Can impeachment be legitimate if no laws are broken?

In a criminal case, a successful affirmative defense absolutely results in an acquittal, in the USA anyway. This is a pretty good précis:

An affirmative defense is one in which the defense introduces evidence that will defeat the charge against the defendant. Common affirmative defenses can include self-defense, insanity, intoxication (in some instances), duress, entrapment, mistake of fact, mistake of law and age.

An affirmative defense is used to gain an acquittal even though the prosecution may have proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, if the prosecution proves that a defendant committed murder as defined by law as the killing of one human being by another human being who had the intent to do so, but the defense can prove that the killing was in self-defense, the defendant may avoid conviction.

To put forth an affirmative defense, a defendant must offer proof that supports his or her defense while meeting the standard of proof that is set by state law.

https://www.cogdell-law.com/blog/2015/december/overview-of-affirmative-defenses-in-texas-crimin/


Now, if one puts on an affirmative defense that fails, does it serve to mitigate the punishment imposed? I suppose it's possible, but impossible to know. The jury isn't going to say "we find the defendant guilty but we accept his affirmative defense."

I'll get the cite to the above quote momentarily.

What you are talking about is normally called mitigating circumstances or "evidence offered in mitigation". Look up "death penalty and mitigation". They don't call that stuff an "affirmative defense."

But in the statute we are talking about, it absolutely serves to acquit, if proved by the defendant. And if so, one never reaches the punishment hearing and so there is no need to offer evidence in mitigation.

 

Then I'll try very hard not to do that.

 

Here is another example, from Florida law:

https://www.husseinandwebber.com/case-work/criminal-defense-articles/necessity-duress-defense/

It's possible you can find reference to mitigation and affirmative defense in civil cases (car wrecks, products liability) but we are discussing impeachment, and therefore ... crimes.

I don't have time to respond to your whole post but I am talking about bribery because another poster claimed, and still claims, Trump is guilty of bribing a foreign agent under the statute that provides the affirmative defense I am talking about and have cited about 4 times.

I know Trump isn't charged with bribery. Tell him that, not me.

On edit, I find a lot if your post rather boastful and presumptuous. I didn't vote for Trump, so all the talk about electing the same people and expecting a different outcome is misdirected. I want everyone to be able to present a defense, yes including Trump, if he wants to.

 

Even you admitted that you can not go bribe a foreign politician some posts ago. lol

 

Under some circumstances, not present here. (I never said absolutely.) Details matter. Laws matter. Now go boo hoo-ing to your favorite song:



Never forget that I am always here for you, no matter how lonely it gets at the bottom.,

 

Your dishonesty knows no bounds, madame/sir. I just rechecked and actually posted this, with typos corrected:

"Go to the vanilla bribery statute, and you'll have to get over this initial hurdle.

(a)For the purpose of this section—
public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror.[.]

I think it's 18 USC 201. I am happy to consider a different bribery statute that covers what Trump tried to do."



So, as you will admit if you're honest, I have been and remain open to the possibility that Trump violated some law of bribery. You just can't seem to find one. Don't feel too bad. The democrat controlled judiciary committee can't find one either.

 

I already gave you a different law last week and noted that you can post me all the laws that Donald didn't break, it's the law that he did break that matters.

 

It is present under the foreign corrupt practices act. I sourced that.
You're just coming up with Donald didn't break domestic bribery laws.... like /care. lol

 

He didn't break it. No one thinks he did except you. Not even his political enemies ine the House.

What's funny too is that it wasn't even you who first cited the law. It was me, acknowledging its existence, knowing someone would latch onto it.

You're several steps behind.

 

Have you even read the law? I don't mean Wiki, I mean the actual law.

Here it is, and its plainly aimed at business deals. Trump was either engaged in law enforcement, foreign policy, politics, or all three. But it was not a business deal.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78dd-1#

That's why literally no one except you is hanging his hat on this irrelevant law. It's like Ahab chasing the white whale.

 

I doubt you will read the law, instead cherry picking from a wiki article, so I am posting it here for others to see that the law that you think Trump violated isn't implicated by the phone call.


(a)Prohibition It shall be unlawful for any issuer which has a class of securities [which Trump ain't] registered pursuant to section 78l of this title or which is required to file reports under section 78o(d) of this title, or for any

officer, director, employee, or agent of such issuer or any stockholder thereof acting on behalf of such issuer, [which Trump ain't] to make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce corruptly in furtherance of an offer, payment, promise to pay, or authorization of the payment of any money, or offer, gift, promise to give, or authorization of the giving of anything of value to—
foreign official for purposes of—
foreign official in his official capacity, (ii) inducing such foreign official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official, or (iii) securing any improper advantage; or
foreign official to use his influence with a foreign government or instrumentality thereof to affect or influence any act or decision of such government or instrumentality,
in order to assist such issuer in obtaining or retaining business [which Trump wasn't seeking] or or with, or directing business to, any person.

That's why Trump isn't being impeached for bribery, not even accused, under either 18 usc 201 or the FCTPA.

 

I never heard anybody say that there is nothing wrong with bribing a foreign president.

It says.....
It shall be unlawful ... authorization of the giving of anything of value to... for purposes of... influencing any act or decision of such foreign official in his official capacity

It really covers it all. And you can say it's business. There was money involved for the sake of getting a service.

 

You're cherry picking as usual. Read it from top to bottom. Then read it again. The whole thing. He didn't commit bribery under any law. Except in fantasyland.

That's why he isn't charged with bribery.

Not that being charged with something makes you guilty ... one is entitled to a defense except in North Korea), but hey, it's a start. Without a formal accusation, there isn't even a trial. Not in court, and not in the Senate. I hope everyone knows that, but I tell ya, I wonder sometimes.

 

He did. And I quoted how.

Everybody talks about bribery.
And it's illegal. Period.

 

Well, that's nice, because I didn't say here was "nothing wrong with bribing a foreign president." I do say, and say only, that you have to show that what you are calling bribery has to fit the legal definition of bribery as reflected in some criminal statute, the whole of the statute -- including any possible defenses -- before you can impeach and remove a President for it.

I think you know that this is all I said, and are just trolling at this point. Be serious.

 

Well I posted a youtube vid now that explains exactly that it's not allowed.
You must be trolling around to still keep on denying it.

 

"They can't put anything on the internet they isn't true", right?



Stick with wiki and YouTube. I'll go to the source.

 

I know everybody (on your side, anyway) "talks about" bribery. and usually out of their posterior.

Notice that they talk about it less and less.

In any event, nobody talks about Trump violating the FCTPA. With one exception.

I wonder why that is.

 

My vid says bribery is unconstitutionally... and here you were ranting around that it's something a president can do.
We had an argument about it. Remember. And now you're just moving along only commenting that it's not mentioned that often anymore. lol

 

The House Judiciary Committee on Friday approved two articles of impeachment against President Trump, making him the fourth president in American history to face impeachment.

In contrast to Thursday's contentious back-and-forth between the two parties, Friday's session was devoid of rancor, or even any debate. Immediately after calling the session to order, Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., ordered two votes, one for each article. Both were approved 23-17 along party lines.

In brief remarks after the votes, Nadler said, "Today is a solemn and sad day. For the third time in a little over a century and a half, the House Judiciary committee has voted articles of impeachment against the president for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress."
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/13/7876...-judiciary-to-vote-on-articles-of-impeachment

 

Basically, if a president has lost the confidence of 2/3 of senate..., he should be removed. You gotta have a guy that has a bare minimum of support. And imo it does not matter whether what he has done to lose support is illegal. As far as i know, there is no crime called abuse of office....

 

I have more than just a cursory understanding of the application of an affirmative defense. But clearly you cannot be persuaded to think outside of the letter of the law, or the general description you have cited. So, can you tell me, what affirmative defense should Trump use to mitigate his defense? Estoppel, diminished mental capacity, or Laches? Lets just look at the facts,

President Trump says he called his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky on 25 July to congratulate him on his recent election victory.
An anonymous whistleblower, reported to be a CIA official, felt there was something more serious in their exchange, and explained why in a formal complaint on 12 August.
The whistleblower admitted having not directly heard the call but said accounts shared by other officials had painted a consistent picture.
About a dozen people are also reported to have listened in on the conversation, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
The call occurred days after Trump blocked $391M in military aid to Ukraine.
The whistleblower's complaint alleged that the president used "the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country", and had acted to "lock down" all details of it.
Trump promised to release a "complete, fully declassified and unredacted transcript". He did not.
Details disclosed by the White House were notes of the conversation. They were NOT the full, verbatim account.
The notes did show that Trump did had urged Zelensky to investigate discredited corruption allegations against former Vice-President Joe Biden, as well as his son.
Officials in Kiev have said there is no evidence to support the allegations of wrongdoings by Biden's son.
The acting ambassador to Ukraine told the inquiry, that Trump had made the release of the military aid conditional, on Ukraine opening an investigation into the Biden's' dealings.
Rudy Giuliani, was subpoenaed for documents relating to Ukraine. He, and Pompeo were served with subpoenas. Both have been central in pushing for allegations against the Bidens
Even the US ambassador to the European Union admitted to Congress, that he was working at the "express direction" of the President, when pressure was put on Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. He also said that an offer of a White House visit for Ukraine's president was conditional only if the country would publicly announce the probe.

By even the most basic understanding of the Federal Bribery Statute, Trump is obviously guilty. But to avoid lawyerly squabbles over the precise definition and language within the statute, Trump was not charged with Bribery. This avoids legal squabbles over terms like "official acts" , and "things of value", that people like you enjoy disseminating as a distraction. Hence why he is charged with "Abuse of Power", and " Obstruction of Congress". The evidence for these articles are overwhelming, and a slam-dunk for our Democracy. I think Madelin Strasser outlines it best. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...cles-impeachment-dont-include-bribery-charge/

Unless you voted for Bernie(progressive), my comments were NOT misplaced, or misdirected. Any corporate Democrat(Hillary) or Republican(Trump) that you vote into office, will continue to doomed us to making the same mistakes over and over again. Open your eyes. How many of the poor do you need to trip over, before you realize the meaning of an empty promise? I have been around a long time. In my day, anyone in the community who was jobless, homeless, poor, crazy, or a criminal, you would know personally by name or reputation. Not any more. Since the late 50's early 60's, the gap between the rich and the poor, have continued to grow. In my day, you would never see bums and beggars outside of the Post Office, or the Public Libraries. Why have we amassed such a demeaning "tipping culture", to subsidize their income? So, my comments were never personally about your or Trump. They were about, when will we stop making the same mistakes, by voting the same Corporate puppets into office, and keep expecting things to change? We seem more interested in performance, whether than in the policies. Is there anyone who is DENYING Trump, the ability to defend himself? Of course not. Just more alarmist spin.

Trump will be impeached based on the evidence and the facts. Not on his utter contempt for them. What next for an affirmative defense, DENIAL, because everyone is lying about him? Or, maybe a world-wide CONSPIRACY, because he is being set-up by those people who hate him, and want him out?

 

Actually, I don't think you understand it at all. Estoppel and laches? Uh, no.

Affirmative defenses do not mitigate, they defeat. And "mitigate his defense" is just gobbledygook: you don't "mitigate your defense." You mitigate your responsibility, so for example, if you are guilty of murder, it is a mitigating circumstance that the victim was your spouse and abused you for years. If you prove this, you might get convicted if a lesser charge, or get probation instead if prison, but you don't get acquitted for it.

If Trump is convicted in the Senate, there is no point in mitigation because under the constitution the only remedy is removal from office, period. Mitigation is used to try to lessen the charge or the sentence. There is no lesser charge that Trump can get, or is even asking for.

mitigating circumstances. n. in criminal law, conditions or happenings which do not excuse or justify criminal conduct, but are considered out of mercy or fairness in deciding the degree of the offense the prosecutor charges or influencing reduction of the penalty upon conviction.


Now, if he is charged under this corrupt trade practices law under title 15 (aimed at corruption in foreign commerce) we've been discussing, which is never going to happen in the first place, then the affirmative defense is explicitly laid out in the statute, at 78dd2(c)(1), I think it is, and I already cited that too. But again it isn't mitigation, it's an affirmative defense that would defeat the charge completely, if proved by the defense.

Again, it doesn't matter because Trump isn't even charged with violation of the FCPA.

 

Actually I do. No matter how many times you copy and paste the definitions of both. When I used "mitigate his defense" in the context of, "So, can you tell me, what affirmative defense should Trump use to mitigate his defense?", It means to lessen the severity/gravity of the offence. Not gobbledygook. So, let me ask again. What affirmative defense would you recommend Trump use to defeat/acquit the impeachment charges by the House, of the " Abuse of Power" and "Contempt of Congress"? I was never talking about the trial for his removal from office, by the Senate. This will never happen, because the truth in the Senate, is only an inconvenient obstacle to spin. So, can we please stay on the same page here? Unless Trump can somehow change the number of votes in the Senate, I suspect that there ARE no other options, except bye bye, and welcome to the Corrections' System.