible hand can work in more than one direction.
Yes they can be. Republican Kenn Starr says so. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/can-president-be-indicted-kenneth-starr-memo.html
Jared Kushner's team turned over documents to special counsel in Russia investigation Seems Kushner is next If you think Kushner is going to risk his own neck to save the guy sleeping with his wife, Trump's got another thing coming
Naturally I won't be bothered with the media arm of the Alt Right, White Nationalist Party, Breitbart. Your other link, I was able to determine, it wasn't difficult, is to an editorial. And in this case the editorial is by the editors of a Rupert Murdoch owned publication!
Elements Of Offense. Bribery is defined as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his/her public or legal duties. ... It is sufficient if the receiver gets anything of value to himself/herself from the bribe. don't you think it s funny that with hillary...you take this measured approach about the elements of the law. And pretend they elements are not there... when there is evidence supporting at least circumstantially all the elements. And at this stage there 100 percent no doubt she (her team) colluded with Russia? Yet, last we heard for your team (many times) that there was no evidence he colluded with Russia. However I grant there is a chance that your team will get member of the Trump team to roll and it may rise to Trump. If you pretend hillary is not guilty of anything and Trump is... you are a partisan hack.
If you search on Google, you'll discover this is something debated among legal scholars, but my impression is that the balance of opinions come down on the side that he can in fact be indicted while he is President, but likely would not be. It is a moot point in any case, because all Presidents serve at the will of the Congress. There has never been any question, of course, that once a President is removed from office, regardless of reason other than death, they are indictable. Furthermore, if The Court was to rule that a President could not be indicted while in office-- they haven't -- then it is virtually a given that any limitations statute would be extended by the time in office. Another less interesting question is whether the President can Pardon himself. This too has never been adjudicated, however the argument against the President being able to do this is compelling. No sane President would attempt to pardon himself. Trump is vulnerable on at least three fronts: He may ultimately have to give testimony under oath before Mueller attorneys, and that will subject him to possible charges of perjury; he may have committed tax fraud -- there are indicators pointing to high probability on this front, and he may have violated New York Law, where the Trump Organization is currently under investigation. There is a fourth front of potential liability as well. It seems the question of whether he did anything illegal in regard to benefiting from foreign interference in the 2016 U.S. election is an open one. There is only innuendo so far, although the question of Russian interference has been answered. My best guess would be that he merely acted unethically, which seems to be a specialty of his. "When the President does it, it is not illegal." -- Richard M. Nixon, in conversation with his Chief of Staff, H.R. Haldeman. Was Nixon right? It is highly unlikely such a question will ever be raised before The Court. Nor is it likely the American people would stand for such an outrageous claim as Nixon's. Nixon was Pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford, before being indicted, let alone convicted. Nevertheless there is no alternative to the conclusion that he, Richard Nixon, during his Presidency, engaged in acts, that if anyone other than the President were to engage in, are unquestionably crimes. For precisely the same reason the arguments against the President being able to pardon himself are so compelling, any President would be well advised to assume they are not above the law. The Ford Pardon of Nixon was a preemptive pardon. That is to say a pardon issued before conviction in a court of law. Could this kind of pardon open the door to possible abuse where a President might attempt to issue a preemptive pardon for crimes not yet committed? Probably not. One presumes that the Congress, to whom the President must ultimately answer, would take action were the President to attempt such a thing. It is clearly established that a President can pardon a crime that 'may have been committed', but no President has yet attempted to issue a pardon for a crime that 'may be committed'. Paul Manafort's behavior is that of someone confident of being granted a pardon. This calls into question Manafort's ability to judge the character of others. Donald Trump has a history of being highly complimentary of those useful to him, and then throwing them under the bus and backing over them. http://watergate.info/1974/09/08/text-of-ford-pardon-proclamation.html