The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[KG1]

Some people heard some things.

That requires urgent attention.

 

[Phase2]

That requires urgent attention.

And pages upon pages of debate on INGO.

 

[T.Lex]

I kinda think people are believing what they want to believe. I don’t think there’s anything to believe yet.

If Trump promised US resources in exchange for investigating Biden, that’s a scandal. If he just kept suggesting the guy to do it, that’s an average Democrat’s day of the week.

I'm not even sure that's a scandal, in foreign policy terms.

Take the Biden name out of it. If there was credible suspicion of an American citizen being involved in foreign corruption (especially Russian), there's a bunch of laws about that. Asking an nominal ally for help investigating it certainly isn't a problem. Suggesting that, with greater law enforcement cooperation, the ties that bind our countries may be strengthened, and upon that base further deals can be struck - that's not really a problem either.

I think part of Trump's problem is that he's so used to dealing with seedy people in seedy situations, that he thinks ever situation is seedy. This could've been done completely above board. For all we know, it actually was! But Trump's way of describing it just makes it sound terrible.

The whole whistleblower angle to this is secondary (or tertiary). Gee, a government agency didn't conduct the process of inter-branch cooperation correctly. Literally, that happens every day. Good reasons, bad reasons, no reasons.

This is a political issue because it involves 2 of the MSM's (and Dem's) favorite targets: Trump and Biden.

 

[KLB]

I'm curious. Let's say Trump did exactly what he was accused of. What law would he have broken?

This just stinks of a partisan hit job. Yet another government employee that signed onto the #resist nonsense.

 

[T.Lex]

I'm curious. Let's say Trump did exactly what he was accused of. What law would he have broken?

Which part?

I mean, as CINC/chief executive within the federal government, he can conduct foreign policy in whatever way he wants. Including awkward, hamfisted, novice efforts. The call with the Ukraine president seems extraordinarily unlikely to have broken any laws.

In terms of reporting the whistleblower complaint to congressional oversight people... well, that's the job of Trump's appointee. To the extent Trump personally slow-walked or ignored that process, there was probably a domestic law broken. That law is process-oriented and I'm not sure it can have any real teeth to it.

POTUS not reporting to Congress something that is supposed to be reported, while perhaps "unlawful" (as in, it breaks a law), is probably not a "high crime or misdemeanor." But, we won't know for sure until SCOTUS says so.

 

[KLB]

I was referring to the call. If nothing illegal occurred on the call, then how could there be anything to report? It has to be a valid complaint of wrongdoing, right? Not just he was a head.

 

[T.Lex]

I was referring to the call. If nothing illegal occurred on the call, then how could there be anything to report? It has to be a valid complaint of wrongdoing, right? Not just he was a head.

Well, it doesn't look great to have a POTUS try to get political dirt on a potential rival by exploiting international relations.

But, that part is a purely political issue IMHO. More about HOW Trump is doing stuff rather than what he's doing.

Kinda like Obama's IRS taking particular notice of conservative entities for audits. POTUS basically has that authority, but it is an abuse.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well, it doesn't look great to have a POTUS try to get political dirt on a potential rival by exploiting international relations.

But, that part is a purely political issue IMHO. More about HOW Trump is doing stuff rather than what he's doing.

Kinda like Obama's IRS taking particular notice of conservative entities for audits. POTUS basically has that authority, but it is an abuse.

It could venture into the realm of illegality. If the president was hanging the aid package over the Ukraine's head in order to get dirt on Biden and his son, that seems to run afoul of the Emoluments Clause. He would essentially be taking taxpayer money to buy something for personal benefit from a foreign entity. But that has not yet been determined.

 

[T.Lex]

It could venture into the realm of illegality. If the president was hanging the aid package over the Ukraine's head in order to get dirt on Biden and his son, that seems to run afoul of the Emoluments Clause. He would essentially be taking taxpayer money to buy something for personal benefit from a foreign entity. But that has not yet been determined.

Oof, that's a stretch that even I can't make!

The problem is that there appears to be a legitimate corruption allegation. So the "getting dirt" part is secondary to the legitimate law enforcement angle.

The Obama administration efforts to chill conservative non-profits would've presented the same emoluments risk, then.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Oof, that's a stretch that even I can't make!

The problem is that there appears to be a legitimate corruption allegation. So the "getting dirt" part is secondary to the legitimate law enforcement angle.

The Obama administration efforts to chill conservative non-profits would've presented the same emoluments risk, then.

What legitimate law enforcement agency does Rudy Guiliani work for? And do you believe that there are actual legitimate law enforcement agencies working that case? Further, what personal benefit did Obama, the man, not the administration, at HIS direction, gain from his cooling of conservative non-profits... and were only conservative non-profits targeted?

 

[T.Lex]

What legitimate law enforcement agency does Rudy Guiliani work for? And do you believe that there are actual legitimate law enforcement agencies working that case? Further, what personal benefit did Obama, the man, not the administration, at HIS direction, gain from his cooling of conservative non-profits... and were only conservative non-profits targeted?

So, much to unpack.

Apparently there's a credible allegation of Biden's son - a US citizen - involved in corruption. That's an LE matter.

If the argument is that helping a political campaign runs afoul of the emoluments for Trump, then the Obama campaign benefiting from reduced resources of conservative non-profits is equivalent.

As far as I am aware, conservative non-profits were targeted, with some prominent liberal ones specifically avoided.

(Which brings up a related point, if Trump really wanted to go after the Clinton Foundation, he could.)

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Breaking now.... Pelosi to announce formal impeachment inquiry

 

[KG1]

What are the odds? If Trump does't provide congress with the "whistleblower complaint" and the transcript in question of the conversation with the Ukrainian leader will the Democrats move forward with impeachment proceedings?

 

[KG1]

Breaking now.... Pelosi to announce formal impeachment inquiry

I guess that answers my question.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What are the odds? If Trump does't provide congress with the "whistleblower complaint" and the transcript in question of the conversation with the Ukrainian leader will the Democrats move forward with impeachment proceedings?

They should, as it would appear that (if the President is the person withholding the complaint) he is breaking the law.

 

[T.Lex]

They should, as it would appear that (if the President is the person withholding the complaint) he is breaking the law.

Which does not necessarily constitute a "high crime or misdemeanor." (Treason and bribery appear off the table in this context.)

Frankly, if Congress did pass a law making it a misdemeanor (or felony for that matter) for POTUS or his representative to fail to deliver something to them, to basically set an impeachment trap, that would be deeply troubling.

 

[nonobaddog]

Don't you think this congress (house) is deeply troubling already?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1176559966024556544

I am currently at the United Nations representing our Country, but have authorized the release tomorrow of the complete, fully declassified and unredacted transcript of my phone conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine

 

[T.Lex]

I hope Zelensky was ok with it.

Trump was probably right that conversations with world leaders should start with the presumption of some form of privilege/confidentiality.

Of course, Zelensky is a former comedian, so he may think it was some of his best work.

 

[KG1]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1176559966024556544

Here we go. I guess we'll see if the "whistleblower's alleged complaint" based on second hand hearsay has teeth and require's urgent attention if indeed the unredacted transcript is released.