Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another Statute for the Impeachment Articles

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • inevtiab1e
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    That seems lazy to me, unless he was getting paid off not to or something. Incompetence, sloth, or ignorance doesn't equal corruption.
    A prosecutor is supposed to expose corruption and abuse. Go after it with a vengeance. That's what credible prosecutors do.
    When a prosecutor looks the other way, that's corrupt. Allowing corrupt corporations/people to continue their own corruption because they know they won't be prosecuted.

    I think you should learn more about the previous Ukranian regime. Sounds like you only hear what Fox says about it (disinformation)

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    And because I happen to have my son (lawyer) for launch today, I can add on a broader note (thanks to his observation) how the no cooperation of victims does not necessarily mean that a case is dropped by the prosecutor. For example, there have been "no-drop"" policies which permitted prosecutors to convict suspects of spouse abuse even when the spouse was not willing to cooperate wth the authorities and testify against her abusing husband

    http://users.wfu.edu/wrightrf/Aspen-...ew_ch13_01.htm

    In this article, Corsilles discusses no-drop policies in domestic abuse cases. Rather than permitting prosecutors to drop domestic violence charges due to the uncooperation of the witness, no-drop policies ensure that cases will proceed despite victim nonparticipation. Corsilles examines why and how prosecutors drop domestic violence cases, why many jurisdictions have adopted no-drop policies, and analyzes the benefits and drawbacks to such a procedure.
    Different jurisdictions vary their no-drop policies. The policy may be a complex, written arrangement, or may just be an oral policy of the office. No-drop policies establish that in domestic violence cases, the state, not the victim of the abuse, is the party to charge the abuser. The prosecutor controls the prosecution, and the victim can no longer decide to drop the case


    https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...289-story.html

    Still, Tunney said, “No matter how much time you spend with these ladies, many will still not prosecute.”

    When that happens, some prosecutors are reversing an age-old legal tenet and are electing to pursue charges without a cooperative victim, relying on 911 tapes, photographs of injuries and police reports to prove the case.


    Same principles can apply with federal law

    https://www.ovc.gov/pdftxt/DVIC_facilitator_guide.pdf








    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

    No, you didn't give an example.
    You ignored my point. (Poorly)

    How does the State prosecute for blackmail (extortion) when the alleged victim denies he was blackmailed?

    You are claiming that circumstantial evidence (we both know you'll have to look that up) is given greater weight than direct evidence.
    But there is no legal support for that claim is there? Jury instructions address circumstantial evidence, but they don't say what you just claimed (We both know you'll have to look up what those are too) So, the actual rules contradict what you claim. Ouch.
    You're doing great.

    Anyway, I'll let you try to change the subject and will ignore you if it is ok.




    I ignore points which are irrelevant to the law.

    Read the statute's title which is about bribing officials and not about blackmailing. That is the only thing that matters. This means that EVEN if Ukraine did not feel any pressure and even if it willingly try to collude with Trump and accept an offer for giving something of value in return of getting something that was vital for the Ukrainian interests, the law would still apply!



    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    I just gave you the example:

    The attempt to seek a bribe can come from the evidence of eye witnesses who participated in the attention to have the deal. An indirect QPQ by definition will not be based on some public statement

    The Ukrainian president is a politician. So, taking automatically his public statements as the truth makes no sense.
    No, you didn't give an example.
    You ignored my point. (Poorly)

    How does the State prosecute for blackmail (extortion) when the alleged victim denies he was blackmailed?

    You are claiming that circumstantial evidence (we both know you'll have to look that up) is given greater weight than direct evidence.
    But there is no legal support for that claim is there? Jury instructions address circumstantial evidence, but they don't say what you just claimed (We both know you'll have to look up what those are too) So, the actual rules contradict what you claim. Ouch.
    You're doing great.

    Anyway, I'll let you try to change the subject and will ignore you if it is ok.





    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



    I'm asking you to support the example you just gave.
    Or are you admitting it was all BS?

    How does the State prosecute someone for blackmail when the alleged victim denies he was blackmailed?
    Please explain how the testimony of nonvictims will be given greater weight that the testimony of the victim himself?

    The Ukrainian president is not a small child or infant so those comparisons don't apply.

    I'm waiting.
    I just gave you the example:

    The attempt to seek a bribe can be established from eye witnesses who participated in the crafting of that deal. An indirect QPQ by definition will not be based on some public statement by the person who gives or accepts the bribe.

    The Ukrainian president is a politician. So, taking automatically his public statements as the truth makes no sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    It is not a state prosecuting anything. It is an impeachment process for high crimes and misdemeanors.



    I'm asking you to support the example you just gave.
    Or are you admitting it was all BS?

    How does the State prosecute someone for blackmail when the alleged victim denies he was blackmailed?
    Please explain how the testimony of nonvictims will be given greater weight that the testimony of the victim himself?

    The Ukrainian president is not a small child or infant so those comparisons don't apply.

    I'm waiting.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

    Um, Please explain how the state can prosecute for blackmail when the alleged victim denies he was blackmailed.
    This ought to be fascinating.

    Please explain the holes in my legal analysis..

    You've made it clear you believe you are a legal expert so I am excited to see the legal basis for your conclusions.
    I'll wait.
    It is not a state prosecuting anything. It is an impeachment process for high crimes and misdemeanors.

    And something else: The injured party in this case is not Ukraine. It is the American people. Ukraine may be a victim or may lie or whatever. And usually those who are engaged in bribes do not openly admit it . This does not mean that it is necessary to have a public confession to convict somebody for bribery.
    Last edited by pamak; 09 Nov 19, 13:08.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    Facts still matter and you cannot get away from them. The line below is your personal judgment call aka opinion

    The personal belief of the Ukrainian is more important than anyone else"

    Just because you do not admit it is your personal opinion, it does not make it a legal fact of your cartoonist "legal analysis"

    And the prosecution can go after crimes even when the victim cannot for some reason cooperate, either because the victim is blackmailed or because it is a baby and cannot talk or a small child which is afraid or whatever. In those cases the testimonies of other witnesses will be more important than what the victim says.

    As I told you, you fail miserably the critical thinking test when you are incapable of understanding how Trump's power over political issues linked to Ukraine's vital national interests affect the public statements of its leaders!


    By the way, if it makes you feel better, I will give you points for predicting that I would expose the irrationality of your partisan thinking which you call "legal analysis"
    Um, Please explain how the state can prosecute for blackmail when the alleged victim denies he was blackmailed.
    This ought to be fascinating.

    Please explain the holes in my legal analysis..

    You've made it clear you believe you are a legal expert so I am excited to see the legal basis for your conclusions.
    I'll wait.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
    If a prosecutor isn't doing his job investigating rampant corruption, that's seems corrupt to me. I had a feeling this would tickle your brain.
    That seems lazy to me, unless he was getting paid off not to or something. Incompetence, sloth, or ignorance doesn't equal corruption.

    Leave a comment:


  • inevtiab1e
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    So, the prosecutor was corrupt for not being corrupt... yea...

    If a prosecutor isn't doing his job investigating rampant corruption, that's seems corrupt to me. I had a feeling this would tickle your brain.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
    You're wrong. The previous Ukranian government was hugely corrupt, same with the previous prosecutor. Keep ignoring the truth and listen to RW mediaheads.

    As stated, the prosecutor earned the corruption status for not looking into corruption.

    You're chasing a nothingburger. (conspiracy theory)
    So, the prosecutor was corrupt for not being corrupt... yea...

    Leave a comment:


  • inevtiab1e
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    Actually, it's the other way around. Viktor Shokin was rather reliable and looking into all sorts of corruption at the top in Ukraine, not just the Biden's. That made him unpopular with the rich and powerful as well as enemies with some of them. It doesn't help that some of his subordinates were corrupt and got caught for their offenses.

    But, Shokin's replacement Yuriy Lutsenko was, and is, corrupt to the core. At the Frankfurt airport he was arrested for acute drunkenness and right after resigned his post as Ukraine's Minister of the Interior over it. He has a problem with alcohol in general and is often derided as a drunk by opposition parties.

    He was subsequently charged with Abuse of Office and Forgery charges, followed by charges of financial crimes. He was put on house arrest awaiting trial but was rearrested for breaking that deal and leaving his home in Kiev.

    He was sentenced to two years in prison from those incidents.

    A change in Presidents in Ukraine, saw the new President-- an ally of Lutsenko-- pardon him.

    Lutsenko was subsequently appointed to replace Shokin even though Lutsenko doesn't have a law degree and had no prior experience with legal matters (other than being repeatedly arrested...).

    I'd say that's a pretty corrupt individual that replaced Shokin.

    But, Lutsenko is a darling of the Left and radical Left having been both a Communist and hard line Socialist politically, as well as travelling in the circles of the radical Left. As usual, the Left and their minions of ignorance in the MSM excuse his behavior because he's a true believer and one of them.
    You're wrong. The previous Ukranian government was hugely corrupt, same with the previous prosecutor. Keep ignoring the truth and listen to RW mediaheads.

    As stated, the prosecutor earned the corruption status for not looking into corruption.

    You're chasing a nothingburger. (conspiracy theory)

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    Actually, it's the other way around. Viktor Shokin was rather reliable and looking into all sorts of corruption at the top in Ukraine, not just the Biden's. That made him unpopular with the rich and powerful as well as enemies with some of them. It doesn't help that some of his subordinates were corrupt and got caught for their offenses.

    But, Shokin's replacement Yuriy Lutsenko was, and is, corrupt to the core. At the Frankfurt airport he was arrested for acute drunkenness and right after resigned his post as Ukraine's Minister of the Interior over it. He has a problem with alcohol in general and is often derided as a drunk by opposition parties.

    He was subsequently charged with Abuse of Office and Forgery charges, followed by charges of financial crimes. He was put on house arrest awaiting trial but was rearrested for breaking that deal and leaving his home in Kiev.

    He was sentenced to two years in prison from those incidents.

    A change in Presidents in Ukraine, saw the new President-- an ally of Lutsenko-- pardon him.

    Lutsenko was subsequently appointed to replace Shokin even though Lutsenko doesn't have a law degree and had no prior experience with legal matters (other than being repeatedly arrested...).

    I'd say that's a pretty corrupt individual that replaced Shokin.

    But, Lutsenko is a darling of the Left and radical Left having been both a Communist and hard line Socialist politically, as well as travelling in the circles of the radical Left. As usual, the Left and their minions of ignorance in the MSM excuse his behavior because he's a true believer and one of them.
    Not according to the IMF, and the different countries and NGOs.

    But feel free to show one case of any major oligarch who was convicted under Shokin because according to this

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9147001.html

    During Shokin’s 13 months in office, not one major figure was convicted. No oligarch. No politician. No ranking bureaucrat. It would appear unlikely he was in the middle of breaking the habit with the Bidens.


    And yes, Shokin's replacement also proved to be corrupt which is the reason why eventually the people got so angry that they voted for somebody like Zelinksy who was a former comedian.

    And let's not forget again that the investigations which were related to Burisma were for the period between 2010-2012 while Hunter Biden assumed a position in the company's board of directors in the middle of 2014.



    Last edited by pamak; 08 Nov 19, 13:00.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
    Correct, the previous Ukranian prosecutor was completely corrupt. He was ousted for not looking into corruption. That's because the Ukranian prosecutor was corrupt himself.

    What else you got?
    Actually, it's the other way around. Viktor Shokin was rather reliable and looking into all sorts of corruption at the top in Ukraine, not just the Biden's. That made him unpopular with the rich and powerful as well as enemies with some of them. It doesn't help that some of his subordinates were corrupt and got caught for their offenses.

    But, Shokin's replacement Yuriy Lutsenko was, and is, corrupt to the core. At the Frankfurt airport he was arrested for acute drunkenness and right after resigned his post as Ukraine's Minister of the Interior over it. He has a problem with alcohol in general and is often derided as a drunk by opposition parties.

    He was subsequently charged with Abuse of Office and Forgery charges, followed by charges of financial crimes. He was put on house arrest awaiting trial but was rearrested for breaking that deal and leaving his home in Kiev.

    He was sentenced to two years in prison from those incidents.

    A change in Presidents in Ukraine, saw the new President-- an ally of Lutsenko-- pardon him.

    Lutsenko was subsequently appointed to replace Shokin even though Lutsenko doesn't have a law degree and had no prior experience with legal matters (other than being repeatedly arrested...).

    I'd say that's a pretty corrupt individual that replaced Shokin.

    But, Lutsenko is a darling of the Left and radical Left having been both a Communist and hard line Socialist politically, as well as travelling in the circles of the radical Left. As usual, the Left and their minions of ignorance in the MSM excuse his behavior because he's a true believer and one of them.

    Leave a comment:


  • inevtiab1e
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post

    He has the guy fired that was going after the company that his son worked for. His own words:

    https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-jo...3CA0E81D8.html
    Correct, the previous Ukranian prosecutor was completely corrupt. He was ousted for not looking into corruption. That's because the Ukranian prosecutor was corrupt himself.

    What else you got?

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X