Quid Pro Joe ring a bell?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ6QiqvfvxE

Democrats were determined to pursue their fanciful impeachment of President Trump based on an imaginary “quid pro quo.” Rep. Schiff and others have even suggested that even if there was no “quid pro quo,” the Ukraine call could still be grounds for impeachment.

There is, of course, no evidence of a “quid pro quo” in President Trump’s telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25, 2019. The transcript of the call shows no pressure, no condition, and no demand for anything. This is corroborated by the statements of Zelensky who confirmed that there was no blackmail involved during the call and no pressure applied. “Nobody pushed me,” Zelensky said. We had a great phone call,” he added. “It was normal.”

Ironically, there is evidence of a clear “quid pro quo” in Joe Biden’s threat to the Ukrainian government when he was Vice President and served as the point-person on Ukraine. At a public forum, Biden is seen bragging on camera that he warned the Kiev government in early 2016 that he would withhold $1 billion in American aide unless a Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, was fired. Shokin has said in interviews that he was sacked because his investigators were “on his (H****r B***n’s) tail” in a case of suspected corruption involving Burisma where the VP’s son held a board seat for which he was not remotely qualified.

Joe Biden’s boast about his “quid pro quo” is compelling evidence that he may have used his public office to confer a benefit ($1 billion) in exchange for something of value –shutting down an investigation to help his son.

Yet, Democrats and the media would have you believe that Trump’s non-existent “quid pro quo” is an impeachable offense which demands his removal from office, whereas Biden’s “quid pro quo” is perfectly acceptable. It is not. Here’s why Congress and the Department of Justice should investigate Biden’s actions.

JOE BIDEN’S QUID PRO QUO:
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (15 USC 78dd-1): Passed in 1977 and later amended, this law criminalizes foreign bribery. It is illegal for a U.S. person to coerce or influence, through bribery or extortion, a foreign nation into taking action that might financially benefit that person, his family or business. If it can be shown that Biden, as VP, used his public office to influence or coerce a foreign official into taking official action that benefited Biden’s son, then this would be a violation. Much depends on Biden’s intent. In his defense, he would have to demonstrate that his intent had nothing to do with Ukraine’s investigation of H****r B***n’s company, Burisma. However, the fired prosecutor is on record stating that Biden’s threat to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid was motivated by, or related to, his investigation of Burisma.

Bribery (18 USC 201(b)): Whoever corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to a public official to influence an official act his guilty of bribery. The government must show there was a corrupt intent to obtain a quid pro quo, although it may be implied, not explicit or expressed.

Gratuities (18 USC 201(c)): Giving, offering or promising anything of value to a public official in exchange for any official act is a violation of the gratuities statute. It is similar to bribery, although it does not require proof of a quid pro quo or corrupt intent.

Hobbs Act Extortion (18 USC 1951): A threat to a foreign official in order to obtain an official benefit affecting interstate or foreign commerce would constitute extortion under the Hobbs Act.

Quid Pro Joe ring a bell?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ6QiqvfvxE

Democrats were determined to pursue their fanciful impeachment of President Trump based on an imaginary “quid pro quo.” Rep. Schiff and others have even suggested that even if there was no “quid pro quo,” the Ukraine call could still be grounds for impeachment.

There is, of course, no evidence of a “quid pro quo” in President Trump’s telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25, 2019. The transcript of the call shows no pressure, no condition, and no demand for anything. This is corroborated by the statements of Zelensky who confirmed that there was no blackmail involved during the call and no pressure applied. “Nobody pushed me,” Zelensky said. We had a great phone call,” he added. “It was normal.”

Ironically, there is evidence of a clear “quid pro quo” in Joe Biden’s threat to the Ukrainian government when he was Vice President and served as the point-person on Ukraine. At a public forum, Biden is seen bragging on camera that he warned the Kiev government in early 2016 that he would withhold $1 billion in American aide unless a Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, was fired. Shokin has said in interviews that he was sacked because his investigators were “on his (H****r B***n’s) tail” in a case of suspected corruption involving Burisma where the VP’s son held a board seat for which he was not remotely qualified.

Joe Biden’s boast about his “quid pro quo” is compelling evidence that he may have used his public office to confer a benefit ($1 billion) in exchange for something of value –shutting down an investigation to help his son.

Yet, Democrats and the media would have you believe that Trump’s non-existent “quid pro quo” is an impeachable offense which demands his removal from office, whereas Biden’s “quid pro quo” is perfectly acceptable. It is not. Here’s why Congress and the Department of Justice should investigate Biden’s actions.

JOE BIDEN’S QUID PRO QUO:
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (15 USC 78dd-1): Passed in 1977 and later amended, this law criminalizes foreign bribery. It is illegal for a U.S. person to coerce or influence, through bribery or extortion, a foreign nation into taking action that might financially benefit that person, his family or business. If it can be shown that Biden, as VP, used his public office to influence or coerce a foreign official into taking official action that benefited Biden’s son, then this would be a violation. Much depends on Biden’s intent. In his defense, he would have to demonstrate that his intent had nothing to do with Ukraine’s investigation of H****r B***n’s company, Burisma. However, the fired prosecutor is on record stating that Biden’s threat to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid was motivated by, or related to, his investigation of Burisma.

Bribery (18 USC 201(b)): Whoever corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to a public official to influence an official act his guilty of bribery. The government must show there was a corrupt intent to obtain a quid pro quo, although it may be implied, not explicit or expressed.

Gratuities (18 USC 201(c)): Giving, offering or promising anything of value to a public official in exchange for any official act is a violation of the gratuities statute. It is similar to bribery, although it does not require proof of a quid pro quo or corrupt intent.

Hobbs Act Extortion (18 USC 1951): A threat to a foreign official in order to obtain an official benefit affecting interstate or foreign commerce would constitute extortion under the Hobbs Act.

https://www.americanoversight.org/investigation/donald-trumps-obstruction-of-congressional-oversight

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/12/impeachment-report-trump-obstruct/602938/

https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-congress-impeachment-and-constitutional-conflict

etc., etc., etc.

Us damn l*****ts don't redefine words. That you don't understand what we're talking about is because you damn rightists treat your king as though he is above the law. L'etat c'est moi, says Trump and all his minions say 'wh**ever you want'.

Trump is a f*****t. The Russian media is correct. Putin, on the other hand is virtually indescribable. He certainly manifests all the points that make one a f*****t but he is complicated by delusions of grandeur and haunted by an unattainable obsession of reinstitution the old Soviet Union by threatening the use of the Russian nuclear arsenal. The Dems pegged Fat Donny as a f*****t long before the Russian media even began mentioning the creep. The Russian media did nothing to clarify the issue. It was already quite clear.

The Repugs whimper about spying on Fat Donny. If fact, it was the incredible frequency that those that routinely listen to communications going to and from Russia ran across communications between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence that monitoring them became a matter of national security. No one said, "let's spy on Fat Donny", it was, in fact, the multiple off the record communications with Russian intelligence that told American security specialists that something that mandated scrutiny was taking place.

We all had to laugh when Sergey Lavrov said that if Fat Donny runs in 2024 that they will be happy to help him win again.