"This isn't complicated"

[EleanorR]

Link to tweet

[Jarqui]

1. I disagree about bribery. To save me typing

https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/organized-crime/module-4/key-issues/bribery-versus-extortion.html

In extortion, the receiver is making a threat towards the extorted party, threatening to perform a certain action that will harm the extorted party unless the extorted party gives the receiver whatever the receiver requests. On the other hand, in cases of bribery, the bribed party will do something in favour of the bribing party.

Bribery relates to a corrupt benefit given or received to influence official action so as to afford the giver better than fair treatment. Both the person giving and the recipient are guilty of bribery. On the other hand, coercive extortion by a public official is the seeking or receiving of a corrupt benefit paid under an implicit or explicit threat to give the payer worse than fair treatment or to make the payer worse off. The payee is guilty of extortion; the payer is the victim of extortion.

Under the quid pro quo proposed. the President of Ukraine would not wind up with a free blow job, a swimming pool or a suitcase full of cash for his own benefit. His country would get the money the US congress already wanted him to have to defend themselves against the Russians.

The President of Ukraine was not guilty of bribery - he was a victim of a criminal attempt to extort perpetrated by the President of the United States for his own personal gain using assets that belonged to the American people.

[soldierant]

4. It doesn't matter what side of the transaction you are on;

you are guilty of bribery regardless whether yu give or receive.

And extortion is a form of bribery - bribery with menacing.

[Jarqui]

6. Ukraine nor the President of Ukraine are not receiving anything beyond what

they were not already due to get from the US Congress
Personally, the President of the Ukraine is not receiving anything.

If the President of the Ukraine accepted $1,000,000 to do what Trump asked, they're both guilty of bribery. But that is not what happened here.

If President Trump said to a Medicare patient "you're not getting that surgery you need unless you do me a political favor" - would you really argue that patient was accepting a bribe? The Ukraine is on US financial insurance of military funding life support. Trump, not the insurance provider (US Congress), stepped in to use assets that did not belong to him to attempt to extort the President of the Ukraine to help Trump's campaign.

This is not a case of bribery - particularly when the President of Ukraine did not accept. What we have here is attempted extortion because the big motivation was a threat against the President of Ukraine and his country.

[soldierant]

12. pat_k (#7) explains it so well I don't need to add a thing.

[Jarqui]

13. I agree. nt

[pat_k]

7. Difference is not black and white. Regardless, Trump actions fit.

I got curious and poked around. Apparently there is a bit of a legal debate about the difference between bribary and extortion, particularly as it applies to public officials. Specific statutes have somewhat different definitions.

Trump's actions may not meet some of those specific legal definitions, but I'm sure it meets others. And, in any case, impeachable offenses don't need to be violations of law.

As I poked around, I came across the following "lay" definition of "coercive extortion by a public official" in the THE THEORY, HISTORY, AND PRACTICE OF THE BRIBERY-EXTORTION DISTINCTION

Certainly seems to fit.

B. The Ordinary-Language Distinction Between
Bribery and Coercive Extortion
1. Refining the Lay Definitions

<snip>

In my view, coercive extortion by a public official is the seeking
or receiving of a corrupt benefit paid under an implicit or explicit
threat to give the payor worse than fair treatment or to make the
payor worse off than he is now or worse than he expects to be. The
payee is guilty of extortion; the payor is the victim of extortion.

In this case, the "corrupt benefit" to the payee (Trump) is mounting an investigation to smear a political rival. The threat is withholding aid expected under bill passed by Congress ("make the payor worse off than he is now or worse than he expects to be" )

[soldierant]

11. Thank you.

[world wide wally]

2. Since Sistah Linsey won't be participating (as he stated today) that lowers the bar for the

Number of votes the Dems will need to convict.

[They_Live]

3. Tax payer dollars.

It is important.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

5. Keep saying this. It's getting lost in all the NOISE

[SCantiGOP]

8. Logic Fake News

in Trump World

[crickets]

9. K&R for visibility

[FiveGoodMen]

10. No, there's nothing complicated about ...

"Link to tweet"