Given the level of discourse out there and the statement that because the money was eventually awarded means no crime, tells me that no, the American people that could understand this aren’t aware of it.
I’m in favor of leaving no stone unturned in this event. Legally, the crime still exists even though the money was eventually turned over. The American people need that drumbeat and the chapter and verse that supports the statement. It will break through to some, I promise you.
“There are also some who say that no serious wrongdoing was committed, because the military assistance to Ukraine was eventually released,” she continued. “The fact is, the aid was only released after the whistleblower exposed the truth of the President’s extortion and bribery, and the House launched a formal investigation.”
And this is all you need to know. The Republicans have ZERO defense against these charges, so they are just making shit up.
And this is where the chapter and verse of the US code needed to be clearly stated. It won’t register with many, but we need every person we can get to understand this.
ETA: to defend against the ‘not true, just because she says it is this, doesn’t mean it is’.
I understand it’s in the cleaning sector.
Apparently, it’s one of the largest laundries in the world.
The only people who are saying that are republicans who already know better.
There isn’t some vast population who doesn’t understand the simple concept of extortion and bribery-- we’re the home of all the violent crime movies and TV shows, both topics are frequently represented.
So Kash Patel, using the same Lawyer as Devin Nunes to sue a cow, is suing Politico and Natasha Bertrand
I don’t care about Politico, but if Patel and his Lawyer cause Natasha any trouble, there’ll be hell to pay.
It’s why I’ve been in favor of correcting the dialog to read ‘bribery and extortion’ rather than the ‘furrin’ sounding quid pro quo phrase.
B&E are more readily understandable. My take is there are still those who don’t understand the level of the illegality. The chapter and verse would go a long way, rather than ‘just because I said so’.
Nancy Pelosi owns Trump and now the entire GOP. They are throwing everything they have at the wall and nothing is sticking.
This “sue them” ploy is another loser. Desperate and pathetic is not a good look. 
If you say so… I’m gonna stick with it being simpler to use analogies with the general public…
18 USC §201. Bribery of public officials and witnesses
(a) For the purpose of this section-
(1) the term “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;
(2) the term “person who has been selected to be a public official” means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and
(3) the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.
(b) Whoever-
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent-
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;
(3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;
(4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
(c) Whoever-
(1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty-
(A) directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or
(B) being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;
(2) directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;
(3) directly or indirectly, demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.
(d) Paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b) and paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c) shall not be construed to prohibit the payment or receipt of witness fees provided by law, or the payment, by the party upon whose behalf a witness is called and receipt by a witness, of the reasonable cost of travel and subsistence incurred and the reasonable value of time lost in attendance at any such trial, hearing, or proceeding, or in the case of expert witnesses, a reasonable fee for time spent in the preparation of such opinion, and in appearing and testifying.
(e) The offenses and penalties prescribed in this section are separate from and in addition to those prescribed in sections 1503, 1504, and 1505 of this title.
(Added Pub. L. 87–849, §1(a), Oct. 23, 1962, 76 Stat. 1119 ; amended Pub. L. 91–405, title II, §204(d)(1), Sept. 22, 1970, 84 Stat. 853 ; Pub. L. 99–646, §46(a)–(l), Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3601–3604 ; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §§330011(b), 330016(2)(D), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2144 , 2148.)[
The GOP does not understand what National Security means
All one needs to do is mention that it’s in the US Code, as in
“There are also some who say that no serious wrongdoing was committed, because the military assistance to Ukraine was eventually released,” she continued. “The fact is, the aid was only released after the whistleblower exposed the truth of the President’s extortion and bribery, and the House launched a formal investigation, as is warranted by the US Code 18 USC §201 ”
Emphasis mine.
Республиканцы понимают национальную безопасность Родины
“And the voice of the turtle is heard in the land” Song of Solomon 2:11-12.
If hypocrisy had a father …
Lead by example, #ditchMoscowMitch. Lead by example.
We really shouldn’t have been so angry at the Japanese after Pearl Harbor. Maybe sit down with them, understand their feelings, get a therapist and just talk things out.
And same with Germany. Heck, there we were the aggressor, we should really apologize for our unruly invasion of their country.
Ya, no, I’ll stick with my moralistic and righteous anger at evildoers.
Pelosi deliberately didn’t do that because it’s also specifically name-checked in the Constitution.
CUA, LLC, otherwise known as Cover Ur Ass?
Also, any chance they paid for Bart K’s baseball tickets and mortgage?
Those cheap fucks?
Glad to hear Pelosi on the attack (actually, she was merely explaining reality).
The Repub “strong woman” selected to attack the Schiff’s process (Nunes: "gagging the young lady from New York”), Rep Elise Stefanik (R-NY) raised some accolades from the right, jumping from 45K Twitter follows to 200K (4x!).
Problem is, her Dem opponent, Tedra Cobb, went from 4K Twitter followers to 230K today (58x!), and raised $1M over the weekend, and is now in slightly higher in cash than Stefanik.
You reap what you sow.
Trying to keep an open mind, Stefanik did absolutely nothing for me, just seemed to be parroting lame talking points. Hopefully, Cobb can prevail in the upcoming blue wave…