Show of HandsShow of Hands

SuperAgain November 4th, 2019 12:06pm

Extortion is bribery where one of the parties to the crime has to be coerced into the transaction. Is the best defense to a bribery charge to prove the other guy forced you to do it?

4 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

shygal47 Florida east coast
11/04/19 9:42 am

I’m not very sure where this poll is leading, but, both scenarios are pretty bad and both are definitions of the current Administration in DC.

SuperAgain They lie, Get Over It
11/04/19 7:32 pm

I find it very odd that the GOP strategy may be to try to hijack and normalize the legal term “quid pro quo” which is essentially synonymous with bribery. In what Alternative Fact universe could anyone think they can get away with saying bribery is not an impeachable act??? It’s a new level of crazy talk from folks who already have that dialed up to 11.

SuperAgain They lie, Get Over It
11/04/19 7:36 pm

...and the bigger irony is the accompanying false narrative that Trump didn’t try to coerce the Ukrainians. No coercion? That only makes it a stronger case for it being bribery, plain and simple (as opposed to bribery and extortion).

PhxLibertarian Phoenix
11/04/19 9:23 am

This is not the definition of bribery. I am coerced into going to work every day with a paycheck. This is not bribery.

There is so much more to bribery than coercion.

SuperAgain They lie, Get Over It
11/04/19 10:21 am

“Bribery is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.”

PhxLibertarian Phoenix
11/04/19 7:10 pm

That is rediclous. Based on that definition every lobbyist is committing bribery.

Or perhaps the author of that definition would argue that every instance of bribery is not illeagle.

Every negotiation between representivites would also qualify as bribery.

SuperAgain They lie, Get Over It
11/04/19 7:26 pm

Self dealing is where the line is supposed to be drawn. This is why there’s the universal principle of recusal in ethical government. The principle is that you should not be involved in any government dealings whenever there exists a mere APPEARANCE of a personal Conflict of Interest.

PhxLibertarian Phoenix
11/04/19 8:10 pm

But how do you avoid this when you dont have a superior to act in your place.

There is credible evidence that Biden may have committed a crime. So trump can A) look the other way and pretend it disnt happen. B) use his resources (FBI?) To do the investigation. C) ask an independent third party to do the inveatigation.

C is the least bad option and sometimes that is the definition of the right answer.

SuperAgain They lie, Get Over It
11/04/19 8:25 pm

There’s no requirement for who actually assumes the decision making in your place. It would normally go to a peer, but it could even be a subordinate

PhxLibertarian Phoenix
11/06/19 9:35 am

No it cant go to a subordinate because it still puts you in control. That is why it was important that some neutral 3rd party does the investigation.

A peer is possible but the president doesn't have one.... except maybe the leader of a different country.