Graham refuses to read impeachment transcripts.

[Bobber]

Joe Biden did not ask that an investigation be stopped.
You can keep repeating this over and over and that won't make it a fact.

Ex-Ukraine prosecutor said he was told to back off probe of Biden-linked firm, files show

 

[SimplyMe]

Improper and unethical conduct is not necessarily illegal. Indeed, some improper and unethical conduct is not illegal. Those would be the reasons as well.

But illegal isn't necessarily needed, "improper and unethical" is enough for impeachment.

But let's recall that in a prior post you told me what I "really" wanted answered, and it was whether Biden violated a law. I interjected that it is odd you, or anyone else, presume to know what I "really" wanted and then proceed to tell me what I "really" wanted. What I "really" wanted is expressed in my posts.

No, and I attempted to correct your impression in my last post. I'd also state that what you "really" wanted is not clear at all, since it seems you are saying something similar to almost everyone else.

Yes, and if what "seems" to you as oddities constituted as sufficient evidence to show Trump's narrative as false, you would have an excellent point.

If Trump actually had a narrative, you might have a point. Instead, Trumps "narrative" changes almost everytime he talks about it, much less what others in his administration have claimed about his "narrative."

Conjecture. Pure, unadulterated conjecture.

What is your basis for this claim? Do you have personal knowledge of what would be the entire scope of evidence? Do you have personal knowledge should such evidence exist, then "most of that evidence" will be in United States? How did you achieve this personal knowledge?

Your mere guessing of A.) Certain evidence does/would exist at all and B.) most of it would be in the United States, is not persuasive. Your mere guess is no superior than anyone else guessing the opposite. Anyone can guess as to what evidence exists, how much, and where. John guesses 91.9% of the evidence is in Ukraine. Mike guesses 1% of the evidence is in Ukraine while 99% is in the U.S. April guesses it is a fifty-fifty split. Neil Armstrong guesses none of the evidence is on earth, but 100% of the evidence has been compressed to tubes capable of space flight and jettisoned on the moon. The guessing is not persuasive, it is not evidence, and does not refute what I have said.

I'm conjecturing nothing. I'm noting that there were multiple discussions in the US, even between different branches of the US government, and if Biden's motives were something other than removing a corrupt prosecutor, that it is likely it would have come up, at some point, in those various discussions. Additionally, it is those discussions that are important.

If a joint decision was made in the US that the prosecutor needed to be removed, then any information from Ukraine is likely of secondary importance -- as the decision to insist the prosecutor be fired was not made in Ukraine.

He would ask for an investigation in Ukraine, where there would be potential witnesses to Biden's possible improper remarks, and potential exculpatory witnesses. The fact there may be evidence here does not detract from the notion there is evidence in Ukraine, the witnesses Biden spoke to, and as a result, asking Ukraine to investigate is sensible.

To ascertain impropriety, or maybe unethical, conduct on behalf of Biden. It could be Trump wanted an investigation to ascertain whether one or the other occurred, with the bonus being both transpired.

I'm not saying there is no evidence in Ukraine, just that it is secondary to what could be found in the US. And again, other than his political campaign, what is the purpose of knowing if Biden did something that wasn't illegal, but might have been unethical? It wouldn't have made a difference in the $1 billion the US was giving Ukraine for the Javelins -- either because there was no quid pro quo or, if there was, it was only conditional on announcing an investigation.

What makes it even worse is that allegedly the President of Ukraine was going to announce the investigation -- which was cancelled one the whistleblower report went public -- and the Trump campaign had bought advertising attacking Biden for what occurred in Ukraine, that were to air after that announcement.

 

[SimplyMe]

Ex-Ukraine prosecutor said he was told to back off probe of Biden-linked firm, files show

If only Shokin could get anyone else in Ukraine to verify what he claims "really happened." Do you think, perhaps, that Shokin might have motive to lie about this?

 

[Hank77]

Ex-Ukraine prosecutor said he was told to back off probe of Biden-linked firm, files show

This ex-prosecutor, Shokin, told Giuliani.....
Shokin, who according to the US, the EU, the IMF, some of those in the Ukraine government, all say was corrupt.
Sorry if I don't believe what Shokin has to say.

 

[NotreDame]

And that is the trouble with the Right's narrative that Shokin was conducting an effective investigation into Hunter Biden and Joe Biden finagled his own and other Western governments to pressure Ukraine to fire Shokin--it just doesn't stand up to the facts.

Eh, that is not Trump’s narrative, and I’m less convinced it is the “Right’s narrative.” The narrative isn’t an “effective” investigation existed at the time.

 

[NotreDame]

Trump does not have the authority to order an investigation of his political rivals, and certainly not just on gossip and hearsay. People also seem to be forgetting that before Trump it was considered completely improper for the President to try and use the DoJ for political purposes too, so no it wouldn’t have been ok for him to ask Barr to investigate either.

Being president does not hand you some magic pass to investigate anyone you like, and it certainly doesn’t give you the right to try and use the US government’s power to dredge up information on your political rivals.

Trump does not have the authority to order an investigation of his political rivals

Depends. Your statement is too broad to be correct. There rationally are some conceivable circumstances when the President would be authorizes to order an investigation.

Being president does not hand you some magic pass to investigate anyone you like

Besides the point under discussion, since no one has taken such a position.

and it certainly doesn’t give you the right to try and use the US government’s power to dredge up information on your political rivals.

I do know of anyone who says or believes otherwise. The issue is whether Trump did that above or was he legitimately asking for an investigation.

 

[Kentonio]

Depends. Your statement is too broad to be correct. There rationally are some conceivable circumstances when the President would be authorizes to order an investigation.

Besides the point under discussion, since no one has taken such a position.

I do know of anyone who says or believes otherwise. The issue is whether Trump did that above or was he legitimately asking for an investigation.

Ok, please provide these conceivable circumstances under which the president could legitimately ask for an investigation into his political rivals.

 

[NotreDame]

Ok, please provide these conceivable circumstances under which the president could legitimately ask for an investigation into his political rivals.

Well, first, there has to be agreement to the principle a president can ask for an investigation of a person in the U.S., a U.S. citizen, including a political rival, when and where the president has reason to believe, and has a sincere belief, the subject did something illegal, or unethical while an official/representative of the U.S. or improper while an official/representative of the U.S.

That principle is rational. The president is the chief law enforcement officer, and with that is the power and authority to order investigations. That power does not cease to exist on the basis the person to be investigated is a political rival. Immunity from investigative powers of the president on the basis the person to be investigated is a political rival is to place the person in a unique position others cannot benefit from since they are not political rivals. The investigative powers of the president are to be applicable uniformly, so that there are not a group people protected from being investigated by the executive branch.

Of course, the president should not misuse or abuse his investigative powers. One kind of abuse is when the president orders an investigation of a political rival lacking a sufficient reason for an investigation of the political rival, essentially ordering an investigation for the purpose of looking for harmful information against the rival. To protect against this abuse, the president must have a good faith, sincere belief/basis to order an investigation.

This balances the need of the president to exercise his authority to order investigations with the important value the president not abuse his investigative powers.

Accepting my principle is not a concession Trump has adhered to it in his approach to dealing with Ukraine. One can agree with the principle but reasonable disagreement can exist as to whether some set of facts, in this instance the facts surrounding Trump's foreign policy towards Ukraine, satisfies the principle.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

That principle is rational. The president is the chief law enforcement officer, and with that is the power and authority to order investigations.

Imma stop you right there. This is not an established legal position, as far as I can tell. While it has been advanced recently by Senator Johnson in defense of Trump, legal scholars tend to disagree.

For a summary: Is Trump the country's 'chief law enforcement officer'?

TL;DR: It's technically correct to call him that, but precedent does not support him actually utilizing his power as such (see US v. Tiede).

 

[GodLovesCats]

What do you think the FBI is for? The President is not supposed to personally investigate anyone. He uses the FBI staff to conduct their investigations. Under no circumstances is it ever OK for the President to call a foreign leader himself to start an investigation, bypassing the FBI, CIA, and DOJ employees he hired.

 

[NotreDame]

Imma stop you right there. This is not an established legal position, as far as I can tell. While it has been advanced recently by Senator Johnson in defense of Trump, legal scholars tend to disagree.

For a summary: Is Trump the country's 'chief law enforcement officer'?

TL;DR: It's technically correct to call him that, but precedent does not support him actually utilizing his power as such (see US v. Tiede).

Well, you didn’t stop anything really. If the article was to falsify a premise of my argument or weaken the premise, it failed. The article you cite to isn’t a repudiation of the use of the phrase in regards to the President. Indeed, some commentary said the phrase is technically correct. The few negative remarks weren’t that the President isn’t the chief law enforcement officer but worry what the phrase may connotate, as in much more than being chief law enforcement officer, which isn’t a rebuke to the propriety of the phrase. The precedent of prior administrations is just that, precedent by those administrations and nothing more. The precedent doesn’t establish what is or isn’t correct in relation to the constitution.

And U.S. v Tiede had nothing to do with the phrase but instead with the President usurping judicial power by ordering who should be held in jail, a power reserved to the judicial branch.

 

[NotreDame]

What do you think the FBI is for? The President is not supposed to personally investigate anyone. He uses the FBI staff to conduct their investigations. Under no circumstances is it ever OK for the President to call a foreign leader himself to start an investigation, bypassing the FBI, CIA, and DOJ employees he hired.

Sure it is, those agencies you referenced do not have authority to conduct investigations in a foreign country. Now you may say those agencies could if the foreign country consented. Fine.

But getting right to your point then, if Trump believed Biden extorted money from some Ukrainian official while Biden was in Ukraine, he would be justified in asking for Ukraine to investigate.

Or, in 1804, there was some information that Aaron Burr contacted someone in the British government and spoke about separating from the United States some of the western lands to form a new country. Jefferson, as President at the time, would have been acting appropriately in asking for Britain to investigate who Burr spoke to, what specifically he said to anyone, and for any notes or memoranda he may have left behind pertaining to his plan.

There are very good reasons why the president can, should, and is vested with the authority to ask foreign governments to conduct an investigation.

Your absolute prohibition is untenable.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Well, you didn’t stop anything really. If the article was to falsify a premise of my argument or weaken the premise, it failed. The article you cite to isn’t a repudiation of the use of the phrase in regards to the President.

It's not intended to be that. It's intended as a refutation (or at least counter-claim) to your claim that the President has the power and authority to order investigations as the "chief law enforcement officer". You're taking said statement as a given fact. If you want to presume it, you need to support it.

Edit: to clarify, the thrust of what I'm asking is whether or not there is precedent for the President to conduct an investigation independently of the DOJ. I genuinely don't know the answer - I'm not aware of any cases where that's happened, but I haven't spent any time specifically researching it either.

 

[Kentonio]

That principle is rational. The president is the chief law enforcement officer, and with that is the power and authority to order investigations. That power does not cease to exist on the basis the person to be investigated is a political rival.

You're making the case for a unitary executive. There's a nice Lawfare article from back in 2018 that does a nice job of refutting it, and pointing out that not only precedent but numerous internal regulations have been built in since Watergate to ensure a necessary independence of the DoJ from the presidency.

You could certainly argue that's not a constitutional matter of course, but then again lots of things aren't. For instance the policy that the Presidency can't be indicted while in office.

 

[KCfromNC]

What do you think the FBI is for? The President is not supposed to personally investigate anyone. He uses the FBI staff to conduct their investigations. Under no circumstances is it ever OK for the President to call a foreign leader himself to start an investigation, bypassing the FBI, CIA, and DOJ employees he hired.

Plus, speaking of investigations, where are all the investigations that have come about - by any agency - of the person Donald is supposed to think committed a crime?

All I've seen so far is a bunch of facebook ads against one of his election opponents.

Sure, it's great to talk about the theory behind the process for the president kicking off investigations into people. But without those investigations actually happening, seems like red herring vs. what actually happened.

 

[NotreDame]

You're taking said statement as a given fact. If you want to presume it, you need to support it.

I genuinely don't know the answer - I'm not aware of any cases where that's happened, but I haven't spent any time specifically researching it either.

It's not intended to be that. It's intended as a refutation (or at least counter-claim) to your claim that the President has the power and authority to order investigations as the "chief law enforcement officer".

The article isn’t a refutation of the notion the president can request investigations. He is constitutionally mandated to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To ensure the laws are faithfully executed requires an ability to gather information and facts. How is such information and fact gathering achieved? By investigating. The means of investigating is rationally related to the end. As Justice Marshall said, “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.”

Edit: to clarify, the thrust of what I'm asking is whether or not there is precedent for the President to conduct an investigation independently of the DOJ.

To be factually clear here, Trump wasn’t conducting any investigation.

What I can say is a lack of such precedent, or the existence of it, doesn’t necessarily determine what is or isn’t constitutionally allowed or forbidden. Washington began the precedent of two term presidency, and was followed more than a century, but that precedent doesn’t result in a constitutional limit of a two term presidency. The constitution at the time of Washington, up until the 1940s, placed no limit on the number of terms a person can serve as president, which means someone could have served more than two term under the Constitution prior to 1940s.

 

[Larniavc]

Graham says he won't read the Trump impeachment transcripts



Heaven forbid he might learn something and make an informed decision at Donald's impeachment...


Thoughts?

Plausible deniability.

 

[GodLovesCats]

There are very good reasons why the president can, should, and is vested with the authority to ask foreign governments to conduct an investigation.

Your absolute prohibition is untenable.

There are NO reasons a President can and should demand a quid pro quo investigaton by a foreign leader for political purposes.

 

[NotreDame]

You're making the case for a unitary executive. There's a nice Lawfare article from back in 2018 that does a nice job of refutting it, and pointing out that not only precedent but numerous internal regulations have been built in since Watergate to ensure a necessary independence of the DoJ from the presidency.

You could certainly argue that's not a constitutional matter of course, but then again lots of things aren't. For instance the policy that the Presidency can't be indicted while in office.

You're making the case for a unitary executive.

Nope. The article defines a unitary executive as “That means that the President can do what he likes with his Executive branch subordinates—hire them, fire them, ignore them, order them to act in certain ways, and the like.”

That is NOT my view. My view qualifies when the President may ask subordinates to do something, which is very different than the meaning of unitary executive in the article. My principle limits when the President can ask for an investigation of a person, including a political rival, and that is different from the limitless definition in the article of “President can do what he likes.” My view is not the “President can do what he likes.”

So, the article isn’t a refutation of my view.

ensure a necessary independence of the DoJ from the presidency.

So what. That’s not an issue. Some independence is preferred but as the sagacious author so astutely observed, those entities in the executive branch, such as the DOJ, are not entirely independent of the President. “ But I agree with Davis that it would be a disaster if the DOJ and FBI were unaccountable. Fortunately, they are not.”

He’s right. Those entities are answerable to the President.

And, as the article conceded, some of the independence of those entities is established by practice only, not by the Constitution. Practice isn’t superior to the Constituon. Any other independence the article discusses as arising from practice doesn’t bind Trump.

 

[NotreDame]

There are NO reasons a President can and should demand a quid pro quo investigaton by a foreign leader for political purposes.

Okay, so you’ve wisely transitioned your claim from a fatal absolute claim to a non-absolute, qualifies claim. I disagree with your revised claim.

If it is alleged VP Biden, while in Ukraine, agreed to sell nuclear secrets to Ukrainians if they dropped an investigation into his son for alleged corporate malfeasance, then Trump would be justified in demanding Ukraine investigate to ascertain what happened, what was said. The severity of the alleged misconduct would justify a quid pro quo of aid once Ukraine properly investigated the serious allegation.