Question for the legal eagles..
Strycker
Loc: The middle of somewhere else.
I keep hearing from Democrats that there is no proof, no smoking gun. I know with the Burisma situation all by itself appears to be a quid pro quo. Payment to H****r was paid in return for Joe's action on the prosecutor. Putting that one aside and with the impeachment inquiry going on I have a question I can't find the answer to. I know bribery must include a quid pro quo to be illegal. The question is, is a payment for a promise of access and consideration a quid pro quo? That is "pay for play". Is the access to Biden in itself the quid pro quo? Is "pay for play" legally a bribe even if no return on the payment is guaranteed other than access?
Strycker wrote:
I keep hearing from Democrats that there is no proof, no smoking gun. I know with the Burisma situation all by itself appears to be a quid pro quo. Payment to H****r was paid in return for Joe's action on the prosecutor. Putting that one aside and with the impeachment inquiry going on I have a question I can't find the answer to. I know bribery must include a quid pro quo to be illegal. The question is, is a payment for a promise of access and consideration a quid pro quo? That is "pay for play". Is the access to Biden in itself the quid pro quo? Is "pay for play" legally a bribe even if no return on the payment is guaranteed other than access?
I keep hearing from Democrats that there is no pro... (
show quote)
No matter the evidence Democrats will say no proof.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.