Federal Prosecutors: No crime committed in Ukraine call/no violation of Emoluments Clause

[Osiris-ODS]

We'll see by the number of "funny" ratings and non-sequitur responses whether any of the board leftists will actually read (and process) this--but in an effort to best facilitate that, here's a CliffsNotes summary and links. Spoiler alert: Barr was not involved in the investigation or conclusion by the Justice Department Criminal Division. Also note: these sources are not from Fox News, Brietbart, Gateway Pundit, et al:

That said, getting to the point, the initial argument when this story first hit (before the transcript was released) was that the impeachable crime committed by Trump involved quid pro quo. After the transcript came out, and it was shown that there was no quid pro quo, the position shifted, and our board liberals, when pressed to identify the "crime" that was allegedly committed during the call, have taken the position that the call violated campaign finance law under the Emoluments Clause, contending that the following statement by Trump constituted a request for a "thing of value" under the Clause:

The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it...It sounds horrible to me.

See transcript at page 4.

By way of example, when pressed to cite the law that was allegedly violated by Trump during the call, our resident self-described "Democratic Socialist" Billy000 posted as follows:

Cite the law?

What Is the Emoluments Clause?

Lol I love how you dumbasses expect sources but never even try to provide your own.

As I pointed out in that thread, if any of our board's leftists were to have researched an actual legal database such a Westlaw or Lexis Nexis (as opposed to op-eds by "journalists"), they would have quickly come to the realization that a request to investigate a crime is not a "thing of value" in violation of campaign finance laws.

And consistent therewith, the following determinations were recently made by the Justice Department, as reported by PBS:

• The question that was presented by the whistle-blower's complaint was, is the president seeking "a thing of value" from a foreign entity, which would be a violation under campaign finance law?

• The prosecutors in the Justice Department Criminal Division and Public Integrity Section thus interpreted whether an investigation by a foreign government can be characterized as "a thing of value" under campaign finance laws.

• Although Barr was aware "roughly" that the Justice Department was reviewing the legal question, he wasn't involved "once the question became a criminal question" and "didn't participate in those discussions and he wasn't a part of that."

• The Justice Department has concluded, upon review of the transcript, that there was no criminal issue involved here for them to resolve.

ABC news also reported that the Justice Department's Criminal Division made the following conclusions:

• The call "did not amount to a criminal violation of campaign finance law because nothing 'of value' was clearly promised or exchanged as a result of the call."

Notably:

• "[T]here was no disagreement among the prosecutors in the criminal division, even among career prosecutors, that the call did not amount to a potential campaign finance violation."

• "[T]he DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting president could not be indicted did not play a role in the DOJ's review"

In sum, this was a unanimous decision by prosecutors in the Justice Department, including those that were hired during Democrat administrations--and consisted of an investigation and conclusion that did not involve Barr or the OLC opinion regarding whether a sitting president can be indicted.

Would any of the board's leftists like to identify the next alleged crime in the Democrats' Rolodex, now that this one has been wholly refuted just as I stated it would?

 

[Taz]

 

[wamose]

So let's just drop this farce and save a lot of money. Let's decide our election on policy positions and cut the crap with fabricated crises designed to divert attention away from Democrats total lack of a platform. Democrats = socialists and fascists (antifa).

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We'll see by the number of "funny" ratings and non-sequitur responses whether any of the board leftists will actually read (and process) this--but in an effort to best facilitate that, here's a CliffsNotes summary and links. Spoiler alert: Barr was not involved in the investigation or conclusion by the Justice Department Criminal Division. Also note: these sources are not from Fox News, Brietbart, Gateway Pundit, et al:

That said, getting to the point, the initial argument when this story first hit (before the transcript was released) was that the impeachable crime committed by Trump involved quid pro quo. After the transcript came out, and it was shown that there was no quid pro quo, the position shifted, and our board liberals, when pressed to identify the "crime" that was allegedly committed during the call, have taken the position that the call violated campaign finance law under the Emoluments Clause, contending that the following statement by Trump constituted a request for a "thing of value" under the Clause:

The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it...It sounds horrible to me.

See transcript at page 4.

By way of example, when pressed to cite the law that was allegedly violated by Trump during the call, our resident self-described "Democratic Socialist" Billy000 posted as follows:

Cite the law?

What Is the Emoluments Clause?

Lol I love how you dumbasses expect sources but never even try to provide your own.

As I pointed out in that thread, if any of our board's leftists were to have researched an actual legal database such a Westlaw or Lexis Nexis (as opposed to op-eds by "journalists"), they would have quickly come to the realization that a request to investigate a crime is not a "thing of value" in violation of campaign finance laws.

And consistent therewith, the following determinations were recently made by the Justice Department, as reported by PBS:

• The question that was presented by the whistle-blower's complaint was, is the president seeking "a thing of value" from a foreign entity, which would be a violation under campaign finance law?

• The prosecutors in the Justice Department Criminal Division and Public Integrity Section thus interpreted whether an investigation by a foreign government can be characterized as "a thing of value" under campaign finance laws.

• Although Barr was aware "roughly" that the Justice Department was reviewing the legal question, he wasn't involved "once the question became a criminal question" and "didn't participate in those discussions and he wasn't a part of that."

• The Justice Department has concluded, upon review of the transcript, that there was no criminal issue involved here for them to resolve.

ABC news also reported that the Justice Department's Criminal Division made the following conclusions:

• The call "did not amount to a criminal violation of campaign finance law because nothing 'of value' was clearly promised or exchanged as a result of the call."

Notably:

• "[T]here was no disagreement among the prosecutors in the criminal division, even among career prosecutors, that the call did not amount to a potential campaign finance violation."

• "[T]he DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting president could not be indicted did not play a role in the DOJ's review"

In sum, this was a unanimous decision by prosecutors in the Justice Department, including those that were hired during Democrat administrations--and consisted of an investigation and conclusion that did not involve Barr or the OLC opinion regarding whether a sitting president can be indicted.

Would any of the board's leftists like to identify the next alleged crime in the Democrats' Rolodex, now that this one has been wholly refuted just as I stated it would?

We have to impeach Trump to see what crime he's committed

 

[Osiris-ODS]

We have to impeach Trump to see what crime he's committed

 

[Osiris-ODS]

And true to form, Lakhota is the first to tag this OP as "funny" - she obviously didn't read it.

LOL, good grief

 

[wamose]

We have to impeach Trump to see what crime he's committed

The sad part is that millions of Democrats were using that quote as the reason for passing the bill.

 

[occupied]

Oh well I guess Trump has nothing to fear from an impeachment inquiry, care to explain why he is shitting his pants on Twitter?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And true to form, Lakhota is the first to tag this OP as "funny" - she obviously didn't read it.

LOL, good grief

She's running 49 other accounts today alone

 

[Osiris-ODS]

We have to impeach Trump to see what crime he's committed

The sad part is that millions of Democrats were using that quote as the reason for passing the bill.

Millions of doctors were also using that quote to describe a stool sample.

"It must be passed to see what's in it"

 

[CrazedScotsman]

No crime committed and yet the left wants to continue with the inquiry and ultimately they want to impeach Trump?

For what?

This makes no sense to me. It's like Democrats want to lose and lose big in 2020, it just makes no sense.

The only thing I can think of is that Democrats hate Trump so much, they can't see the damage they are doing to themselves.

 

[Claudette]

We'll see by the number of "funny" ratings and non-sequitur responses whether any of the board leftists will actually read (and process) this--but in an effort to best facilitate that, here's a CliffsNotes summary and links. Spoiler alert: Barr was not involved in the investigation or conclusion by the Justice Department Criminal Division. Also note: these sources are not from Fox News, Brietbart, Gateway Pundit, et al:

That said, getting to the point, the initial argument when this story first hit (before the transcript was released) was that the impeachable crime committed by Trump involved quid pro quo. After the transcript came out, and it was shown that there was no quid pro quo, the position shifted, and our board liberals, when pressed to identify the "crime" that was allegedly committed during the call, have taken the position that the call violated campaign finance law under the Emoluments Clause, contending that the following statement by Trump constituted a request for a "thing of value" under the Clause:

The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it...It sounds horrible to me.

See transcript at page 4.

By way of example, when pressed to cite the law that was allegedly violated by Trump during the call, our resident self-described "Democratic Socialist" Billy000 posted as follows:

Cite the law?

What Is the Emoluments Clause?

Lol I love how you dumbasses expect sources but never even try to provide your own.

As I pointed out in that thread, if any of our board's leftists were to have researched an actual legal database such a Westlaw or Lexis Nexis (as opposed to op-eds by "journalists"), they would have quickly come to the realization that a request to investigate a crime is not a "thing of value" in violation of campaign finance laws.

And consistent therewith, the following determinations were recently made by the Justice Department, as reported by PBS:

• The question that was presented by the whistle-blower's complaint was, is the president seeking "a thing of value" from a foreign entity, which would be a violation under campaign finance law?

• The prosecutors in the Justice Department Criminal Division and Public Integrity Section thus interpreted whether an investigation by a foreign government can be characterized as "a thing of value" under campaign finance laws.

• Although Barr was aware "roughly" that the Justice Department was reviewing the legal question, he wasn't involved "once the question became a criminal question" and "didn't participate in those discussions and he wasn't a part of that."

• The Justice Department has concluded, upon review of the transcript, that there was no criminal issue involved here for them to resolve.

ABC news also reported that the Justice Department's Criminal Division made the following conclusions:

• The call "did not amount to a criminal violation of campaign finance law because nothing 'of value' was clearly promised or exchanged as a result of the call."

Notably:

• "[T]here was no disagreement among the prosecutors in the criminal division, even among career prosecutors, that the call did not amount to a potential campaign finance violation."

• "[T]he DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting president could not be indicted did not play a role in the DOJ's review"

In sum, this was a unanimous decision by prosecutors in the Justice Department, including those that were hired during Democrat administrations--and consisted of an investigation and conclusion that did not involve Barr or the OLC opinion regarding whether a sitting president can be indicted.

Would any of the board's leftists like to identify the next alleged crime in the Democrats' Rolodex, now that this one has been wholly refuted just as I stated it would?

Excellent post. You should forward this to Pelousy so she can save her own ass. LOL

 

[wamose]

Democrats obviously think everyone is stupid enough to believe their fabrications. It isn't cool to be ruled by someone who thinks you're a dope.

 

[Claudette]

Oh well I guess Trump has nothing to fear from an impeachment inquiry, care to explain why he is shitting his pants on Twitter?

Trump never shits his pants.

Of course if it makes you feel better continue to believe that he does. LOL

 

[Kondor3]

View attachment 282229

"Will Trump be tried as an adult?" Brilliant meme...

 

[Lesh]

You base this on the DOJ headed by Billy the Bagman?

The guy who read the Mueller report and saw 10 instances of Obstruction of Justice and dozens of clandestine meetings with Russians by the Trump team (all of which were lied about) and all he could say was "No Collusion"?

That guy?

Oh...

 

[iamwhatiseem]

 

[Hellokitty]

We'll see by the number of "funny" ratings and non-sequitur responses whether any of the board leftists will actually read (and process) this--but in an effort to best facilitate that, here's a CliffsNotes summary and links. Spoiler alert: Barr was not involved in the investigation or conclusion by the Justice Department Criminal Division. Also note: these sources are not from Fox News, Brietbart, Gateway Pundit, et al:

That said, getting to the point, the initial argument when this story first hit (before the transcript was released) was that the impeachable crime committed by Trump involved quid pro quo. After the transcript came out, and it was shown that there was no quid pro quo, the position shifted, and our board liberals, when pressed to identify the "crime" that was allegedly committed during the call, have taken the position that the call violated campaign finance law under the Emoluments Clause, contending that the following statement by Trump constituted a request for a "thing of value" under the Clause:

The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it...It sounds horrible to me.

See transcript at page 4.

By way of example, when pressed to cite the law that was allegedly violated by Trump during the call, our resident self-described "Democratic Socialist" Billy000 posted as follows:

Cite the law?

What Is the Emoluments Clause?

Lol I love how you dumbasses expect sources but never even try to provide your own.

As I pointed out in that thread, if any of our board's leftists were to have researched an actual legal database such a Westlaw or Lexis Nexis (as opposed to op-eds by "journalists"), they would have quickly come to the realization that a request to investigate a crime is not a "thing of value" in violation of campaign finance laws.

And consistent therewith, the following determinations were recently made by the Justice Department, as reported by PBS:

• The question that was presented by the whistle-blower's complaint was, is the president seeking "a thing of value" from a foreign entity, which would be a violation under campaign finance law?

• The prosecutors in the Justice Department Criminal Division and Public Integrity Section thus interpreted whether an investigation by a foreign government can be characterized as "a thing of value" under campaign finance laws.

• Although Barr was aware "roughly" that the Justice Department was reviewing the legal question, he wasn't involved "once the question became a criminal question" and "didn't participate in those discussions and he wasn't a part of that."

• The Justice Department has concluded, upon review of the transcript, that there was no criminal issue involved here for them to resolve.

ABC news also reported that the Justice Department's Criminal Division made the following conclusions:

• The call "did not amount to a criminal violation of campaign finance law because nothing 'of value' was clearly promised or exchanged as a result of the call."

Notably:

• "[T]here was no disagreement among the prosecutors in the criminal division, even among career prosecutors, that the call did not amount to a potential campaign finance violation."

• "[T]he DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting president could not be indicted did not play a role in the DOJ's review"

In sum, this was a unanimous decision by prosecutors in the Justice Department, including those that were hired during Democrat administrations--and consisted of an investigation and conclusion that did not involve Barr or the OLC opinion regarding whether a sitting president can be indicted.

Would any of the board's leftists like to identify the next alleged crime in the Democrats' Rolodex, now that this one has been wholly refuted just as I stated it would?

The next crime is the democrats will claim any push back against their investigation is obstruction.

 

[Billy000]

We'll see by the number of "funny" ratings and non-sequitur responses whether any of the board leftists will actually read (and process) this--but in an effort to best facilitate that, here's a CliffsNotes summary and links. Spoiler alert: Barr was not involved in the investigation or conclusion by the Justice Department Criminal Division. Also note: these sources are not from Fox News, Brietbart, Gateway Pundit, et al:

That said, getting to the point, the initial argument when this story first hit (before the transcript was released) was that the impeachable crime committed by Trump involved quid pro quo. After the transcript came out, and it was shown that there was no quid pro quo, the position shifted, and our board liberals, when pressed to identify the "crime" that was allegedly committed during the call, have taken the position that the call violated campaign finance law under the Emoluments Clause, contending that the following statement by Trump constituted a request for a "thing of value" under the Clause:

The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it...It sounds horrible to me.

See transcript at page 4.

By way of example, when pressed to cite the law that was allegedly violated by Trump during the call, our resident self-described "Democratic Socialist" Billy000 posted as follows:

Cite the law?

What Is the Emoluments Clause?

Lol I love how you dumbasses expect sources but never even try to provide your own.

As I pointed out in that thread, if any of our board's leftists were to have researched an actual legal database such a Westlaw or Lexis Nexis (as opposed to op-eds by "journalists"), they would have quickly come to the realization that a request to investigate a crime is not a "thing of value" in violation of campaign finance laws.

And consistent therewith, the following determinations were recently made by the Justice Department, as reported by PBS:

• The question that was presented by the whistle-blower's complaint was, is the president seeking "a thing of value" from a foreign entity, which would be a violation under campaign finance law?

• The prosecutors in the Justice Department Criminal Division and Public Integrity Section thus interpreted whether an investigation by a foreign government can be characterized as "a thing of value" under campaign finance laws.

• Although Barr was aware "roughly" that the Justice Department was reviewing the legal question, he wasn't involved "once the question became a criminal question" and "didn't participate in those discussions and he wasn't a part of that."

• The Justice Department has concluded, upon review of the transcript, that there was no criminal issue involved here for them to resolve.

ABC news also reported that the Justice Department's Criminal Division made the following conclusions:

• The call "did not amount to a criminal violation of campaign finance law because nothing 'of value' was clearly promised or exchanged as a result of the call."

Notably:

• "[T]here was no disagreement among the prosecutors in the criminal division, even among career prosecutors, that the call did not amount to a potential campaign finance violation."

• "[T]he DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting president could not be indicted did not play a role in the DOJ's review"

In sum, this was a unanimous decision by prosecutors in the Justice Department, including those that were hired during Democrat administrations--and consisted of an investigation and conclusion that did not involve Barr or the OLC opinion regarding whether a sitting president can be indicted.

Would any of the board's leftists like to identify the next alleged crime in the Democrats' Rolodex, now that this one has been wholly refuted just as I stated it would?

Okay first of all, this is about the phone call only. Obviously it still matters if Trump tried to withhold funding for Ukraine in exchange for dirt on Biden. What’s retarded is thinking that this phone call is somehow all that matters and there’s no other communication to examine. It warrants further investigation. My god, if Obama had a phone call exactly like this about Romney, your dumbass would be singing a very different tune.

Second of all, even if this miraculously doesn’t end up with any illegal wrong-doing which it will, a president doesn’t have to break a law to be impeached l.

 

[The Original Tree]

We'll see by the number of "funny" ratings and non-sequitur responses whether any of the board leftists will actually read (and process) this--but in an effort to best facilitate that, here's a CliffsNotes summary and links. Spoiler alert: Barr was not involved in the investigation or conclusion by the Justice Department Criminal Division. Also note: these sources are not from Fox News, Brietbart, Gateway Pundit, et al:

That said, getting to the point, the initial argument when this story first hit (before the transcript was released) was that the impeachable crime committed by Trump involved quid pro quo. After the transcript came out, and it was shown that there was no quid pro quo, the position shifted, and our board liberals, when pressed to identify the "crime" that was allegedly committed during the call, have taken the position that the call violated campaign finance law under the Emoluments Clause, contending that the following statement by Trump constituted a request for a "thing of value" under the Clause:

The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it...It sounds horrible to me.

See transcript at page 4.

By way of example, when pressed to cite the law that was allegedly violated by Trump during the call, our resident self-described "Democratic Socialist" Billy000 posted as follows:

Cite the law?

What Is the Emoluments Clause?

Lol I love how you dumbasses expect sources but never even try to provide your own.

As I pointed out in that thread, if any of our board's leftists were to have researched an actual legal database such a Westlaw or Lexis Nexis (as opposed to op-eds by "journalists"), they would have quickly come to the realization that a request to investigate a crime is not a "thing of value" in violation of campaign finance laws.

And consistent therewith, the following determinations were recently made by the Justice Department, as reported by PBS:

• The question that was presented by the whistle-blower's complaint was, is the president seeking "a thing of value" from a foreign entity, which would be a violation under campaign finance law?

• The prosecutors in the Justice Department Criminal Division and Public Integrity Section thus interpreted whether an investigation by a foreign government can be characterized as "a thing of value" under campaign finance laws.

• Although Barr was aware "roughly" that the Justice Department was reviewing the legal question, he wasn't involved "once the question became a criminal question" and "didn't participate in those discussions and he wasn't a part of that."

• The Justice Department has concluded, upon review of the transcript, that there was no criminal issue involved here for them to resolve.

ABC news also reported that the Justice Department's Criminal Division made the following conclusions:

• The call "did not amount to a criminal violation of campaign finance law because nothing 'of value' was clearly promised or exchanged as a result of the call."

Notably:

• "[T]here was no disagreement among the prosecutors in the criminal division, even among career prosecutors, that the call did not amount to a potential campaign finance violation."

• "[T]he DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting president could not be indicted did not play a role in the DOJ's review"

In sum, this was a unanimous decision by prosecutors in the Justice Department, including those that were hired during Democrat administrations--and consisted of an investigation and conclusion that did not involve Barr or the OLC opinion regarding whether a sitting president can be indicted.

Would any of the board's leftists like to identify the next alleged crime in the Democrats' Rolodex, now that this one has been wholly refuted just as I stated it would?

For the 100th time, The Left's Evil Schemes do not prosper and end up once again, turning against them for their own corruption.

Psalm 9:15-18

15 The nations have fallen into a pit of their making; their feet are caught in the net they have hidden (for others).

16 The LORD is known by the justice He brings; the wicked are ensnared by the work of their hands. Higgaion Selah

17 The wicked will return to Sheol—all the nations who forget God.

18 For the needy will not always be forgotten; nor the hope of the oppressed forever dashed.

19 Rise up, O LORD, let not man prevail; let the nations be judged in Your presence.

20 Lay terror upon them, O LORD; let the nations know they are but men. Selah

Isaiah 54:16-17

16 Behold, I have created the craftsman who fans the coals into flame and forges a weapon fit for its task; and I have created the destroyer to wreak havoc.

17 No weapon formed against you shall prosper, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you. This is the heritage of the LORD’s servants, and their vindication is from Me,” declares the LORD.