Florida AG Pam Bondi Personally Asked Trump for Donation Before Dropping Trump Univ. Fraud Case

Forums: Donald Trump, Politics, Florida, Trump University, Pam Bondi
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Florida AG Pam Bondi Personally Asked Trump for Donation Before Dropping Trump Univ. Fraud Case

Are both parties (briber and bribee) in a hypothetical bribery case charged with a crime?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 7 • Views: 2,220 • Replies: 16

View best answer, chosen by tsarstepan

Holy crap.

0 Replies

@tsarstepan,

Quote tsar:

Quote:

Are both parties (briber and bribee) in a hypothetical bribery case charged with a crime?

Sure. Here's the Federal law on bribery-very likely to be similar to the Florida law, which this case would fall under:

Quote:

The General Federal Bribery Statute punishes the offence of bribery in the U.S[iii]. According to 18 USCS prec § 201(b), whoever directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official with intent to influence that person’s official act will be fined for the offence of bribery. The punishment prescribed by the statue is a fine of an amount not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, or imprisonment for not more than fifteen years, or both. Additionally he/she can be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the U.S government.

http://bribery.uslegal.com/federal-laws-on-bribery/

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Yep, it's bilateral.

I fear it is only the first layer being peeled back, and on both sides.

1 Reply

@jespah,

Unbelievably bold an stupid act of bribery on the part of the state of Florida and Donald Trump!

2 Replies

@GaryGES,

Now Trump has agreed to settle the FRAUD cases in Calif and NY for 25 MILLION . With this settlement, Trump admits no culpability in the Ponzi-like scheme, and over 7000 defrauded students will share in the settlelement. According to my calcs its covering the claim, if the legal fees are in addition (usually paid for by the LOSER)

"Crooked Hillary"?
Ponzi Donald

0 Replies

@GaryGES,

Quote:

Unbelievably bold an stupid act of bribery on the part of the state of Florida and Donald Trump!

Let's understand here that regardless of any future prosecution and findings of guilt, Trump himself followed by all those who support him and the GOP, will howl up a storm of "It's fixed!" and "unfair liberal media bias!" and "Mexican judges!" etc. Fox will relentlessly portray the story as merely unjust political vengeance and a repeat of Christ on Calvary.

Facts no longer matter in the modern right wing universe. That's a trend with a fairly long history but it reached some sort of apogee in this election. But "apogee" is really the wrong word because this phenomenon is going to get much worse. That's not merely because the right will now proceed to further develop systems of information control (for political ends) so as to capitalize on the lessons they will take from the election results (trapping their base in an epistemological closed loop and using that loop to pump out falsehoods and attacks on perceived opponents) but also because they have their hands on the controls of justice procedures with Jeff Sessions in control of that department.

0 Replies

@tsarstepan,

If this is true, and prosecuted, would it disqualify trump for president?

1 Reply

@dlowan,

No. A sitting president can only be removed under the terms of Article II, Section 4 of the constitution, which reads, in its entirety:

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

He is, of course, currently President Elect, and not a sitting president, but no one is likely to work up an indictment, try and convict him before January 20, 2017. Once he's in office, it takes impeachment (means indictment) to try him. The House has the sole power to impeach (Article One, Section 2). The Senate would then try the President (Article One, Section 3):

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

So you'd need the House to impeach him (it ain't gonna happen) and then you'd need the Senate to convict him, by a two-thirds vote (it ain't gonna happen), thereby removing him from office, before he could be prosecuted in the normal fashion.

0 Replies

By the way, this brouhaha undoubtedly explains why Trump changed course and agreed to settle with litigants:

Quote:

Donald J. Trump has reversed course and agreed on Friday to pay $25 million to settle a series of lawsuits stemming from his defunct for-profit education venture, Trump University, finally putting to rest fraud allegations by former students, which have dogged him for years and hampered his presidential campaign.

The settlement was announced by the New York attorney general just 10 days before one of the cases, a federal class-action lawsuit in San Diego, was set to be heard by a jury. The deal averts a potentially embarrassing and highly unusual predicament: a president-elect on trial, and possibly even taking the stand in his own defense, while scrambling to build his incoming administration.

Source at The New York Times

1 Reply

By the way, it may be that all one needs to do is give Mr. Trump sufficient rope . . .

Trump meets with Indian business partners

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Lawsuits are civil law. Doesn't that still leave the possibility of criminal action. I think it does, at least until inauguration. After that time might be interesting.

1 Reply

@roger,

I can't see a prosecution happening in less than two months, even setting aside the question of corruption. Once he's in office, he'll never get prosecuted because the House would never impeach him, and even if that unlikely event took place, you'd never get two-thirds of the Senate to convict him.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I agree. It isn't going to happen, but it is an interesting possibility. Hey, the FBI reopened that email thing less than two weeks before the election.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

Hey, the FBI reopened that email thing less than two weeks before the election.

It seems to me that Comey should be prosecuted for that, under the Hatch Act.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Get Cheney ( WMD) FIRST! Biggest fish should be first !

Jeez, these arrogant assholes think they can get away unconstitutional acts with stealing or altering elections and war crimes.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Just because he hadn't seen a single one of the 650,000 emails that weren't on Clinton's server and had no idea if any of them concerned her? You are a hard man, Setanta.

0 Replies

Florida AG Pam Bondi Personally Asked Trump for Donation Before Dropping Trump Univ. Fraud Case

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know