LaxPower Back-Up Stick

OSVAlacrosse wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:25 am

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:11 am

OSVAlacrosse wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 10:54 am What if the owner of the dealership acknowledged that that mayor told him it would be great if you would put a sign in your lot and the owner responded, "Sure I would be happy to do it and you have my support." Would that be worthy of removal of office? Either way the answer would be your opinion or mine.

The mayor would be thrown in jail. The only "opinion" in question would be whether or not you thought the mayor's prison jumpsuit matched his eyes.

Very weak response to a perfectly legitimate question. Thus ends my foray into politics on a lacrosse board.

Ahhh, OSVA, you will indeed be happier if you abstain, as, unfortunately, folks on this part of the forum can get a bit testy at times.

In this case, you chose to ignore key elements of the scenario presented, as if somehow it was the same question.

I'll assume for the moment that you meant it sincerely.

New scenario:
The Mayor never dangled anything in front of the dealership, never withheld any approval from the dealership, there was no approval potentially to be concerned about, and the Mayor solely asked whether the dealer would be happy to put up a sign (happens all the time, legally).

Yup, legal ask.

But it has nothing to do with whether the dealer 'complained'...under the original scenario there was an exchange of value, whether implied or explicit (explicit in the scenario), so both got what they wanted...no need to 'complain'.

The "complaint" is on behalf of the community and the rule of law, which protects against such corrupt acts.

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:01 am

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 10:53 am You parroting Trump-memo talking points is a fact. Really? I think these were my own thoughts before any talking points were developed... if they're similar, perhaps there's some consistent truth involved It's also a fact that you still haven't told us if you think calling a foreign leader asking for dirt on your political enemy is ok. Really. You haven't. Yes or no will suffice just fine.

Old Salt answered this simple question (his answer was no, btw), and I have left him alone on the subject ever since.


The rest, yes, is opinion. And yes, reasonable people can disagree.

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:34 am Look at the question:

Assume, for example, that your local government has authorized the purchase of ten new police cars. Is it OK for the mayor to call up the local Ford dealership and say, I've got the money, but I need a promise that you'll always put a 'Reelect Tech37 -- Mayor of Bumf*ck'" on your property, since it has such great visibility and frontage? Or that "I need a favor though; my wife's car could you a thorough tune up and detailing every, say, month or so, OK?"

That's bribery. That's against the law in any State. How is my response weak?

Ok last post hopefully. It is not bribery if the alleged victim of the bribe does not acknowledge they were bribed. If I own a car dealership and the mayor orders 10 cars because the city council approved the funds, then the mayor later asks me if I would put a campaign sign on the lot and I willing choose to do so, many people will not feel that is a crime. Your response was weak as it offered no explanation other than he would be in jail with a matching jump suit. The argument is weak because you ignore the part about the fact that a crime needs a victim. In the obvious example here, the owner the car dealership could be a President of Ukraine? If he does not feel he was coerced (your word) than who are you or I to say that he was? We cannot claim he was bribed if he does not feel he was bribed and was willing to put the sign in the lot regardless of the purchase of the cars.

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:41 am

ABV 8.3% wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:38 am Now that you have read it (first time ? ), where do you see currency transfer allocations? All I have evah seen was private contractors and the killing machine funds being held up (still a crime tho ) , Ukraine wasn't benefitting, certainly not directly. Academi/Erik Princes types are/were.

You're asking me for the bank transfer receipts?

ABV 8.3% wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:38 am
find any quid pro quo in these archives?
"....guess the Cook County machine isn't as strong as we thought they were...." says the President, days before he was assassinated.
https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer ... -TPH-28A-2

So now your whataboutisms have reached dead Presidents?

You going to ask me if I complained about Kennedy's corruption?

Fatty should, in general, be ignored. Way too many rabbit holes.

OSVAlacrosse wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:46 am

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:34 am Look at the question:

Assume, for example, that your local government has authorized the purchase of ten new police cars. Is it OK for the mayor to call up the local Ford dealership and say, I've got the money, but I need a promise that you'll always put a 'Reelect Tech37 -- Mayor of Bumf*ck'" on your property, since it has such great visibility and frontage? Or that "I need a favor though; my wife's car could you a thorough tune up and detailing every, say, month or so, OK?"

That's bribery. That's against the law in any State. How is my response weak?

Ok last post hopefully. It is not bribery if the alleged victim of the bribe does not acknowledge they were bribed. If I own a car dealership and the mayor orders 10 cars because the city council approved the funds, then the mayor later asks me if I would put a campaign sign on the lot and I willing choose to do so, many people will not feel that is a crime. Your response was weak as it offered no explanation other than he would be in jail with a matching jump suit. The argument is weak because you ignore the part about the fact that a crime needs a victim. In the obvious example here, the owner the car dealership could be a President of Ukraine? If he does not feel he was coerced (your word) than who are you or I to say that he was? We cannot claim he was bribed if he does not feel he was bribed and was willing to put the sign in the lot regardless of the purchase of the cars.

Wow, that's quite the legal opinion there, OSVA.

A political bribe is illegal regardless of whether both sides are satisfied with the transaction. Period, end of story.

"a crime needs a victim". The "victim" is the community, the rule of law.

Now, in a civil suit there Does need to be a complainant alleging harm. They need to prove standing and they need to prove harm.
But that's civil, not criminal.

OSVAlacrosse wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:46 am Ok last post hopefully. It is not bribery if the alleged victim of the bribe does not acknowledge they were bribed. If I own a car dealership and the mayor orders 10 cars because the city council approved the funds, then the mayor later asks me if I would put a campaign sign on the lot and I willing choose to do so, many people will not feel that is a crime.

Respectfully, you're changing the question that was asked. What you are describing is no longer the same situation.

OSVAlacrosse wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:46 am

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:34 am Look at the question:

Assume, for example, that your local government has authorized the purchase of ten new police cars. Is it OK for the mayor to call up the local Ford dealership and say, I've got the money, but I need a promise that you'll always put a 'Reelect Tech37 -- Mayor of Bumf*ck'" on your property, since it has such great visibility and frontage? Or that "I need a favor though; my wife's car could you a thorough tune up and detailing every, say, month or so, OK?"

That's bribery. That's against the law in any State. How is my response weak?

Ok last post hopefully. It is not bribery if the alleged victim of the bribe does not acknowledge they were bribed. If I own a car dealership and the mayor orders 10 cars because the city council approved the funds, then the mayor later asks me if I would put a campaign sign on the lot and I willing choose to do so, many people will not feel that is a crime. Your response was weak as it offered no explanation other than he would be in jail with a matching jump suit. The argument is weak because you ignore the part about the fact that a crime needs a victim. In the obvious example here, the owner the car dealership could be a President of Ukraine? If he does not feel he was coerced (your word) than who are you or I to say that he was? We cannot claim he was bribed if he does not feel he was bribed and was willing to put the sign in the lot regardless of the purchase of the cars.

Did the Inspector General not have an issue with the call? Does he not know the law?

Pompeo is gonna regret this. When he was CIA he knew the truth. Now, his truth is flexible.

You are reading it completely wrong. Most likely, Pompeo will be greatly rewarded. He's just responding to the short-term incentive scheme he has.

By going all in on the Trump train, he's gone from fairly obscure Congressman to CIA director and then SOS. Being a Trump cabinet secy is a temp job that poses high risk to your future career. Given his partisan tenure, Pompeo probably wouldn't be a strong candidate for the kinds of jobs that former SOS's typically have -- fancy law firm, plush academic think tank, etc.

But in Pompeo's case, he will likely be able to flip his cabinet tenure into a 2020 Senate seat from KS. FYI, Trump carried KS by 21 points in 2016. So Pompeo (even if Trump loses in 2020) can slide into one of the safest seats in the U.S. Senate and comfortably stay there for the next 20 years as he ponders when to run for the WH.

Given all that, why would Pompeo care about supporting career diplomats or any other long term issues at the State Department? For the next 12 months, he just needs to support Trump 100% and avoid committing any obvious crimes. If he does that, he's golden.

Pompeo's toady-ness actually makes a lot of sense.

I can’t argue. My cynicism can’t keep up with the facts.

ggait wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 12:07 pm

Pompeo is gonna regret this. When he was CIA he knew the truth. Now, his truth is flexible.

You are reading it completely wrong. Most likely, Pompeo will be greatly rewarded. He's just responding to the short-term incentive scheme he has.

By going all in on the Trump train, he's gone from fairly obscure Congressman to CIA director and then SOS. Being a Trump cabinet secy is a temp job that poses high risk to your future career. Given his partisan tenure, Pompeo probably wouldn't be a strong candidate for the kinds of jobs that former SOS's typically have -- fancy law firm, plush academic think tank, etc.

But in Pompeo's case, he will likely be able to flip his cabinet tenure into a 2020 Senate seat from KS. FYI, Trump carried KS by 21 points in 2016. So Pompeo (even if Trump loses in 2020) can slide into one of the safest seats in the U.S. Senate and comfortably stay there for the next 20 years as he ponders when to run for the WH.

Given all that, why would Pompeo care about supporting career diplomats or any other long term issues at the State Department? For the next 12 months, he just needs to support Trump 100% and avoid committing any obvious crimes. If he does that, he's golden.

Pompeo's toady-ness actually makes a lot of sense.

That's an astute take on Pompeo's choices and actions.

But boy is it a disappointment when someone, who sure as heck should be expected to have a moral backbone, chooses to go all in with toadying.

Welcome to fascism.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 12:11 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 12:07 pm

Pompeo is gonna regret this. When he was CIA he knew the truth. Now, his truth is flexible.

You are reading it completely wrong. Most likely, Pompeo will be greatly rewarded. He's just responding to the short-term incentive scheme he has.

By going all in on the Trump train, he's gone from fairly obscure Congressman to CIA director and then SOS. Being a Trump cabinet secy is a temp job that poses high risk to your future career. Given his partisan tenure, Pompeo probably wouldn't be a strong candidate for the kinds of jobs that former SOS's typically have -- fancy law firm, plush academic think tank, etc.

But in Pompeo's case, he will likely be able to flip his cabinet tenure into a 2020 Senate seat from KS. FYI, Trump carried KS by 21 points in 2016. So Pompeo (even if Trump loses in 2020) can slide into one of the safest seats in the U.S. Senate and comfortably stay there for the next 20 years as he ponders when to run for the WH.

Given all that, why would Pompeo care about supporting career diplomats or any other long term issues at the State Department? For the next 12 months, he just needs to support Trump 100% and avoid committing any obvious crimes. If he does that, he's golden.

Pompeo's toady-ness actually makes a lot of sense.

That's an astute take on Pompeo's choices and actions.

But boy is it a disappointment when someone, who sure as heck should be expected to have a moral backbone, chooses to go all in with toadying.

Welcome to fascism.

Sure, for a scum bag with no moral compass.

OSVAlacrosse wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:46 am

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:34 am Look at the question:

Assume, for example, that your local government has authorized the purchase of ten new police cars. Is it OK for the mayor to call up the local Ford dealership and say, I've got the money, but I need a promise that you'll always put a 'Reelect Tech37 -- Mayor of Bumf*ck'" on your property, since it has such great visibility and frontage? Or that "I need a favor though; my wife's car could you a thorough tune up and detailing every, say, month or so, OK?"

That's bribery. That's against the law in any State. How is my response weak?

Ok last post hopefully. It is not bribery if the alleged victim of the bribe does not acknowledge they were bribed. If I own a car dealership and the mayor orders 10 cars because the city council approved the funds, then the mayor later asks me if I would put a campaign sign on the lot and I willing choose to do so, many people will not feel that is a crime. Your response was weak as it offered no explanation other than he would be in jail with a matching jump suit. The argument is weak because you ignore the part about the fact that a crime needs a victim. In the obvious example here, the owner the car dealership could be a President of Ukraine? If he does not feel he was coerced (your word) than who are you or I to say that he was? We cannot claim he was bribed if he does not feel he was bribed and was willing to put the sign in the lot regardless of the purchase of the cars.

I brought this exact same issue up.......over a month ago. Got no traction on flat tarmac either............nor should it have.

Ok last post hopefully. It is not bribery if the alleged victim of the bribe does not acknowledge they were bribed.

OSVA -- honest legal answer for you. It is bribery if the elements of the bribery crime can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And one of the elements of the bribery crime is to prove "corrupt intent" or what us lawyers like to call mens rea. You certainly could have bribery crime elements satisfied if the official actually seeks a bribe (and even if the bribe-ee doesn't see that attempt). That's still a bribery crime -- but the bribe-er is just bad at bribery.

It always just comes down to proof. So all you and Fan are doing is tweaking the hypo facts back and forth in order to make the criminal elements more or less clear/prove-able.

Ultimately, truth serum is the only way to actually determine what someone's intent is between their ears. Barring that, a jury just has to evaluate the available objective evidence to see if the corrupt intent can be proven at the legally required level.

I'd say that corrupt intent "could" be present in every single scenario you guys have thrown out. Or not present. Human behavior is often ambiguous, inconsistent or (when iffy stuff is involved) intentionally deceptive. So what can be proven BARD is always a small subset of what might actually be happening between the ears.

ggait wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 12:23 pm

Ok last post hopefully. It is not bribery if the alleged victim of the bribe does not acknowledge they were bribed.

OSVA -- honest legal answer for you. It is bribery if the elements of the bribery crime can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And one of the elements of the bribery crime is to prove "corrupt intent" or what us lawyers like to call mens rea. You certainly could have bribery crime elements satisfied if the official actually seeks a bribe (and even if the bribe-ee doesn't see that attempt). That's still a bribery crime -- but the bribe-er is just bad at bribery.

It always just comes down to proof. So all you and Fan are doing is tweaking the hypo facts back and forth in order to make the criminal elements more or less clear/prove-able.

Ultimately, truth serum is the only way to actually determine what someone's intent is between their ears. Barring that, a jury just has to evaluate the available objective evidence to see if the corrupt intent can be proven at the legally required level.

I'd say that corrupt intent "could" be present in every single scenario you guys have thrown out. Or not present. Human behavior is often ambiguous, inconsistent or (when iffy stuff is involved) intentionally deceptive. So what can be proven BARD is always a small subset of what might actually be happening between the ears.

Yup, such evidence of 'intent' may be the actual words used. A tape of the conversation that actually makes the bribe clear would be ideal. Or a transcript, or even a summary of a transcript provided as 'truth'...and subsequent admissions of related intent matter as well.

So, too would testimony of others tasked to communicate the bribe, their understanding of it as a bribe.

But the jury needs to be persuaded, so the more evidence, the better.

The original scenario simply posited that the transaction was indeed this for that...and asked whether it was "wrong"...not a difficult question, really.

The question that puzzles me as how anyone could actually have difficulty answering it.

Proving is another matter entirely.

Fun Fun and before I go, I agree with several of you that it is not clear cut and opinions are based on hypotheticals that had variations of facts presented by two different people. Sound familiar? In the end, the real example will not be decided by the fanlax forum but by the Senate. Personally I think it will come down to a brave heart.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 12:15 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 12:11 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 12:07 pm

Pompeo is gonna regret this. When he was CIA he knew the truth. Now, his truth is flexible.

You are reading it completely wrong. Most likely, Pompeo will be greatly rewarded. He's just responding to the short-term incentive scheme he has.

By going all in on the Trump train, he's gone from fairly obscure Congressman to CIA director and then SOS. Being a Trump cabinet secy is a temp job that poses high risk to your future career. Given his partisan tenure, Pompeo probably wouldn't be a strong candidate for the kinds of jobs that former SOS's typically have -- fancy law firm, plush academic think tank, etc.

But in Pompeo's case, he will likely be able to flip his cabinet tenure into a 2020 Senate seat from KS. FYI, Trump carried KS by 21 points in 2016. So Pompeo (even if Trump loses in 2020) can slide into one of the safest seats in the U.S. Senate and comfortably stay there for the next 20 years as he ponders when to run for the WH.

Given all that, why would Pompeo care about supporting career diplomats or any other long term issues at the State Department? For the next 12 months, he just needs to support Trump 100% and avoid committing any obvious crimes. If he does that, he's golden.

Pompeo's toady-ness actually makes a lot of sense.

That's an astute take on Pompeo's choices and actions.

But boy is it a disappointment when someone, who sure as heck should be expected to have a moral backbone, chooses to go all in with toadying.

Welcome to fascism.

Sure, for a scum bag with no moral compass.

But man it's disappointing.

As I've argued with folks like cradle and OS who want to impute military service as necessarily equivalent to 'honor', unfortunately it's just not equivalent and can't be 100% assumed.

But that doesn't make it not disappointing that someone who has professed to live by a creed of 'duty, honor, country' fails to do so, so egregiously.

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 12:19 pm

OSVAlacrosse wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:46 am

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:34 am Look at the question:

Assume, for example, that your local government has authorized the purchase of ten new police cars. Is it OK for the mayor to call up the local Ford dealership and say, I've got the money, but I need a promise that you'll always put a 'Reelect Tech37 -- Mayor of Bumf*ck'" on your property, since it has such great visibility and frontage? Or that "I need a favor though; my wife's car could you a thorough tune up and detailing every, say, month or so, OK?"

That's bribery. That's against the law in any State. How is my response weak?

Ok last post hopefully. It is not bribery if the alleged victim of the bribe does not acknowledge they were bribed. If I own a car dealership and the mayor orders 10 cars because the city council approved the funds, then the mayor later asks me if I would put a campaign sign on the lot and I willing choose to do so, many people will not feel that is a crime. Your response was weak as it offered no explanation other than he would be in jail with a matching jump suit. The argument is weak because you ignore the part about the fact that a crime needs a victim. In the obvious example here, the owner the car dealership could be a President of Ukraine? If he does not feel he was coerced (your word) than who are you or I to say that he was? We cannot claim he was bribed if he does not feel he was bribed and was willing to put the sign in the lot regardless of the purchase of the cars.

I brought this exact same issue up.......over a month ago. Got no traction on flat tarmac either............nor should it have.

The other car dealerships in town would like a word with both of you about your opinion that there "wasn't a victim". They're out around a cool half million because of the mayor's corruption.

This forum and the Water Cooler have proven invaluable in helping me to understand how Americans view ethics.

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:41 am

ABV 8.3% wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:38 am Now that you have read it (first time ? ), where do you see currency transfer allocations? All I have evah seen was private contractors and the killing machine funds being held up (still a crime tho ) , Ukraine wasn't benefitting, certainly not directly. Academi/Erik Princes types are/were.

You're asking me for the bank transfer receipts?

ABV 8.3% wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:38 am
find any quid pro quo in these archives?
"....guess the Cook County machine isn't as strong as we thought they were...." says the President, days before he was assassinated.
https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer ... -TPH-28A-2

So now your whataboutisms have reached dead Presidents?

You going to ask me if I complained about Kennedy's corruption?

No, just asking for which part of the bill/legislation, specifically the PDF link you provided, contains SPECIFIC language regarding currency transfers, of any kind. (IE: dollar amount, receipiants, etc ) Nothing on WHO the delay really hurt ? shocking centrist behavior.

Historically, couldn't one claim the Louisanna Purchase was illegal. Something for something.....funds withheld until

Bringing up JFK is really history, like the Jefferson foreign interference stuff.......pretty sure the US CONstitution was law

If you want to ignore history, context, while to impeach a President for same , certainly similar, you are un-American in my eyes. Just petty faciousist.

I mean, seriously. If others, certainly Trump, uttered " After my election, I'll have more flexibility " Flexibility, to do what? I could understand how someone (not me) could construe the meaning or reference to "my election", along with "I'll have more" remarks to mean; " after YOU help my election, I'll have more flexibility to ______________" geez, fill in the blank. Flexibility to lift sanctions. Flexibility to import NG from Russia? Flexibility to continue to purchase ROCKETS to (from) Russia? He did win, so any thing happen in the years 2013-2017 that his "flexibility" showed it's ugly head?

OSVAlacrosse wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 12:43 pm Fun Fun and before I go, I agree with several of you that it is not clear cut and opinions are based on hypotheticals that had variations of facts presented by two different people. Sound familiar? In the end, the real example will not be decided by the fanlax forum but by the Senate.

In one sense, yes, the 'jury' is the Senate.
But in another sense it's all US citizens, indeed history that will be the judge.
I think the Senate won't vote to remove Trump. I think that's baked in, ugly as that is, regardless of the evidence presented.
But the American people and history? Another story, perhaps.

But, man, the simple hypothetical of a government official either extorting or bribing, or being bribed, shouldn't be a difficult question to say, yes, it's wrong.

Only in these crazy times can someone find that difficult.

So, why is that?
Is it total derangement? Maybe.

Or is it just that folks who want support this particular POTUS, for all sorts of unrelated reasons, find the simple scenario so awkward, yet apt, and simply want to give no ground, no matter how ridiculous it makes them look?

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 12:46 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 12:19 pm

OSVAlacrosse wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:46 am

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:34 am Look at the question:

Assume, for example, that your local government has authorized the purchase of ten new police cars. Is it OK for the mayor to call up the local Ford dealership and say, I've got the money, but I need a promise that you'll always put a 'Reelect Tech37 -- Mayor of Bumf*ck'" on your property, since it has such great visibility and frontage? Or that "I need a favor though; my wife's car could you a thorough tune up and detailing every, say, month or so, OK?"

That's bribery. That's against the law in any State. How is my response weak?

Ok last post hopefully. It is not bribery if the alleged victim of the bribe does not acknowledge they were bribed. If I own a car dealership and the mayor orders 10 cars because the city council approved the funds, then the mayor later asks me if I would put a campaign sign on the lot and I willing choose to do so, many people will not feel that is a crime. Your response was weak as it offered no explanation other than he would be in jail with a matching jump suit. The argument is weak because you ignore the part about the fact that a crime needs a victim. In the obvious example here, the owner the car dealership could be a President of Ukraine? If he does not feel he was coerced (your word) than who are you or I to say that he was? We cannot claim he was bribed if he does not feel he was bribed and was willing to put the sign in the lot regardless of the purchase of the cars.

I brought this exact same issue up.......over a month ago. Got no traction on flat tarmac either............nor should it have.

The other car dealerships in town would like a word with both of you about your opinion that there "wasn't a victim". They're out around a cool half million because of the mayor's corruption.

This forum and the Water Cooler have proven invaluable in helping me to understand how Americans view ethics.

Some Americans.