(10-04-2019, 09:42 AM)mikesez Wrote:

(10-04-2019, 07:51 AM)jj82284 Wrote: Thing of value has a slecific meaning under the statute and does not cover normal interactions with foreign officials in the course of their business.  For instance, it wasnt an in kind donation "thing of value" when the presidents of mexico signed the usmca trade agreement or when a foreign leader comes in gor a state dinner.  These all could have direst, indirect or terciary affects that boost the presidents political standing, but all fall within his natural duties as President of the United States.  Likewise, the president is the chief law enforcement officer in the United States. It is his constitutional obligation to ensure that the laws of this country are Faithfully executed. And under the conditions of certain treaties it is his obligation to expose corruption in this country would certain allies. As such requesting investigation of anyone if proven successful could have a direct indirect or tertiary political benefit for the president. The question as to whether or not it represents a corrupt intent is the presence or lack thereof of probable cause to justify the investigation.

Exactly.
A president's objectives as he enters a negotiation with another country must arise out of and agree with the national interest.  From all accounts, our trade negotiations with Canada and Mexico had good objectives and results.
And having more accountable prosecutors in Ukraine is also justifiable as a national interest. 
But having Ukraine go after one specific US citizen is a personal interest.
When the President of one country talks with the President of another, and they're not already personal friends, they both have to be scrupulous to only bring up matters of their own national interest.

Wrong again.  

1.) In bidens case you do have the exchange of something of value, namely 3 plus million dollars in his sons bank account.  So when he asks that a prosecutor investigating his sons employer be fired and then his sons legal team appologizes for the false smear campaign u have clear evidence if a bribe.  Bidens actions were clearly and demostrably influenced by his son receiving an illicit benefit.  Thats the texbook definition of bribery, emolument, corruption etc.  

2.) In trumps case a.) He didnt ask for one citizen to be investigated he asked in general about corruption, the dnc server-crowd strike, in addition to biden b.) Even if it was obly 1 citizen, in this case biden, hes perfectly within his DUTY as president of the united states if there is reasonable suspicion of corrupt activity-and or crimes.  You have yet to even attempt to make an argument that the fact pattern fales beliw reasonable suspicion.  By your own words it is more likely than not Hunter Biden and Joe Biden were aware that the appointment was made with corrupt intent rendering every cent he collected a BRIBE and about 10 felonies.  Your only retort is to bury your head in the sand and pretend briberies not a crime, rooting out corruption isnt in the national interest, the emoluments clause doesnt exist.  Etc.

---