Someone "might" have demanded an investigation into a political opponent -- to rig 2020 elections

[BobRyan]

Amazing to watch the news recently where the suspicion is raised that

1.
"someone might have demanded an investigation into a sure-fire candidate for president in the 2020 election... a political opponent to be neutralized in the courts or via legal wrangling and thus influence the 2020 elections against that presidential candidate."

The idea is that such an investigator may have either said (or thought) "my party will not win the 2020 elections unless we investigate and condemn a political opponent in the other party".

Some say "you can't investigate your political opponent so as to influence an upcoming election... that would be dirty tricks". Well if so - a small group of "managers" is claiming to be doing that very "trick" just now as we speak.

2.
Question: Did we just cross the line into "thought police"??

overheard: The best way to stop a president from investigating their political opponent is to declare certain "thoughts" to be unconstitutional? But are suspected thoughts "actionable" information sufficient to condemn someone, under the current US constitution??

3.
Facts that go unchallenged:

Is it possible that some facts are going unchallenged?

If we impeach the President accusing him of "chewing gum" (that was packaged in material having rude slogans written on it) and then claim that this unchallenged fact means he is to be impeached, high crimes etc -- is that a logical argument? Does the mere fact that the initial fact "chewing gum" is going unchallenged - mean that it really is an impeachable offense?

frivolous albeit emotional facts going "unchallenged" is a sign that something is an impeachable offense. So then how often does such an exercise circle back to "yes - but the facts are going unchallenged""

 

[DaisyDay]

Wow, this is the dumbest argument I've seen in a long time.

There are two articles of impeachment against Donald John neither of which have the slightest thing to do with chewing gum, either with scare quotes or without. The first article is abuse of office because he withheld monies already appropriated and approved to support our ally Ukraine which is currently being besieged by Russia. He also withheld a meeting with the president even while meeting with Putin, Erdogan, Bolsonaro and Kim Jong-un. He did this without notifying Congress which is illegal. He did this to get Zelensky to announce an investigation in to Joe Biden and his son. Please note: the money was contingent on the announcement, not even an actual investigation. This was against the interests of the United States and against our foreign policy to bolster allies against powers such as Russia (which had already annexed part of Ukraine just before Donald John took office). We have his own "transcript" (actual a memo of record) with his saying he wanted a favor just after Zelensky mentioned that Ukraine was trying to cooperate and was almost ready to buy more Javelins [which would be with the appropriated funds Donald was withholding].

Some people have made a point that it was Zelensky who first brought Rudy Giuliani into the conversation, but that only goes to show how long and hard Giuliani had been working the months before the conversation on this issue. Why would Zelensky think it relevant to bring in the president's personal attorney into this conversation?

The second article is obstruction of Congress. The president flat out refused to submit any subpoenaed documents - even ones which were later released to outside groups under FOIA. He also refused to let anyone in the executive branch testify before the House. This is undisputed.

 

[camille70]

Wow, this is the dumbest argument I've seen in a long time.

There are two articles of impeachment against Donald John neither of which have the slightest thing to do with chewing gum, either with scare quotes or without. The first article is abuse of office because he withheld monies already appropriated and approved to support our ally Ukraine which is currently being besieged by Russia. He also withheld a meeting with the president even while meeting with Putin, Erdogan, Bolsonaro and Kim Jong-un. He did this without notifying Congress which is illegal. He did this to get Zelensky to announce an investigation in to Joe Biden and his son. Please note: the money was contingent on the announcement, not even an actual investigation. This was against the interests of the United States and against our foreign policy to bolster allies against powers such as Russia (which had already annexed part of Ukraine just before Donald John took office). We have his own "transcript" (actual a memo of record) with his saying he wanted a favor just after Zelensky mentioned that Ukraine was trying to cooperate and was almost ready to buy more Javelins [which would be with the appropriated funds Donald was withholding].

Some people have made a point that it was Zelensky who first brought Rudy Giuliani into the conversation, but that only goes to show how long and hard Giuliani had been working the months before the conversation on this issue. Why would Zelensky think it relevant to bring in the president's personal attorney into this conversation?

The second article is obstruction of Congress. The president flat out refused to submit any subpoenaed documents - even ones which were later released to outside groups under FOIA. He also refused to let anyone in the executive branch testify before the House. This is undisputed.

They've also refused to release information ordered released by the courts. They are defying the courts.

 

[essentialsaltes]

"someone might have demanded an investigation into a sure-fire candidate for president in the 2020 election... a political opponent to be neutralized

Nothing wrong with doing opposition research. That's something that a campaign uses campaign money to pay investigators to do. That's not something that an elected official uses US taxpayer money to pay foreign elected officials to do. Taxpayer money is to be used for the benefit of We The People, not personal gain.

Glad I could clear up your bizarre confusion.

 

[BobRyan]

Wow, this is the dumbest argument I've seen in a long time.

agreed. How in the world can someone argue that investigating someone else's political opponent during an election year is a horrific crime that can only be fixed by investigating their own political opposition's candidate for president for that same year?

 

[BobRyan]

Nothing wrong with doing opposition research. .

yep nothing wrong with opposition research - but they are not accusing trump of opposition research - but rather with calling for an investigation ... which is the very thing the house managers themselves did and are doing with their own political opposition candidate for the 2020 election.

You'd think they would have picked a different subject to focus on.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Glad I could clear up your bizarre confusion.

​

yep nothing wrong with opposition research - but they are not accusing trump of opposition research - but rather with calling for an investigation ... which is the very thing the house managers themselves did and are doing with their

Sorry I couldn't clear up your bizarre confusion.

 

[BobRyan]

when logic fails - - emotion prevails.. No news there.

That leaves us still wondering why they chose to focus on the very tactic that they are using even as we speak...

You'd think they would have picked a different subject to focus on.

 

[BobRyan]

That's not something that an elected official uses US taxpayer money to pay foreign elected officials to do. .

Allowing Ukranians to use their own money to buy weapons from the U.S. that Obama would not allow them to buy - is not exactly "using US taxpayer money"... details matter.

"The U.S. has sent Ukraine $1.6 billion in military and security aid since 2014. In 2017 the Trump administration approved the U.S.’s first lethal arms sales to Ukraine since the conflict began."

That's correct... they were getting "zip" in arms sales to defend themselves prior to Trump taking office.

The current fiasco is about "how fast" aid approved for Ukraine got to them during the talks between the nation's leaders.

------------------------------------


(1) Foreign Aid is budgeted for by Congress. But, the authority to actually dispense (release) the money may be delegated to the President and often is.

(2) Being a political opponent of the President or a his relative does not entitle you to immunity from criminal investigations. It does not entitle you to special treatment. The President may, if he believes it to be justified, encourage or coerce a foreign government to cooperate with or initiate a criminal investigation. Tackling corruption involving a US Citizen is, after all, a common foreign policy objective. It is no different from withholding aid if the foreign government does not co-operate with the investigation of a drug cartel with US ties.

(3) If the public believes that the President is biased in his conduct, they do not have to vote for him or his party in the next election.

(4) If congress finds the conduct of the President intolerable for any reason, or no reason at all, they may impeach and remove the president. However, this requires a simple majority in the House and a two-thirds majority in the US Senate.


=======================

disagreements between the administration and Congress are worked out informally, says ... the US Congressional Research Service.

If they aren't - for example, if the president refuses to spend the money specifically requested by Congress - a process called impoundment could be triggered.

The matter could end up being decided in the Supreme Court.

"There are many legitimate reasons that presidents might slow the expenditure of funds, but Nixon had abused presidential discretion and cancelled funds for policy, not administrative, reasons," said James Pfiffner, professor of public policy at George Mason University.

========================
from; What a Nixon-era law means for Trump, Ukraine aid

If the president is asking to permanently rescind money, Congress must give its approval. But if Congress does not pass a bill approving the retraction within 45 days, the money must be made available for spending, according to the law.

If the president is only asking to temporarily delay spending, then congressional approval is not required. But the president still has to send Congress a "special message" to let it know. There are other requirements, too.

For example, the act says a request to delay spending is "permissible" only if the hold provides for unforeseen contingencies, saves money or is specifically provided by law. Spending cannot be stalled through the end of the fiscal year, either.

=================

A. 1 Billion threat to recind -- on video from Biden --
B. A little over a third of that amount merely 'delayed' for a little over a month by Trump

The U.S. aid to Ukraine that Trump froze, in one chart

 

[essentialsaltes]

Allowing Ukranians to use their own money to buy weapons from the U.S.

is not what the military aid approved by an act of Congress is. It was money. Taxpayer money.

details matter.

Certainly. You should look into them.

 

[BobRyan]

from; What a Nixon-era law means for Trump, Ukraine aid

If the president is asking to permanently rescind money, Congress must give its approval. But if Congress does not pass a bill approving the retraction within 45 days, the money must be made available for spending, according to the law.

If the president is only asking to temporarily delay spending, then congressional approval is not required. But the president still has to send Congress a "special message" to let it know. There are other requirements, too.

For example, the act says a request to delay spending is "permissible" only if the hold provides for unforeseen contingencies, saves money or is specifically provided by law. Spending cannot be stalled through the end of the fiscal year, either.

==================

careful what you wish for...

 

[essentialsaltes]

from; What a Nixon-era law means for Trump, Ukraine aid

If the president is asking to permanently rescind money, Congress must give its approval. But if Congress does not pass a bill approving the retraction within 45 days, the money must be made available for spending, according to the law.

The president didn't ask anybody anything. He stopped payment through OMB without notifying Congress.

For 55 days, according to Republican Jim Jordan, who has been one of Trump's most vociferous defenders.

55 days is larger than 45. The Administration neither informed Congress, nor did Congress pass a bill approving the retraction of the thing they didn't know about.

That's why the GAO concluded the Trump Administration broke the law, which is the update on your article.

If the president is only asking to temporarily delay spending, then congressional approval is not required.

But the president still has to send Congress a "special message" to let it know.

He didn't. That's why congressmen were asking the Administration what the heck was going on.

careful what you wish for...

I have no problem with the truth.

My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be.
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34

 

[childeye 2]

agreed. How in the world can someone argue that investigating someone else's political opponent during an election year is a horrific crime that can only be fixed by investigating their own political opposition's candidate for president for that same year?

There is a big difference between pressuring a foreign leader to investigate a political opponent of the President by using the power of the Presidency to withhold vital military aid if they don't comply, and investigating a sitting President for pressuring a foreign leader to investigate a political opponent by withholding vital military aid if they don't comply.

Beside the fact that the extortion taking place is clearly sinister, a person cannot be allowed to use the power of the Presidency so as to increase their re-election chances, since that would clearly be an unfair advantage that would corrupt an election.

 

[DaisyDay]

agreed. How in the world can someone argue that investigating someone else's political opponent during an election year is a horrific crime that can only be fixed by investigating their own political opposition's candidate for president for that same year?

No one is arguing that that is happening except you. What is a crime is for the president - who is not in charge of launching investigations - to launch one anyway solely to increase his own chances of winning the next election. What is a crime is to illegally withhold desperately needed funds which were appropriated by Congress and approved by the NSA, State Department and CIA from an ally while your personal lawyer works behind the scenes to make sure that the ally in question is fully aware that the funds are being withheld on condition of publicly announcing an investigation into Donald's chief political opponent.

 

[BobRyan]

There is a big difference between pressuring a foreign leader to investigate a political opponent of the President by using the power of the Presidency to withhold vital military aid if they don't comply, .

what foreign leader was told we were withholding military aid if they don't comply with an investigation?

This part will be "instructive".

 

[BobRyan]

The president didn't ask anybody anything. He stopped payment through OMB without notifying Congress.

so then... a delay.

from; What a Nixon-era law means for Trump, Ukraine aid

If the president is asking to permanently rescind money, Congress must give its approval. But if Congress does not pass a bill approving the retraction within 45 days, the money must be made available for spending, according to the law.

If the president is only asking to temporarily delay spending, then congressional approval is not required. But the president still has to send Congress a "special message" to let it know. There are other requirements, too.

For example, the act says a request to delay spending is "permissible" only if the hold provides for unforeseen contingencies, saves money or is specifically provided by law. Spending cannot be stalled through the end of the fiscal year, either.

 

[essentialsaltes]

so then... a delay.

Until the whistleblower exposed the scheme, I suppose.

If the president is only asking to temporarily delay spending, then congressional approval is not required.

But the president still has to send Congress a "special message" to let it know. There are other requirements, too.

This was not done.

 

[childeye 2]

what foreign leader was told we were withholding military aid if they don't comply with an investigation?

This part will be "instructive".

I hope you are aware that Ukraine would likely deny there was ever any pressure in any form because it would be political suicide in their country to be perceived as being extorted by the U.S. to get involved in American domestic politics.

This is what some of the evidence presented shows:
According to emails and texts, Ukraine was refusing to comply with the request to announce publicly that they would open investigations into Biden and the DNC server until a set date was given for a Whitehouse meeting. The texts show that it began with the desire for Zelensky to get a Whitehouse meeting which would symbolize U.S. support for Ukraine against their adversary Russia. According to testimony supported by documents, such a meeting was being dangled as a means of getting Zelensky to pursue the investigations. The additional signs of pressure through withholding military aid only came later on.

Sondland testified about meeting with Yermak: “I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,”.

A separate corroborating source:
Lev Parnas who worked for Giuliani, “The message was it wasn’t just military aid. It was all aid,”

Trump was asked what he and Zelensky had spoken about in their July phone call.
Trump: "We want to make sure that country is honest. It's very important to talk about corruption. If you don't talk about corruption, why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt?" ​

MULVANEY: The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate.
(Reporter) KARL: That was a factor in withholding the money?
MULVANEY: Yeah. Which ultimately then flowed. ... We knew that that money either had to go out the door by the end of September or we had to have a really, really good reason not to do it — and that was the legality of the issue.
KARL: Let's be clear. What you just described is a quid pro quo. Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happened as well.
MULVANEY: We do that all the time with foreign policy. ... I have news for everybody. Get over it. There is going to be political influence in foreign policy. Elections have consequences.

 

[BobRyan]

There is a big difference between pressuring a foreign leader to investigate a political opponent of the President by using the power of the Presidency to withhold vital military aid if they don't comply, .

what foreign leader was told we were withholding military aid if they don't comply with an investigation?

This part will be "instructive".

I hope you are aware that Ukraine would likely deny there was ever any pressure in any form

Well then ... how about "hearsay"???

 

[childeye 2]

what foreign leader was told we were withholding military aid if they don't comply with an investigation?

From post #18:Sondland testified about meeting with Yermak: “I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,”.

Well then ... how about "hearsay"???

There exists the partial transcript of the July 25 phone call showing a favor being asked by Trump (the investigations into crowdstrike/DNC server, and Biden). This shows the President using his seat to advance his interests of Ukraine bringing forth allegations of wrongdoing by Biden into the public eye. That's not hearsay. There also exists live video of Trump saying what he talked about with Zelensky in that call. That's also not hearsay.

From post #18: Trump was asked what he and Zelensky had spoken about in their July phone call.
Trump: "We want to make sure that country is honest. It's very important to talk about corruption. If you don't talk about corruption, why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt?"

The above statement ties withholding money to corruption. There are numerous video clips of Trump using "corruption" to refer to the investigations he wanted adding that Biden was corrupt hence Trump was looking into corruption, and Trump stated many times that "corruption" was one reason for why he withheld the money.