The Trump Phone call to Ukrainian President looks to be a dud

[Alabuckeye]

So, the core question is: Is it legal to threaten to withhold aid to a country if they do not do something you want them to do? Followup......is that tainted in any way when it impacts a political rival?

For the first question......I suspect we've been participating in that behavior for....say a couple hundred years to some degree or another. The second question is the dicey one, at least politically.

[Syncro]

The issue is that Trump is currently in office, currently up for re-election and is doing essentially the same thing to the Ukraine that Biden did.

As usual, you are wrong.

Biden extorted the Ukrainians to defend his son. Trump attempted to withhold funds in order to defend the rule of law.

They aren't even close to "essentially the same thing"

[cincydawg]

I suppose acting to defend one's son and acting to damage a political rival could be viewed as somewhat similar.

[Alabuckeye]

I suppose acting to defend one's son and acting to damage a political rival could be viewed as somewhat similar.

I think they could.....

[cincydawg]

The Hobbs Act prohibits actual or attempted robbery or extortion affecting interstate or foreign commerce "in any way or degree." Section 1951 also proscribes conspiracy to commit robbery or extortion without reference to the conspiracy statute at 18 U.S.C. § 371. The statutory prohibition of "physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section" is confined to violence for the purpose of committing robbery or extortion. United States v. Franks, 511 F.2d 25, 31 (6th Cir. 1975) (rejecting the view that the statute proscribes all physical violence obstructing, delaying, or affecting commerce as contrasted with violence designed to culminate in robbery or extortion).
The extortion offense reaches both the obtaining of property "under color of official right" by public officials and the obtaining of property by private actors with the victim's "consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear," including fear of economic harm. See this Manual at 2405 and Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255, 265, 112 S.Ct. 1181, 1188 (1992) (only a private individual's extortion of property by the wrongful use of force, violence, or fear requires that the victim's consent be induced by these means; extortion of property under color of official right does not require that a public official take steps to induce the extortionate payment).
Although the Hobbs Act was enacted in 1946 to combat racketeering in labor-management disputes, the extortion statute is frequently used in connection with cases involving public corruption, commercial disputes, and corruption directed at members of labor unions. Proof of "racketeering" as an element of Hobbs Act offenses is not required. United States v. Culbert, 435 U.S. 371, 98 S.Ct. 1112 (1978). However, a violation of the Hobbs Act may be part of a "pattern of racketeering activity" for purposes of prosecution under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute (18 U.S.C. §  1961, et seq.).
[cited in JM 9-131.010]

[3rdgensooner]

I have a notion "what it looks like" and what it REALLY is might be at variance here.  I'm going to wait for further information.

But I don't think Trump's asking them to look into Biden is a crime.  If he threatened them, it still isn't a crime.

Biden threatened Ukraine over a Billion $ in aid to get a prosecutor fired that was looking into corruption involving his son. In my opinion that is worse.

The issue is that Trump is currently in office, currently up for re-election and is doing essentially the same thing to the Ukraine that Biden did.

As is too often the case, Trump has some good ideas, but is too impulsive, arrogant and stupid to execute his ideas correctly.

No. Threatening someone to not investigate crime is the opposite of threatening someone to investigate a crime. Not essentially the same thing at all. Never mind the Ukraine and Trump say there was no coercion and Biden bragged about the coercion.

[cincydawg]

So, maybe in three weeks this will be sorted out?  

Maybe not, maybe the "news" will be about something else equally titillating.

[cincydawg]

It's interesting to "go away" for two weeks, or more, and not really pay attention to this place, or FB, or "the news".  The great story when you left is long forgotten, replaced by one or two or three more recent calamities.  When I left it was war with Iran and McCabe being charged.  Now, it's Ukraine.

In three weeks?  Could well be something completely different.  The hot news from April is ancient history.  Most of this "stuff" strikes me as "churn for clicks", ginning up something to lead if it bleeds in effect, and then repeating the process.

[P1tchblack]

The issue is that Trump is currently in office, currently up for re-election and is doing essentially the same thing to the Ukraine that Biden did.

As usual, you are wrong.

Biden extorted the Ukrainians to defend his son.  Trump attempted to withhold funds in order to defend the rule of law.

They aren't even close to "essentially the same thing"

[Hightop77]

Pitch continues to play the fool.  He continually rails about government corruption and here is Trump exposing a very large scam Biden pulled on behalf of his worthless son while he was VP.  So what does Pitch do?  He attacks Trump.

[P1tchblack]

Pitch continues to play the fool.  He continually rails about government corruption and here is Trump exposing a very large scam Biden pulled on behalf of his worthless son while he was VP.  So what does Pitch do?  He attacks Trump.

There is a very, very, very good chance that Biden did something incredibly illegal. I have never once disputed that. You, and others, are too dense to realize that fact. Trump can be a ***** moron, Giuliani can be a liar and Biden can still be guilty.

Anybody who thinks that this whole thing isn't politically motivated, even if Biden is 100% in the wrong, is as moronic As Trump.

[3rdgensooner]

So, maybe in three weeks this will be sorted out?  

Maybe not, maybe the "news" will be about something else equally titillating.

Same as all the other semi weekly stuff the Dems and their press lap dogs  hyperventilate about. I've lost track of everything by now actually. It turns out to be a nothing burger and next week they're in hysterics over something else. Rinse. Repeat.

[zigbee]

The whistleblower's allegation could prompt scrutiny of the Obama administration's Ukraine policy. Joe Biden has explained on camera that in March 2016, he privately threatened then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that the U.S. would withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees from Ukraine if its top prosecutor was not fired.
“I said, ‘Youâ€re not getting the billion,'" Biden recounted telling Poroshenko at a Council on Foreign Relations event. "Iâ€m going to be leaving here, in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘Iâ€m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, youâ€re not getting the money.'"


[/url]




This is the real corruption that the Fake News Media refuses to even acknowledge![img=458x0]https://pbs.twimg.com/ext_tw_video_thumb/1176218873772892160/pu/img/0KBb1jNXEaNbfPVr?format=jpg&name=small[/img]


[url=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1176219043965079552]



“Well, son of a b---h, he got fired," Biden continued, after assuring Poroshenko that Obama knew about the arrangement. It remained unclear if this was directly tied to the prosecutor's probe into the company linked to Hunter Biden, as other countries reportedly wanted the prosecutor out as well.

[K9Buck]

This story has been delightful.

[P1tchblack]

So, Biden blackmailed the Ukranian president to get his son out of trouble in 2016, but it just came to light a few months before the 2020 election?