Really, CAN you imagine if one of his kids was in this identical boat? Front page news for 1,460 days straight!

Hillary did commit crimes. Hunter Biden did commit crimes.

And then anyone can read this definition: 18 U.S. Code § 201.Bribery of public officials and witnesses



---

Donald Trump in Georgia: ‘Lock Up the Bidens’

President Donald Trump told a rally crowd in Macon, Georgia, on Friday: “Lock up the Bidens.”

Trump was referring to reports that then-Vice President Joe Biden, his Democratic opponent, met with Chinese and Ukrainian business figures allegedly paying his son, Hunter Biden, to facilitate introductions to senior U.S. officials.

Trump appeared to be joking:

Trump: But they thought it was very unfair that Sleepy Joe who cannot answer a question… He really can’t answer a question. Well, Chris Wallace protected him with me. I talked about the Moscow three-and-a-half million payment. I talked about the billion dollars [from China]. Chris Wallace wouldn’t let that… He said, no, that’s not appropriate. Why? You mean the guy’s allowed to take three and a half a million bucks and we’re not allowed to talk to him about it? I’m telling you, that Biden family… And others, but that Biden family is corrupt. It’s a corrupt family.

Crowd: Lock them up!

Trump: And with me and my kids… Let me tell you, my kids… I’ll tell you something. [Laughs] Lock them up. You should lock them up. Lock up the Bidens. Lock up Hillary. Lock them up. Can you imagine if my kids did what this guy Hunter is doing?
The “lock her up” chant was among the more controversial features of Trump rallies in the 2016 presidential campaign, referring to claims that Democratic Party rival Hillary Clinton had broken the law by using an illicit private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.

https://www.breitbart.com/2020-elect...up-the-bidens/


18 U.S. Code § 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.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201

Now this is a year old, but facts don't change (unless you're a leftie).

The Evidence That Joe Biden Committed Bribery

Over here at Manhattan Contrarian, I have now had five posts detailing the lay-down case that Joe Biden committed the federal crime of bribery (18 U.S.C Section 201(b)) with respect to the conduct of himself and his son in Ukraine. Those five posts consist of the four-part series “The Bidens: ‘Stone Cold Crooked,’” sequels (2), (3) and (4) to same, plus Sunday’s post “Biden v. Trump: Which One Is The ‘Bribe’?”

Meanwhile, over in what we continue to call the mainstream media, there has developed a mantra that there is “no evidence” that Joe Biden acted to help his son collect a bribe in Ukraine. Just yesterday, Eric Felten over at RealClearInvestigations put together a nice roundup of these ridiculous statements, including:

CBS News on November 9: “There is no evidence to support that claim.”

From The Hill: “There’s no evidence that Joe Biden was acting with his son’s interests in mind.”

From Esquire on November 9: [There is] no evidence Joe Biden made any effort to protect his son’s interests as Vice President.”

From the New York Times, September 22: “[N]o evidence has surfaced that the former vice president intentionally tried to help his son by pressing for the prosecutor’s dismissal.”

Felten has even more of these if you are interested.

What are we missing here? Actually, it’s what are they missing? What they are missing is a fundamental understanding of how motive or causation are proved in this world. This is something as to which we all have some instinctive understanding; but few ever think it through to articulate how it works. Fortunately, 40 years in the litigation business have given me plenty of time to think about this subject.

...
snip
...

Now let’s apply this to the Biden/Ukraine situation. You will quickly see that the entire question of whether Biden is guilty of bribery comes down to his motive in demanding the firing of a prosecutor and threatening to withhold U.S. aid to get that to occur. That’s because, as discussed in Sunday’s post, the other two of the three elements of federal bribery (18 U.S.C. Section 201(b)) are definitively established as to the Bidens: The “thing of value” received is Hunter’s $3+ million from Burisma; and the “official act” is Joe’s threat to withhold aid leading to the firing of the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma. (Please don’t think that the fact that the money went to Hunter rather than Joe is any defense. If you have any doubt, ask Dean Skelos, currently serving a four year term for a federal bribery conviction, where the money went entirely to his son Adam.) So all that’s left is the third element, namely whether the thing of value was “in return for” the official act. In other words, this is the question of motive.

Joe Biden says as to his motive, “I was just legitimately trying to get rid of the corrupt prosecutor; my son’s position had nothing to do with it.” OK, but should we believe him? We’re talking here about what’s going on in Joe’s head. How can we get any information on that other than what he says? The answer is that we must look to see whether there is evidence that is inconsistent with what he is saying and therefore supportive of the hypothesis of corrupt motive.

Unfortunately for Joe, there is indeed evidence that is inconsistent with the hypothesis that he acted for pure motives, and not to help his son. I have identified two pieces of such evidence in prior posts:

Biden failed to direct his son to resign from the Burisma board prior to threatening to withhold the aid and demanding the firing of the prosecutor. This was an extremely easy step that Biden could have taken to avoid any questions about his corrupt motive. Unfortunately, this step would have cost his son several million dollars. And thus Hunter remained on the Burisma through the aid withholding/firing process in late 2015/early 2016, and indeed for three more years thereafter. These facts are completely inconsistent with any theory that Biden was free of motivation to help his son.

The prosecutor was not fired at the time Biden made the threat to withhold U.S. aid a few hours before departing the country (December 9, 2015), but only over two months later (February 16, 2016), after the prosecutor had suddenly closed in on Burisma by getting a Ukrainian court to order seizure of the property of Burisma’s owner and chairman Mykolo Zlochevsky (February 4), and Biden had made a further call to the Ukrainian president (February 12). These facts cry out that the immediate motivation was to stop the prosecution of Burisma.

Rest - https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/...mitted-bribery