Was it legal for Trump to ask Ukraine to investigate the Bidens?

There are actual laws around this. Nixon had a habit of doing this sort of thing so in response Congress passed laws to set some rules on how the President can deal with appropriated money. Nixon used to override Congress all the time and withhold appropriations arbitrarily.

Putting aside the fact that Trump withheld money for political reasons, there are actual laws from the 70s that set the procedure for the distribution of appropriations. The laws even state that OMB can only hold money for 45 days (unless they request that Congress rescind an appropriation which extends the clock a little bit but still not indefinitely).

 

I found a very illuminating article on this subject here: https://www.lawfareblog.com/role-omb-withholding-ukrainian-aid

According to Lawfare, Congress, the State Dept, and Defense Dept seems to have done everything normally, but the Office of Management and Budget somewhat mysteriously was holding up funds. There was some discussion of a broader hold-up using rescission requests to reduce govt waste in foreign aid, but OMB didn't go through with it. Republicans in Congress were mad about the Executive stepping on their powers of the purse. So the aid to Ukraine was held by OMB far longer than the 45 days, no rescission request was made to even justify 45 days, and the OMB is refusing all subpoenas. In addition to all the abuse of power stuff, it looks like the President did overstep his authority in withholding funds regardless of his motivation. Not even legitimate foreign policy interests can justify withholding funds according to this.

 

I don't understand why the money can be held up by the President in the first place

 

pro quo on the down low, bro

 

No. First it was "fake news." Never happened. Then there was a "sketchy" conversation. Then it was perfect.

 

on the crime/legality/illegality question. for what it's worth

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2019-11-13-impeachment-what-is-the-crime

 

Not only was it illegal, but it was also bribery. That is one of the only two crimes listed as being impeachable.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/impeachment-bribery/601591/

Let's look at this. It is plain and clear.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/constitution-says-bribery-impeachable-what-does-mean

Can we quit pretending that Trump hasn't done something impeachable? He has. He is guilty of doing one of the only two specific things laid out in the constitution to warrant impeachment.

 

If a US Citizen conspired with a foreign country to interfere with our elections would that not be levying war against us as well as adhering to our enemies? What Trump has done is wage war against the US through foreign entities. It is very much treason.

 

So you have to legally prove there was something asked for in return... if not then it's just your feelings and opinions. That's the problem with this impeachment movement. In court you have to have evidence to accuse someone of a crime. This isn't a court though. It's a kangaroo court.

 

The Biden investigation announcement is what was asked for in return. Trump's chief of staff has admitted that. There is tons of evidence showing that. It's all there.

 

I think it is a stretch to say he did it for help in the election only cause he never explicitly says that

 

That isn't a stretch to say that at all. There is no other reason for doing it. The guy supports Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Russia, North Korea, Israel, the Philippines, and then all of a sudden he worries about corruption when it has to do with Ukraine? And the only thing that he asks to be investigated regarding Ukraine is the Bidens.

He said he would only release the congressionally passed package to Ukraine if they publicly announced they were investigating the Bidens.

 

Wharrver those are still assumptions

 

reasonable assumptions are different than a stretch.

 

I am glad I listening and not watching today. Oof.

 

Thanks for explaining. I can't go that far with you. Undermining fair elections is really bad, but I don't think it's war.

 

This explains everything nicely. Analysis of the Quid Pro Quo by Legal Eagle; stellar explanation from a neutral source

 

Going to the interfering with elections card is a stretch from here. Theere is no proof

 

Yes, I saw elsewhere that you don't think you can show corrupt motive unless Trump said explicitly that he wanted to damage Biden politically. That is a burden of proof higher than beyond reasonable doubt. No court requires a confession as the only way to establish intent. I don't think that's reasonable at all. So I won't try to demonstrate his guilt to you because you cannot be satisfied.