Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Is It Ever OK for a President to Ask a Foreign Country to Investigate a Political Rival?
UW_Doog_Bot
Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 16,182 
in Tug Tavern
What about Trump’s requests for foreign investigations of former Vice President Biden? Can they be defended from an impeachment charge on the ground that Trump was acting in good faith?
Maybe good faith wouldn’t be an adequate defense if Trump violated campaign finance laws by seeking a “thing of value” from foreign governments in support of his reelection campaign. But I would argue that some presidential conversations with foreign leaders must be considered beyond the scope of campaign finance regulation. The exercise of commander in chief responsibility in pursuit of the national interest should not get caught up in the interpretation of regulations that fundamentally are designed to protect American elections from foreign money.
Nor is a quid pro quo offer—if that is what Trump made to Ukraine when asking for an investigation—necessarily a sign of bad faith. Such an offer could be considered legitimate if it is in the service of a valid foreign policy objective, as Michael McFaul, President Barack Obama’s ambassador to Russia, recently observed.
These points are not to suggest that Trump was justified in requesting foreign investigation of Biden. Rather, they help point the focus of the inquiry where it belongs: on Trump’s motive. Congress must determine whether the president had a good-faith basis for believing that Biden engaged in any impropriety, comparable with Nixon’s or Burr’s, that could justify the kind of requests Trump made to Ukraine and China. From all the available evidence right now, it strains credulity for Trump’s defenders to claim he is acting in good faith, but Congress must make an official judgment as part of any formal impeachment proceedings.
How can Congress establish that Trump’s motive was nefarious? For starters, the House will need to show that the Biden allegations are so spurious as to be necessarily made in bad faith. That will open the impeachment inquiry to whatever contrary evidence Trump can muster, unavoidably making Biden a focus of the inquiry—something Democrats presumably would prefer to avoid.
https://politico.com/magazine/amp/story/2019/10/06/trump-ukraine-investigate-rival-229341?fbclid=IwAR03jGrUfoTOj-y4BX3C6o9eRRSb8qckG6puFIR20ICVmiTrwP9_OCakatg
Maybe good faith wouldn’t be an adequate defense if Trump violated campaign finance laws by seeking a “thing of value” from foreign governments in support of his reelection campaign. But I would argue that some presidential conversations with foreign leaders must be considered beyond the scope of campaign finance regulation. The exercise of commander in chief responsibility in pursuit of the national interest should not get caught up in the interpretation of regulations that fundamentally are designed to protect American elections from foreign money.
Nor is a quid pro quo offer—if that is what Trump made to Ukraine when asking for an investigation—necessarily a sign of bad faith. Such an offer could be considered legitimate if it is in the service of a valid foreign policy objective, as Michael McFaul, President Barack Obama’s ambassador to Russia, recently observed.
These points are not to suggest that Trump was justified in requesting foreign investigation of Biden. Rather, they help point the focus of the inquiry where it belongs: on Trump’s motive. Congress must determine whether the president had a good-faith basis for believing that Biden engaged in any impropriety, comparable with Nixon’s or Burr’s, that could justify the kind of requests Trump made to Ukraine and China. From all the available evidence right now, it strains credulity for Trump’s defenders to claim he is acting in good faith, but Congress must make an official judgment as part of any formal impeachment proceedings.
How can Congress establish that Trump’s motive was nefarious? For starters, the House will need to show that the Biden allegations are so spurious as to be necessarily made in bad faith. That will open the impeachment inquiry to whatever contrary evidence Trump can muster, unavoidably making Biden a focus of the inquiry—something Democrats presumably would prefer to avoid.
https://politico.com/magazine/amp/story/2019/10/06/trump-ukraine-investigate-rival-229341?fbclid=IwAR03jGrUfoTOj-y4BX3C6o9eRRSb8qckG6puFIR20ICVmiTrwP9_OCakatg
Tagged:
Comments
My biggest problem here is not the aforementioned issue. I could live with it either way. My problem is that the bidens clearly made money off of political thievery and the rats under The Bitch, the Secretary of State, clearly were utilizing the Russians to gather dirt on Trump. If neither were seeking political advantages and then wanted to be President, I would not be as upset. But in this case biden is running for President and so was The Bitch. Why are rats not interested in pursuing those investigations?
What is good for the goose must be good for the gander. The bias and inconsistency in this instance is what breaks down our system of laws and government.
If I'm Trump, I'm praying-doog-gif Biden is the DNC choice.
El oh fucking El.
Good luck with that.
In the meantime, trump’s DOJ, FBI, and State Department could investigate this corruption any time they deem it worthwhile and anywhere it leads.
Who’s the right man for this? Huber, Horowitz or Durham?