r/politics • u/RB_Reich Robert Reich • Sep 26 '19

Let’s talk about impeachment! I'm Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor, author, professor, and co-founder of Inequality Media. AMA. AMA-Finished

I'm Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor for President Clinton and Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley. I also co-founded Inequality Media in 2014.

Earlier this year, we made a video on the impeachment process: The Impeachment Process Explained

Please have a look and subscribe to our channel for weekly videos. (My colleagues are telling me I should say, “Smash that subscribe button,” but that sounds rather violent to me.)

Let’s talk about impeachment, the primaries, or anything else you want to discuss.

Proof: https://i.imgur.com/tiGP0tL.jpg

5.6k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.1k

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19 edited Sep 26 '19

Imagine you’re starving. Haven’t eaten in days. Congress unanimously decides to give you a cheeseburger. The president shows up and stands in front of you with that cheeseburger. There’s even a label on the cheeseburger that has your name on it. You KNOW that cheeseburger is meant for you. You have a conversation with the president. You suck up to him and his ego because you’re starving and just cannot wait to get your hands on that cheeseburger. Finally, you mention the cheeseburger, and the president’s literal next words are “I want you to do a favor for me though” and then asks you to do something. Then he walks away still holding on to YOUR cheeseburger.

Meanwhile, both sides of congress ask the president why he won’t give you your cheeseburger. He was SUPPOSED to give you that cheeseburger. He doesn’t give an answer, deflects, and finally gives two separate conflicting reasons why he wouldn’t give you that cheeseburger.

Is this a good analogy of the situation to describe the the implication of quid pro quo? If so, is the implication in and of itself impeachable?

1.7k

u/RB_Reich Robert Reich Sep 26 '19

Trump has already broken the law merely by asking a foreign power to help him in the election. No cheeseburger (or any other quid pro quo) needed.

345

u/Amablue Sep 26 '19

Yeah, I looked up the law to see what the actual verbiage is, and it seems pretty clear:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

§ 30121 (a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party;

By asking the Ukrainian government to do opposition research on a political opponent, he was soliciting a foreign national for something of value in connection with a U.S. election.

It's super clear cut.

46

u/nsandiegoJoe Sep 26 '19

Barr is lawyering that a specific value can't be placed on political dirt; it doesn't constitute as "something of value".

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/barr-s-relationship-trump-called-question-again-ukraine-call-n1058776

42

u/Cercy_Leigh Pennsylvania Sep 26 '19

Imagine someone in one of the highest political offices in one of the most powerful countries saying “information isn’t valuable”. We pay billions of dollars a year for information.

6

u/Enceladus_Salad Sep 27 '19

Wouldn't a business man agree with Gordon Gecko that information is the most valuable commodity? If you're gonna run the country like a business it helps to know other people's business.

5

u/Cercy_Leigh Pennsylvania Sep 27 '19

We literally have an entire agency so we stay “informed”. We as a country engage in torture to obtain information.

I think something worth compromising our humanity for has to be pretty damn valuable.

ETA: yes, I totally agree with you. It’s absurd and I hope they feel absurd saying those words.

3

u/FetusTwister3000 Sep 27 '19

We as a country engage in torture to obtain information.

No we don't.. We have in the past but not anymore. I just wanted to clarify that part. However I 100% agree with the fact that information should be perceived as something of value. Like others have said we constantly pay people for information and even have people on salary that consistently provide information. But its simply up to interpretation of the judges. If its something of literal value then information doesn't count. You can't go to a pawn shop and ask for 5k in exchange for some Tea.

2

u/Cercy_Leigh Pennsylvania Sep 27 '19

Well, we changed the name to enhanced interrogation techniques.

5

u/FetusTwister3000 Sep 27 '19

No we still don't do it. Laws were added after guantanamo bay that completely restricted it. The worst we can do is separation techniques but that needs approval and is simply putting someone alone in a cell without the ability to converse with other cell mates. That's it. I'm not trying to be a dick just trying to make sure you're well informed.

Source- interrogator for 7 years

→ More replies (0)

1

u/fishyfishyfish1 Texas Sep 27 '19

Giggles in CIA

42

u/Nickeless Sep 26 '19

Wow what a fucking weasel. Like every sentence of that article is shady bullshit. As if it matters if Barr knew he was mentioned or not. You can't be the investigator into your own potential crime, period.

3

u/fishyfishyfish1 Texas Sep 27 '19

This is exactly why recusal exists

14

u/Kwahn Sep 26 '19

Yeah? How much money do campaigns spend every election cycle on something that doesn't constitute "something of value"?

That's a hilarious legal argument!

8

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

[deleted]

1

u/BornIn80 Sep 27 '19

How does exposing corruption get twisted into personal gain?

2

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '19

[deleted]

0

u/BornIn80 Sep 27 '19

I got the full story. Lots of people can’t handle that Trump is exposing the crimes of the former Vice Prez. They want to investigate the investigators. Which is the polar opposite of how they acted during the Trump Russia Hoax. Stay consistent. Let the Biden investigation play out first.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '19

[deleted]

6

u/sublime_cheese Sep 27 '19

It’s fair to say that using $400 million in foreign aid that has been affirmatively voted on by Congress and the Senate as leverage to get political dirt on a rival clearly illustrates the material value that trump places on the info. He is a sleazeball of the highest order. His unraveling will be spectacular.

2

u/gracious144 Sep 26 '19

But if there could be evidence found that proves without doubt that DJT is financially profiting from being POTUS (a.k.a. - violating the emoluments clause), that evidence would give a dollar "value" to the "favor" of Ukraine's or any other foreign nation's provision of political dirt, yes?

7

u/MattJames Sep 26 '19

Why not just his $400k/year salary? That’s something of value, he’s asking Ukraine to provide him a pathway towards a $1.6M over four years.

I know he claims to donate his salary but what someone does with their “something of value” is not of issue here.

1

u/gracious144 Sep 26 '19

Good point.

3

u/Tarplicious Sep 26 '19

He’s taking a page from EA’s book. “Political dirt” could be considered a “surprise mechanic!”

2

u/Seanay-B Sep 27 '19

Sure, it's not a thing of value, he just wanted it for no reason

1

u/Aceofspades25 Foreign Sep 27 '19

From the chair of the federal election commission (in response to Trump saying that he might accept dirt from another country):

"I would not have thought that I needed to say this."

https://twitter.com/EllenLWeintraub/status/1139309394968096768

1

u/GreatOwl1 Sep 27 '19

If I were to lawyer back, the verbiage states contribution or donation, implying that those two words may not be intended as synonyms. Thus, contribution could mean providing anything, be it financial or otherwise.

1

u/OP_IS_A_BASSOON Sep 26 '19

So if the quid pro quo element is confessed to, it demonstrates that it had value, no? For that exchange to occur, both elements have to have value of sorts.

1

u/xraynorx Sep 27 '19

But it does have value. $400k for life. Not to mention the benefits after being president. That’s the amount.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '19

do the alleged covering-up type actions make it clear they thought they were doing something illegal?

1

u/ufoicu2 Utah Sep 27 '19

Yeah trump already fucked that up. Source: Cheeseburger

5

u/Midnight_Arpeggio2 Sep 27 '19

So what do we do if the Republicans in the Senate choose not to convict, when it's clear a crime by the president has been committed? Is that not a failure of our institutions?

6

u/Amablue Sep 27 '19

You vote.

And you encourage everyone you know to vote too.

3

u/Midnight_Arpeggio2 Sep 27 '19

I am, and I have been. Those Republican bastards and everyone else protecting Trump's criminal behaviors, have to go.

1

u/toiruto Sep 27 '19

Voting does not really matter unless you are in the right district. If all California voted against gop that will not make one but of a difference the system for electing honest politicians is broken that is what the main focus should be changing that system before anything else

1

u/DANNYBOYLOVER Sep 27 '19

§ 30121 (a)

Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for

(2)

a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

(A)

a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B)

a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party;

Fuck, this is so simple and clear.

I'm afraid to go on /r/asktrumpsupporters to see their response to it.

​

It honestly blows my fucking mind every time

1

u/Birdius Sep 27 '19

The Justice Department said otherwise.

-6

u/Landown Sep 27 '19

If the precedent existed that simply asking Ukraine to investigate a political opponent qualified as a “thing of value,” why was it not considered soliciting a “thing of value” when 3 Democrat Senators, including Dick Durbin, wrote a letter to Ukraine urging them to investigate Trump in May of 2018?

I’m in the camp that’s unconvinced this is the knockout Democrats were hoping for, after watching the DNI’s testimony today, reading the whistleblower complaint, and reading the transcript of the call. This previously-mentioned letter from 2018 is one of the reasons why. I don’t think Trump made a good case that the Dem Senators’ letter was threatening Ukriane with cutting aid. But if it’s true that Trump, despite also not threatening Ukriane with aid money, did commit the offense he’s being charged with, how is it in any way different from what the Democrat Senators’ letter contained in 2018?

I’m not a TD guy and I’m open to having my mind changed.

7

u/Amablue Sep 27 '19

But if it’s true that Trump, despite also not threatening Ukriane with aid money, did commit the offense he’s being charged with, how is it in any way different from what the Democrat Senators’ letter contained in 2018?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/politics/fact-check-trump-false-claim-democrats-threat-to-ukraine/index.html

The letter did not call for any investigating of Trump. Again, the senators urged the prosecutor not to stop existing investigations and not to stop cooperating with Mueller because they were worried about Trump's reaction, and they asked if the Trump administration had encouraged Ukraine to stop cooperating.

I think that the fact that there is a legitimate interest to the United States is also important here. Trump's request was purely political in nature, while the Democrat's made the request to continue cooperating with a legitimate and ongoing investigation.

-3

u/Landown Sep 27 '19

I don’t see any tangible difference between requesting an investigation to begin, and requesting an investigation stay open that otherwise would have been closed. That’s my problem - the Senators calling for Trump’s impeachment over this matter appear to have done, essentially, the exact same thing.

5

u/Amablue Sep 27 '19

Again though, the fact that there was a legitimate investigation in the interest of the united states occurring is very different than asking for an investigation for purely political reasons. They were not asking for a thing of political value, except to the extent that showing that you are committed to good governance is valuable to someone who is going to seek reelection. Trumps request did not have that element, it was purely politically motivated. There was no legitimate US interest in that request.

-1

u/Landown Sep 27 '19

You don’t think that there was any political motivation to that letter from those Senators? That seems, forgive me, naive.

Additionally, I don’t see why investigating Biden for potential corruption is any less legitimate than investigating Trump for potential corruption. To someone who isn’t inclined toward either politician... why are they different?

5

u/Amablue Sep 27 '19

You don’t think that there was any political motivation to that letter from those Senators?

I don't think that. I think that their political motivation is in alignment with the interests of the United States in this instance, and those interests justify the letter.

Additionally, I don’t see why investigating Biden for potential corruption is any less legitimate than investigating Trump for potential corruption.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/self-impeaching-trump-zelensky-conversation

Here again, context is key. The president is invoking a debunked conspiracy theory about Hunter Biden, which—if successfully propagated—would weaken Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential candidacy.

The corruption he was seeking to investigate was completely manufactured. He wants the idea that there's an ongoing investigation surrounding Biden and corruption so that he can use it to sway public opinion, not because there is any legitimate reason to believe that anything corrupt is actually going on. There is no public interest in opening up a sham investigation over something that has already been investigated.

https://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/editorial/bronx-cheer-for-rudy.html?cn-reloaded=1

The Biden narrative is too complicated to rehash here. But suffice it to say, it has been refuted by countless experts and anti-corruption activists. In 2016, Biden indeed pressured Ukraine to fire Viktor Shokin, its ineffective, weak prosecutor general. In doing so, he called for a decision supported both by Ukrainian reformers and Kyiv’s Western partners. No conspiracy here.

-2

u/StinkyLittleBalloons Sep 27 '19

Dear Lord. The former prosecutor says he wanted to interrogate everyone at Rosemont Seneca. The new prosecutor is back on the case. They have complained of outside pressure to relent. This is just getting started, and the Ukrain better be giving assurances that the kickbacks are cut off.

And in what universe do you see Biden and Archer raking in million dollar salaries for doing nothing and think "there's no way this is corruption"? Has anyone even bothered to make up an excuse?

3

u/ZombieJetPilot Sep 27 '19

Doesn't matter if it's different or not. This is now and this situation. Is THIS against tje law or not?

I know it's unfair but it's the fact of the matter

1

u/Landown Sep 27 '19

It’s not just unfair, it’s grossly hypocritical, if they are indeed the same. It’s holding the president to standards they themselves didn’t live up to. Impeachment is supposed to be reserved for really serious, and I mean really serious instances. If they’re attempting to impeach the president over conduct they themselves conducted only a year ago... that detracts significantly from the seriousness of the appeal to the voters. And essentially, impeachment is more of a political action than a legal one, and public opinion of an impeachment heavily influences the outcome.

3

u/ZombieJetPilot Sep 27 '19

I honestly don't spend a lot of time deep in politics, so I can't speak to the other incident. It's like a DA pressing charges on one person but not another, I get that. Doesn't change the facts of THIS incident.

1

u/Landown Sep 27 '19

Perhaps not, but it does beg the question: is this offense serious to democrats like Dick Durban, who himself did exactly what he’s trying to impeach Trump for? Because it would appear that it doesn’t strike Senator Durbin as a particularly egregious offense when it’s not Trump doing it. Which would mean, then, that his outrage is... manufactured. At least that’s where I come out in my thought process, here. How can they believe the offense is as serious as they say? Especially when the actual legality of what Trump did is so heavily disputed between legal scholars. To me, it calls the entire integrity of this impeachment inquiry into question.

2

u/NashvilleHot Sep 27 '19

Ok, let’s play this game of whatabout. By your logic, since it was so bad that Hilary had a private email server that had government emails pass through it, we should be investigating the bejeezus out of several members of Trump’s administration for using private email accounts to conduct government business, some of which may have had classified or sensitive information. Those high level staffers include: Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, and Steve Bannon. If not, it calls into question the entire integrity of the investigation into Hilary’s email server. Right?

0

u/Landown Sep 27 '19

Are they storing highly classified emails on those private servers? Did they destroy evidence to keep anyone from seeing their emails after a subpeona was issued? Because if so, they should face the same exact punishment.

Your investigation began in March 2015 with an initial focus on whether State Department officials were aware of Secretary Clinton’s private server and the associated national security risks, as well as whether State Department officials attempted to downgrade classified material within emails found on that server. For example, in August 2015, Senator Grassley wrote to the State Department about reports that State Department FOIA specialists believed some of Secretary Clinton’s emails should be subject to the (b)(1), “Classified Information” exemption whereas attorneys within the Office of the Legal Advisor preferred to use the (b)(5), “Deliberative Process” exemption.

The investigation wasn’t started because she had a private server, it’s clearly a bit more complicated than that.

1

u/ZombieJetPilot Sep 27 '19

Might be, but maybe legal scholars disagree on that too ;P

2

u/NashvilleHot Sep 27 '19

I’m not familiar with the 2018 letter in question. However, from just what you wrote the crucial difference is that the senators’ request was not related to any election. Trump’s request for a “favor” is directly related to his campaign for re-election.

0

u/Landown Sep 27 '19

Of course it was related to an election, it was May of 2018 and they were afraid of how Ukraine shelfing the investigation would look. Writers at Washington Post and The Hill seem to agree with me that these cases are extremely similar.

1

u/iPinch89 Sep 27 '19

I think the power dynamic difference is important. The President can unilaterally deny them their military aid. A couple senators could make it harder but they dont have unilateral power.

The REAL issue involves the contextual difference between the senators urging a government to continue a legitimate investigation and to ignore threats coming from the president. It is completely different to tell a government to "manufacture" dirt on a political opponent or else.

1

u/Landown Sep 28 '19 edited Sep 28 '19

In either case, simply threatening to cut aid if the government didnt cooperate would be a step too far, but in neither case, not the senators or the president, has that been proven true. Also, you use “manufacture” in quotations. Where in the transcript has trump used that word, “manufacture?” The investigation was open under the Ukrianian prosecutor’s justice department and closed when he was removed. But, from my understanding, Hunter’s company’s case was rather cut-and-dry, and the British justice department was investigating it as well. When the case was closed after Urkaine’s prosecutor was removed, it was never re-opened. Why is that?

Is there any evidence that Joe Biden wasn’t so personally involved in trying to get Ukraine’s prosecutor out of office because he wanted the investigation into Hunter’s company to end?

Edit: there is however a case where someone did overtly threaten Ukraine with cuts in aid money; Joe Biden.

According to John Solomon’s Hill article, Joe himself brags on video that he did so. If Biden really was strong arming Urkaine to fire the prosecutor in charge of the investigation into Hunter’s company because he wanted to protect his son’s $50,000/month paycheck, that would be extremely illegal.

1

u/iPinch89 Sep 29 '19 edited Sep 29 '19

I put "manufacture" in quotes because Schiff said it. I also dont understand how you are drawing finalized conclusions when the only transcripts we've gotten have been scrubbed by the White House. The WB complaint alleged there are other talks that have been code-word classified for political reasons. This is suspicious as fuck and deserves investigation.

Edit: Also, if what Biden did was illegal, toss his ass in jail with Trump. Whataboutism isnt effective with me.

1

u/Landown Sep 30 '19

I can’t believe how often I have to point this out. There is a very clear process by which notes of calls like this one are taken, processed, and released. There are CIA career professionals working on this, it’s not Stephen Miller in the back room making redactions at will.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/largely-verbatim-situation-room-cia-veterans-say-trump-transcript-likely-complete-and-accurate?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

1

u/iPinch89 Oct 01 '19 edited Oct 01 '19

You say that it's a well defined process, and yet...here we are. A whistleblower is claiming that the President, on multiple occasions, is having politically sensitive conversations code-word level classified.

So maybe we got to see the least damning conversation between these two men. I find it highly unlikely that the least transparent president would willingly show us everything.

Edit:

"Deleting parts of a transcript — beyond “um’s” — could also be in violation of the Presidential Records Act."

Is that a defense? Because so is deleting his tweets and he does that all the time. This man does not care about the law. To allude that "he wouldnt dare delete parts of his transcript," is a joke.

-6

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

I'm surprised by how clear cut many on this thread and RB Reich find this point. Admittedly, I'm over my skis on the topic and RR was the editor of the Yale Law Journal among many other prestigious accolades.

Asking for an investigation, is not tantamount to a campaign contribution. Imagine if Ted Cruz, when running in 2016 asked a foreign government for more information on Benghazi? Could the information be valuable politically, absolutely. But it could also be valuable for other reasons. Calling that a campaign contribution simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

IMHO, there is only one smoking gun here. It's the question as to whether Trump abused power. If he did via a quid pro quo (Javelin Missiles), or by potentially withholding Ukrainian aid, then there is a case for impeachment.

Frankly, it's not clean cut, and RR's statement that DT asked a "foreign power to help him in the election" is a sloppy misrepresentation of the facts, even if it is an accurate statement about DT's likely intentions.

10

u/Amablue Sep 26 '19

Asking for an investigation, is not tantamount to a campaign contribution.

Not on its own, but the context is important. He's asking for dirt on a political opponent, not asking for a legitimate investigation on any open matter that has implications for the United States. This matter has already been settled, Trump just want opposition research.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/self-impeaching-trump-zelensky-conversation

Thus when Zelensky comes in with his ask—for the president’s support for Ukrainian efforts to acquire defensive equipment from the United States—Trump is ready. He immediately pivots to an ask of his own, telling Zelensky that “I would like you to do us a favor though[.]”

But the favor in question is not a policy favor for the United States. It’s a political favor for Trump. This is where Trump raises the issue of Crowdstrike, asking Zelensky to “find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine.” Recall that the conspiracy theory regarding Crowdstrike involves casting doubt on whether Russia really hacked the DNC and, thus, on whether Russia interfered in the 2016 election at all. Trump appears to be asking for Zelensky’s help in amplifying this theory—which supports Trump’s understanding of the Mueller probe as a “Witch Hunt”—and finding evidence to support it. His request for a “favor”—immediately after Zelensky references a prospective purchase—is easily understood as the president’s connecting the U.S.’s provision of defensive equipment to Zelinsky’s willingness to assist Barr on a matter of personal concern to the president.

When Zelensky responds positively, stating that “all the investigations will be done openly and candidly,” Trump digs in further with another request: “[W]hatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great,” he says, pushing Zelensky to commit to investigating Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. He requests repeatedly that Zelensky speak to Giuliani, who at this time was publicly calling for the Ukrainians to investigate the Bidens.

Here again, context is key. The president is invoking a debunked conspiracy theory about Hunter Biden, which—if successfully propagated—would weaken Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential candidacy.

So while the president and his supporters are correct that there is no explicit quid pro quo in the sense of a moment in which Trump says something like, “I will only give you those weapons you need if you help me with my reelection run,” the coercive context is not hard to infer from the text itself and the surrounding circumstances. A plain reading of the memo makes clear that the quid is funds for defense equipment and the quo is help from Zelensky in discrediting the Mueller investigation’s findings and Trump’s potential political opponent, Joe Biden. It may not be clear enough to satisfy the exacting standards of the criminal law. But remember, this is only one conversation in a long string of interactions, and Congress is not assessing whether the bribery or extortion statutes have been offended. It is assessing whether the president is fit to hold office.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/team-trump-unconvincing-ukraine-spin/

Let’s assume Joe Biden is guilty of something bad. We should still be appalled that the president of the United States would use his office to pressure foreign powers to do opposition research for him. I mean, my God, the day after Robert Mueller testified to Congress about his report investigating whether the Trump campaign had colluded with one foreign power, Russia, the president got on the horn and encouraged another foreign power, Ukraine, to help with his re-election.

If Trump threatened to withhold funds unless Ukrainian officials investigated Biden, that would make it worse, but the aid issue is something of a red herring. In the language of diplomacy, hectoring a foreign leader — eight times, according to the Wall Street Journal — to investigate a domestic political opponent is as subtle as wearing a sandwich board and clanging a cowbell.

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '19

That was a fantastic reply. That said, there are a number of leaps which you ascribe to "context" that are highly subjective.

He's asking for dirt on a political opponent, not asking for a legitimate investigation on any open matter that has implications for the United States.

He did not explicitly ask for dirt on a political opponent. He asked for further investigation into Biden's son and into servers he (erroneously) believes will show that the origin of the election tampering was in Ukraine. You claim that the "favor" was political, and I absolutely understand that assumption. But, it's a presumption of intent.

It may not be clear enough to satisfy the exacting standards of the criminal law.

This may be the most salient point. But it also speaks to the likelihood that the Senate trial would end in conviction.

Let’s assume Joe Biden is guilty of something bad. We should still be appalled that the president of the United States would use his office to pressure foreign powers to do opposition research for him.

No. If he did something bad and the president used his office to unveil it, we should not be appalled. Not at all. The only thing this speaks to is your political bias.

I'll restate my belief. The only real impeachable offense here is abuse of power as it relates to withholding Ukrainian aid. That could constitute a high crime and misdemeanor.

8

u/PM_ME_YOURE_HOOTERS Nebraska Sep 27 '19

I highly doubt if it was Obama asking for dirt on Trump that would be the read that Republicans would have. And Democrats need to quit playing fair with Republicans when they're constantly cheating. They're fucking treasonous to America for Christ's sake.

1

u/iPinch89 Sep 27 '19

I think the bigger issue is what was alluded to in various sources. If the president was extorting a foreign country to MANUFACTURE dirt, that's a problem. If he was extorting them to run a legitimate investigation, that's still pretty fucked up, but a little less so.

The problem to me is two-fold. The extortion and the "manufacturing."

0

u/StinkyLittleBalloons Sep 27 '19

If millions of dollars in Ukranian aid is being kicked back to political families, and we have no idea how deep this rabbit hole is, why shouldn't there be conditions to keep sending money? Is it unreasonable to ask assurance that the money is accounted for and not continue to be used to bribe US politicians?

Furthermore, knowing about the corruption and continuing to provide the funds would be aiding and abetting, an actual crime.

-3

u/walmartsucksmassived Sep 27 '19

What differentiates this from the Steele Dossier? Not trying to pick a fight, I swear. Just trying to have a good answer in case this ever comes up in my own shouting matches discussions

2

u/NashvilleHot Sep 27 '19

Well, the Steele Dossier was not a donation/contribution, for one. A “favor” is.

-1

u/The_Martian_King Sep 27 '19

I have no love for Trump. Nevertheless, I don't think that statute is as clear as you think. I'd a prosecution a "donation?"

1

u/Amablue Sep 27 '19

Can you clarify your question?

-2

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

[deleted]

9

u/Amablue Sep 26 '19

He asked for a thing of value to him, an investigation into a political opponent.

5

u/ElolvastamEzt Sep 27 '19

Things don’t have to be money to have value.

-6

u/Intrepidacious Sep 27 '19

Look. I ABSOLUTELY HATE DONALD TRUMP, but he didn’t come out and say it like that. I know that’s what he meant, you know, the press, everyone in the world knows. Nevertheless, he didn’t come out and say it explicitly.

5

u/Amablue Sep 27 '19

https://www.lawfareblog.com/self-impeaching-trump-zelensky-conversation

So while the president and his supporters are correct that there is no explicit quid pro quo in the sense of a moment in which Trump says something like, “I will only give you those weapons you need if you help me with my reelection run,” the coercive context is not hard to infer from the text itself and the surrounding circumstances. A plain reading of the memo makes clear that the quid is funds for defense equipment and the quo is help from Zelensky in discrediting the Mueller investigation’s findings and Trump’s potential political opponent, Joe Biden. It may not be clear enough to satisfy the exacting standards of the criminal law. But remember, this is only one conversation in a long string of interactions, and Congress is not assessing whether the bribery or extortion statutes have been offended. It is assessing whether the president is fit to hold office.

92

u/ThePowellMemo1984 Colorado Sep 26 '19

This is the most beautiful irony of all, in my opinion.

Trump got away with much of his conduct during the 2016 election because he became the President and they decided they (for some reason) couldn’t indict him.

And now, he will be undone by his acts as President here because he is currently a candidate for office in 2020 making these acts explicitly illegal, even for the president

It’s spectacular, because Nixon’s “it’s not illegal if a president does it” has largely been true for Trump with his protectors. He found the one ironclad way to fuck himself.

14

u/RevengingInMyName America Sep 27 '19

I think this is funny because it was right after the mueller report turned out to not be the final nail. So two days later trump decides to start making more nails. Trump is the ultimate chump.

8

u/str8s-are-4-fags Sep 27 '19

This sums it up. Tho I gotta stress. It's less like he was looking and found a way to fuck himself. More like he is a walking vortex of crime and corruption and this particular instance among many others is one that he isn't protected from. All he had to do was not do this one thing. Even that.m was too much.

1

u/RexTheHumanTripod Sep 27 '19

Could you explain that in a little more detail. I'm trying to follow what you're stating and somewhere within I'm lost.

97

u/CloudsGotInTheWay Sep 26 '19

Trump has already broken the law merely by asking a foreign power to help him in the election. No cheeseburger (or any other quid pro quo) needed.

Thank you for delivering this point. Let's not get into the wormhole of the "there's no quid pro quo" argument. This is simple: the President abused his power and position in asking a foreign power to help him in an election.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '19

Didn't he do the same thing with Russia?

70

u/ParanoidDrone Louisiana Sep 26 '19

I feel like what we need (or maybe not "need" but would still be useful) is an infographic or something that lists, step by step, what happened, including all the technically-legal bits between the myriad of illegal actions. Then highlight each illegal act with a big, red, inline annotation saying "this is illegal." "So is this." "This too." On and on ad nauseaum.

17

u/Jasonicca Sep 26 '19 edited Sep 26 '19

Its not complicated. The President is in a unique position of power. Using that power for personal gain is unconstitutional and illegal and obviously extremely unethical. He cannot use his powers as President to help his campaign for re-election.

Its not simply about withholding money to Ukraine. Economic sanctions are basically 'withholding money' from countries in order to get them to behave better - it happens all the time. Its about using his power to get a foreign country to do something in order to advantage his own position in the 2020 election.

As President he has access to foreign leaders with whom the US has all kinds of political and economic relationships, he is privy to classified information, he is the Commander in Chief of the US military. He has powers that clearly should not be used for his personal gain.

When a President does abuse these powers its something that needs to be investigated. The fact that he tried to cover it up makes it look even worse.

2

u/space_moron American Expat Sep 27 '19

It doesn't matter if it's complicated or not. It matters that right wing pundits are muddying the waters by confusing the public both about what happened and what's is or isn't a "big deal". A precise infographic would help fix the goal posts in place and confront whatever talking points are being marched out.

2

u/SheilaGirl70 Sep 27 '19

Well said!!

7

u/neuronexmachina Sep 26 '19

This is a really good idea.

5

u/thoughtsforgotten Sep 26 '19

an infographic using the layers of a cheeseburger for the hamberder in chief

2

u/TexaMichigandar Michigan Sep 26 '19

I have needed a flow chart for a while now.

1

u/RexTheHumanTripod Sep 27 '19

If you don't mind, I'd like to add a point of "and nobody ever did xyz" except for trump so that when you explain it to people you can whap them when they say, "everyone does it."

1

u/Room480 Texas Sep 27 '19

Yes u should make onr

19

u/BaronVonStevie Louisiana Sep 26 '19

This is a great example, found within his talking points I might add, of Trump displaying ignorance of the laws he so clearly doesn't respect to begin with. Is this ignorance of the law there on purpose? I'm so tired of this endless cycle of debasement of our legal and ethical norms.

1

u/nomorerainpls Sep 27 '19

I think he’s gotten away with this sort of behavior so long he‘s become too lazy to even bother learning about the laws he’s breaking

16

u/Neat_On_The_Rocks Sep 26 '19

And I think its important to point out that Trump Literally went on record as saying he would be happy to seek foreign aid in the 2020 election, in the general sense. He said it'd be the smart thign to do.

This was maybe in June? April? I dont know it was 2019 though.

4

u/Farrell-Mars Sep 26 '19

I do recall him saying something like that to Stephanapoulos. It seems he’s just ignorant enough and arrogant enough to believe his own press. “Oh, I guess this is going to be fine now, nobody will care, it’s summer and while I didn’t have a julep at the Kentucky Derby bc I don’t drink, and Obama sent Hillary an email about that. . .”

The look on his face has alway been troubling but he now looks every bit the mad, addled old bum he’s always been, but that he succeeded at least partly in hiding until now.

It also says “I’m toast.”

2

u/moelarrycheese Sep 26 '19

I thought one of the defenses was that Trump wanted Ukraine to help the US root out corruption. The Bidens were complicit with corruption in Ukraine, therefore, help the US root out the Biden corruption. Nothing wrong with that. But, yeah everything is wrong with that. He could have asked for more intel on the corruption perpetrated by Manafort, but he didn't ask for that did he?

1

u/nomorerainpls Sep 27 '19

He also said the FBI director was wrong when confronted

172

u/MCallanan Sep 26 '19

I’m surprised more people aren’t talking about this. Surprisingly one of the few is conservative Judge Napolitano.

55

u/GearBrain Florida Sep 26 '19

They're talking about it because the GOP keep lying and saying there "needs to be a quid pro quo for a quid pro quo to happen", and then insisting that there was no quid pro quo.

This is wrong, however, because there was a quid pro quo, AND one doesn't have to exist for Trump to be impeached using this scenario.

13

u/LaFlamaBlancaMiM Sep 26 '19

I’m amazed at the misinformation on this. They (GOP) think it’s perfectly legal.

17

u/FSMFan_2pt0 Alabama Sep 26 '19

No they don't. If Obama had done this, to them it would be the most illegal thing ever committed in the history of crime. They know it's illegal, they are lying in order to play team ball.

8

u/vvash Sep 26 '19

99% of Fox News watchers doesn’t know what quid pro quo means

2

u/cIumsythumbs Sep 27 '19

Do they know sic semper tyrannis?

7

u/reachthepoo Florida Sep 26 '19

Democrats are

Republican talking points are not.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '19

Because it’s probably a nothingburger. It shouldn’t be, but this is the reality of 2019. He is king

15

u/lannister80 Illinois Sep 26 '19

Trump has already broken the law merely by asking a foreign power to help him in the election.

I keep hearing the argument that Trump is not "asking foreign power to help him in the election", is just so happens that Biden and his son are corrupt and Trump wants Ukraine to crack down on corruption.

It doesn't pass the smell test in the slightest, but I don't know how to rebut the plausible deniability aspect. How do we do that?

8

u/michelloto Sep 27 '19

If Trump was interested in an actual investigation, there are government channels that he could have gone through. No need to sneak a phone call. Trump didn't want that. He wanted manufactured dirt, because the Ukrainians had already investigated and found no wrong doing.

3

u/lannister80 Illinois Sep 27 '19

If Trump was interested in an actual investigation, there are government channels that he could have gone through. No need to sneak a phone call.

Devil's advocate:

  • Trump doesn't work that way, he likes to talk leader-to-leader.
  • He wasn't doing anything wrong because he knew other people were listening.
  • He doesn't trust government channels (US or Ukrainian), deep state is out to undermine him.
  • He released the aid to Ukraine before the whistleblower complaint was publicly known.
  • He released the aid to Ukraine without getting anything back from them.

7

u/BeatsMeByDre Sep 27 '19

....Trump....wants to cut down...on corruption?

1

u/Charakada Sep 27 '19

First of all, do not accept that the published memorandum on the July phone call is a "transcript". It is not and explicitly says so on the document itself. These are not the exact words of the call. The exact words are on a top secret computer, where they were placed, apparently in order to hide them.

In addition, the call was one of many contacts between Trump and others, such as Pence, Giuliani, Barr, and others, with Ukrainians about exactly this issue. There is tons of public info on this, in part because neither Trump nor Giuliani can keep their mouths shut. For a partial, but informative rundown, see today's NYTimes: Trump’s Efforts to Push UkraineToward a Biden Inquiry: A Timeline

5

u/gamefaqs_astrophys Massachusetts Sep 26 '19

This would be an excellent point for you to bring up whenever you get invited onto new shows/discussion panels over the coming days, to pound it in again and again to help people get this important thing so they realize just how criminal Trump has been and to ramp up pressure on those who continue to defend him.

Could you please try to make sure to do this? (That's my question.)

11

u/TheJawsThemeSong Sep 26 '19

This has been a lot to take in, but has it been proven that Trump initiated the investigation of Biden specifically to help him in the election? Obviously that's the reason why he initiated it, but would he explicitly need to say (or did he explicitly say), "I want you to investigate this person because it would help me in the election"? Like is there any type of deniability he could give, assuming the whistleblower's claims all check out?

1

u/Charakada Sep 27 '19

If a mugger merely points a gun at you and holds out his hand, but doesn't say " give me your wallet or I'll shoot you," have you been robbed or merely threatened with a gun? Maybe you just assumed he wanted your money. He didn't ask, after all.

15

u/OEscalador Sep 26 '19

So is there no way Trump could ask a foreign country to investigate something done in their country by a political rival? (This isn't my view, just not sure how to respond to this.)

36

u/not-working-at-work Illinois Sep 26 '19

If this were a real investigation, it would be done entirely through the justice department or FBI.

Instead, this was being handled by Rudy Giuliani, who is not an employee of the federal government and is accountable to no one - he is Trump’s personal attorney.

There are ways to investigate criminal wrongdoing by anyone - running for office does not make you immune to prosecution or investigation.

The way this was done makes it clear that this was not that.

→ More replies (8)

34

u/GreenBax1985 Sep 26 '19

That's what the U.S. Intelligence apparatus is for. Literally, Trump has the resources to investigate anything he wants, anywhere on the globe yet he asked a foreign government to do it for him.

3

u/yuk83 Sep 26 '19

He can ask us intelligence or any other country help in investigation. The problem is you can not due this for personal interest.

3

u/Qwerty1234567890_2 Sep 27 '19

Yeah but the US Intelligence apparatus would find the truth and he isn't looking for that.

13

u/iclimbnaked Sep 26 '19

Yep Id like an answer to this.

​

I feel like he cant and if the president legitimately thought there was something illegal done that he should hand it off to the FBI and stay out of it him/herself.

​

Just not sure if this is one of those situations where you have to prove the president had political motives or if no matter what its illegal.

5

u/boppitywop Sep 26 '19

There are plenty of diplomatic ways the US government could ask a foreign government to investigate something done by a US citizen, even a political rival of the current administration. However, in any of the traditional methods, it would be a documented matter of policy with intelligence organizations and the state department working on the issue. The president wouldn't be involved unless it was absolutely necessary. And it certainly would not a operation managed by the president's personal attorney, with military aid being withheld as a complete surprise to the rest of the US diplomatic corp.

Most importantly, let's say there was actual significant misgivings about corruption of a political rival, the president would do everything possible to document how they went about this the correct way so that there was no hint of partisan taint. Every i should have been dotted, so that there was no appearance of conflict of interest.

3

u/neuronexmachina Sep 26 '19

If it's a legit national concern, he can send an official request. Ukraine actually said that they'd open an investigation if the US sent an official request, instead of Trump trying to get them to do it on the downlow

2

u/yuk83 Sep 26 '19

Dis they asked for official request est? missed this from docs.

3

u/neuronexmachina Sep 26 '19

From 6 days ago:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukraine-is-ready-to-investigate-bidens-sonbut-only-if-theres-an-official-us-request

Ukraine is ready to investigate the connections Joe Biden’s son Hunter had with the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings, according to Anton Geraschenko, a senior adviser to the country’s interior minister who would oversee such an inquiry.

Geraschenko told The Daily Beast in an exclusive interview that “as soon as there is an official request" Ukraine will look into the case, but “currently there is no open investigation.”

“Clearly,” said Geraschenko, “Trump is now looking for kompromat to discredit his opponent Biden, to take revenge for his friend Paul Manafort, who is serving seven years in prison.” Among the counts on which Manafort was convicted: tax evasion. “We do not investigate Biden in Ukraine, since we have not received a single official request to do so,” said Geraschenko.

2

u/Farrell-Mars Sep 26 '19

FYI, the answer is a simple “No.”

He is President, and the President is an employee of the US Federal Government thanks to your tax dollars.

Therefore:

For him to suggest that the sovereign word of one nation (the US) is now for sale to another sovereign entity for personal political gain is textbook treason and with the evidence published, there is no place from which to mount a defense. This has been the largest and heaviest and smokiest smoking gun we’ve seen in a good long while!

2

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

[deleted]

3

u/iclimbnaked Sep 26 '19

It is treason

No, no its not.

Legally speaking treason has to involve a country we are adversaries with.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

This is correct - this podcast by a constitutional scholar spells out what treason is - https://trumpconlaw.com/27-treason

1

u/NashvilleHot Sep 27 '19

It may not be technically treason but he is still a traitor to America.

1

u/nevertulsi Sep 26 '19

Not a lawyer but I don't think so. Here's the thing. For an election campaign you can't get anything of value from a foreign government. I mean someone correct me if I'm wrong. But he can't ask for a favor that will help him get reelected any more than he can ask for 10 million dollars in a contribution to his campaign.

-2

u/reverendrambo South Carolina Sep 26 '19

This is what I'm most confused about. Surely anything a president seeking reelection does regarding foreign relations could be considered seeking interference, could it not?

5

u/GSpanFan Sep 26 '19

No. He was asking for information specifically about a single individual for which he'd receive specific benefit. I think we'd not be having this conversation if Biden's name was not mentioned in that conversation with the Ukraine president and Trump had demanded a general investigation into corruption even if that was an explicit a condition for receiving the aid.

8

u/harveytaylorbridge Sep 26 '19

Uhh, he's asking for dirt on his opponent. That's a lot more specific than "anything".

-1

u/reverendrambo South Carolina Sep 26 '19

So it's the circumstances that make it suspect, not the actual request for investigation.

3

u/NashvilleHot Sep 27 '19

The content and context of the request are what makes it suspect (and illegal, not to mention un-American). The president should be working for the interests of the American people. Asking a foreign government (secretly) to investigate a political rival and manufacture dirt for his personal electoral gain is bad no matter how you parse it.

→ More replies (23)

1

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '19

That seems like a fairly large accusation to be throwing around isn't one of the big controversies why he asked for the investigation. Even though that is your opinion it doesn't seem safe to be staying it as fact given all the information.

1

u/michelloto Sep 27 '19

The argument some of Rob Blagojevich' supporters was that 'he didn't get anything'. Didn't work out for ol' Rob, now didn't it?

1

u/shrimp_demon Sep 26 '19

Not necessary, but isn't extortion with taxpayer money to those ends a WORSE crime?

1

u/GarbledReverie Sep 27 '19

But... Trump already did that on live TV in 2016 and paid no consequences for it.

0

u/WhenImTryingToHide Sep 26 '19

But he didn't ask for help "in the election" he asked for help investigating a politician who may be corrupt.

That's the reasoning that I'm sure many people will use in defense.

1

u/MadFlava76 Virginia Sep 27 '19

But now I’m hungry for a cheeseburger

-1

u/incapablepanda Texas Sep 26 '19

Couldn't it be argued that it's merely coincidental that Biden happens to be involved in this investigation of alleged corruption within Ukraine? I want this guy gone as much as any of you, but I'm just imagining all the bullshit we'll hear on Fox in the coming days and weeks.

4

u/Cercy_Leigh Pennsylvania Sep 26 '19

That’s why we have different agencies for checks and balances.

If trump really thought there was something to investigate and god forbid he’d not want appearances to look like he’s taking advantage of his power, why wouldn’t he allow a neutral agency handle this? Instead he directs them to a private citizen and the actual AG? Both of whom are ridiculously loyal to him?

Why would they risk the appearance of doing something that would be an impeachable offense unless he was

0

u/eFrazes Sep 26 '19

With all due respect, the problem with this answer is that it does nothing to convince the undecided of not just the illegality but also the ethical and moral norms being broken by Trump.

What I think OP is trying to construct is an allegorical explanation of how Trump is in the wrong with a simple to understand metaphor.

0

u/Izodius Sep 26 '19

Everyone says this but doesn’t specify the law of is it within scope of the Emoluments Clause?

9

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

[deleted]

2

u/Izodius Sep 26 '19

Thank§

-6

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '19

He never mentioned it being about an election in the transcript. He asked for clarification about what happened.

Seeing as though Joe Biden used TAX PAYER money to leverage the end of the investigation on his son, Trump should be asking for investigations about what happened.

Please point to me exactly where Trump broke the law. Because as far as I’m concerned, this whole thing is complete BS political theater, just like every other accusation that’s been brought up over the past 3 years.

-8

u/midnightrambler108 Sep 26 '19

Technically he wasn't asking for help directly for an election it's just insinuated he was. And Technically there is no guarantee that Biden would even be involved in the upcoming election.

As a lowly peon with a degree in bull shit this is a dog and pony show just like the last one.

4

u/Cercy_Leigh Pennsylvania Sep 26 '19

Then what was he doing? He and Rudy decided to become Sherlock Holmes and Watson? Presidents and their civilians lawyers aren’t investigators. He has a whole agency that would handle that.

Biden announced his run in April. Unless you mean because he may not be the D candidate. In that case it’s been no secret that most people thought Biden would be the front runner. Trump had the opportunity to take out the big dog - just so happens the people he thought could help him also needed him. It’s like the starts aligned perfectly here

Saying the president, his lawyer and the AG decided they had nothing better to do than conduct their own investigations is just bizarre.

Occam’s razor tell us it’s definitely exactly what it looks like.

-8

u/midnightrambler108 Sep 26 '19

This is how politics is played in the US. But there is no way of proving "election interference" because arguably there isn't one currently going on.

Nobody has voted. For President, for Nominee. For nothing.

This is just an example of both sides throwing mud to see what will stick.

My bet is that there is probably something sinister behind Biden's actions and Trump wants to get revenge for all the things he's had to put up with.

It's a dog & pony show. It's the same as it's always been.

4

u/Cercy_Leigh Pennsylvania Sep 26 '19

Do you watch Trump? Like regularly? He has no problem telling us who he is and what he feels he’s entitled to.

He was a complete wreck and so was Giuliani. They tried to keep the report hidden, they removed the conversation with the Ukraine from the server these files belong on and hid it. You’d have be in some serious cognitive dissonance to not see reality here.

Unless you’re being purposely obtuse. Then carry on...

-5

u/midnightrambler108 Sep 26 '19

You’d have be in some serious cognitive dissonance to not see reality here.

What is the truth? That is the reality.

The Democrats are already talking about impeachment and nothing has been proven yet. Just like Russia, it seems an awful lot like a witch hunt.

3

u/stix4 Sep 26 '19

“As a lowly peon...” well, you got something right.

-5

u/midnightrambler108 Sep 26 '19

I'm not even an American.

This AMA Dog and Pony show is just an addendum to the main dog and pony show. Robert Reich doesn't have any additional knowledge to the subject. Everything he adds is just more bull shit.

Starting a thread with "Let's talk about impeachment!" doesn't really indicate that the Left is after the truth. They have an objective and therefore cannot be objective.

Me on the other hand, well I can see through it.

-7

u/Flamingmonkey923 Sep 26 '19

Could you please elaborate here? It's honestly hard for me to follow. Does this hinge on the fact that there's no reasonable nonpolitical rationale to investigate Biden?

If the President asked a foreign nation to open or reopen an investigation on an at-large terrorist, would that also be against the law?

6

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

It is illegal because of the potential for a quid pro quo situation. Note that there doesn't HAVE to be an explicit quid pro quo. It is illegal regardless.

These kinds of situation are never free. You can't ask a foreign nation "hey help me out" without there being an implicit understanding that doing so will also benefit the foreign nation in some way.

Like, in this case Ukraine. Why would Ukraine want to help any presidential candidate at all? They won't be doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. No country would. There would inevitably be some agenda behind their decision to do so, and this agenda might or might not align with the interests of the people of the United States. And the candidate might have promised something in return for the help. In this case, it was foreign aid and Crimea.

The president serves at the disposition of the people, since you know the whole "government by and for the people" thing, not foreign interests. So our political system has made it illegal for any candidate to request foreign aid in any situation, because there is no justification to do so and there is a huge potential for malfeasance. We can't ever be sure that there wasn't a promise involved that would harm the interests of the American people, so it was just straight up made illegal.

1

u/Flamingmonkey923 Sep 26 '19

Just to be clear, I'm not defending Trump here. I think you'd have to be inexcusably naive to believe that he was not using withholding foreign aid in order to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent so that he could run a smear campaign. He should absolutely be impeached and removed from office over it (and a thousand other things he's done in the last 2 years.)

The GOP argument (which you'd have to be incredibly naive to believe) is that Trump was not asking for personal help on his 2020 campaign. Their argument is that he was asking them in good-faith to investigate a crime that happened on their soil, and the fact that he's convinced that his political opponent is involved is entirely coincidental.

My question is: is this in-itself illegal? Cause if it is, then we should just be hammering that note endlessly.

If that's not illegal, then do we have to prove it was politically motivated, and therefore a request to help his 2020 campaign?

2

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

I mean, likewise, why would Trump request a foreign leader to investigate anyone at all in particular? Ukraine is perfectly capable of investigating its own affairs, and if Biden did anything illegal to the United States, the FBI/CIA, the executive branch, or any other relevant organization could conduct their own investigations. There is no reason for Trump to explicitly request Ukraine to do anything.

If Biden had done something illegal, Trump could have his administration handle the investigation, and then go "this guy did something illegal in your country, this is what he did, this is why we believe it, so investigate if you want I guess, we are still sentencing first though". That he has NOT done so is highly suggestive. The US has never once cared one iota about other nations' investigations, why is it suddenly a thing now, and with Biden of all people?

0

u/Flamingmonkey923 Sep 26 '19

I agree with you. It's insanely obvious that he's soliciting a foreign government to open an investigation for the sole purpose of interfering with the 2020 election.

My only question is what specifically needs to be established to prove that he committed a crime here? He admitted to asking the Ukrainian government to open an investigation. Is that enough, or do we need to go through the trivial motions of proving that his intent was political?

3

u/ArtieJay Arizona Sep 26 '19

Is the at large terrorist running for president? No? Then he's not asking for foreign help in an election.

0

u/thoughtsforgotten Sep 26 '19

earnestly though-- how do we prove it was expressly for election help?

0

u/Cawdor Sep 26 '19

Why is it a crime now but not when he did it in 2016 on tv?

-14

u/gizram84 Sep 26 '19

Trump has already broken the law merely by asking a foreign power to help him in the election

He never asked for help in an election. He asked for information about a crime that was committed.

7

u/Anti-Anti-Paladin I voted Sep 26 '19

Which raises the question: why did the President want that particular person to be investigated?

He could have directed any of the various law enforcement/intelligence agencies under his employ to investigate a crime that he believe was committed.

Instead, he wanted his personal lawyer to meet with these people and get information so it could be kept quiet, and had information regarding this request purposefully hidden from official records.

Now ask yourself: Why on earth would he do that?

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (6)

12

u/JackAceHole California Sep 26 '19

Is this a good analogy of the situation to describe the the implication of quid pro quo?

Not really, because I can't imagine Trump ever giving up a cheeseburger.

3

u/ghostinthelatrine Sep 26 '19

Great analogy. Although I think in every mention of this part of the conversation, it is vital to add the word “though” to the end of the sentence.

As in, what Donald actually said was: “I would like you to do us a favour though.”

This adds a significant change of meaning to the sentence, making it difficult to argue that it isn’t linked to the previous part of the conversation.

2

u/bomphcheese Colorado Sep 26 '19

I’m trying to wrap my head around all this. For a moment let’s set the quid pro quo aid aside, since that is obviously an abuse of power.

Pretending that didn’t happen ...

A

Candidate(s)/Senator(s) > Oppo research firm > Hires foreign non-government entity to find dirt on opponent.

B

Candidate/President > Asks foreign government entity to find dirt on opponent.

—-

Compare and contrast.

  1. Trump is directly using his position, which is its own abuse of power, even without considering aid.
  2. Fusion GPS was registered with and accountable to the FEC.
  3. Gov vs Non-Gov. That is important, though I don’t like the idea of using foreign entities either way.

What else?

Would Trump still be in trouble for this if he hired Fusion, who hired Steele, who spoke to the Ukrainian government?

Does an intermediary or two fundamentally change the ethical nature of the two events?

7

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

[deleted]

2

u/Gators44 Sep 27 '19

You mean like diverting money from the military to pay for a wall?

10

u/riding_qwerty Sep 26 '19

I believe you mean "hamberder"

2

u/Officer412-L Illinois Sep 26 '19

Trump is

The Hamberdlar

1

u/Grombro Sep 27 '19

Cheeseberder.

5

u/mountainOlard I voted Sep 26 '19

Well put.

1

u/sweensolo Arizona Sep 27 '19

But, hear me out. What if the guy dangling those hamburgers was working directly for the guy who is LITERALLY MURDERING people in your country, and instead of hamberders, it was 400 million dollars of antitank missiles to influence an election, straight into the pocket of the military industrial complex... I can't do this anymore.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

Fantastic analogy. Well done.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

you forgot the part about Trump denying that he ever spoke to Mr Reich and that he has never seen a cheeseburger.

1

u/Juancervantes22 Sep 27 '19

Why can the blue men jail me for not paying taxes but I can't walk around with a gun asking for money?

1

u/nomorerainpls Sep 27 '19

I would find your analogy more credible if it involved hamberders

1

u/fishcado Sep 27 '19

Republicans would tell you this is a nothingburger.

1

u/CheesusHToast Sep 26 '19

It is.

And now I want a cheeseburger

1

u/SilentR0b Massachusetts Sep 26 '19

Now I wish I had a cheesebuger.

1

u/Officer412-L Illinois Sep 26 '19

The Hamberdlar

0

u/Sati1984 Europe Sep 27 '19 edited Sep 30 '19

He hands you the cheeseburger, but you can't eat it, since - as you examine it more closely - it turns out that be it was a nothingburger all along.

EDIT: thx for the dowvote - it was a joke.

1

u/imbadatreddit Sep 26 '19

*cheeseberder

-6

u/StinkyLittleBalloons Sep 26 '19

Terrible analogy. Millions of dollars were being given out as bribes. Trump told the Ukrain to rout out the corruption. If criminals hamper their own election by committing crimes, you can't pass the blame.

Unless of course, the investigation is based on false pretenses with the intent of election interference. But that's a fantasy. The evidence is clear to begin investigations and only the US can exonerate the Bidens, not the Ukrain.

→ More replies (7)