Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump

[Dill]

(09-27-2019, 09:50 AM)Goalpost Wrote: So Nunez mentioned the letter that Dems sent to Ukraine during the Mueller investigation. Not sure if it has been posted on here, but here it is.

https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/5-4-18%20Menendez%20joint%20letter%20to%20General%20Prosecutor%20of%20Ukraine%20on%20Mueller%20investigation.pdf

I guess my question is....these are senior Senators whom Trump is obviously their political foe.  They re NOT part of Mueller' team.  They hold influence in appropriating money to Ukraine.  Is this proper and aren't they implying how to investigate with a quid pro quo.

It seems "proper"; but I have some questions.  Check out article 1 of this treaty we signed with the Ukraine in 1998. https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/12978-Ukraine-Law-Enforcement-MLAT-7.22.1998.pdf.  Ukraine is expected to cooperate with US investigations.  A possible problem here is that according to the Treaty such inquiries are expected to be initiated by a "central authority," in this case the AG's office, the AG of the guy under investigation. The current president, however, complicates the matter, as privately "cooperating" with him to hinder the Mueller investigation would be a breach of the treaty.

These Senators are--officially and publicly--exploring the possibility that Trump was using his office to block Ukrainian cooperation into the Mueller probe. Doesn't matter if they are "political foes" of Trump and are not on Mueller's team. What matters is whether the Mueller investigation is being impeded, either at direct request from Trump or by Ukrainians currying favor on their own initiative.The senators could argue they are exercising official oversight, which they do have. The exec might counter they are usurping exec foreign policy powers.

Also, OFFICIAL quid pro quo is common in diplomacy and all manner of trade cooperation. Sanctions are a kind of "quid pro quo--or else." If "implying how to investigate" means do your job, as your own law and our mutual treaty requires, then that request certainly is proper.

The problem with the Trump quid pro quo is not that it was a quid pro quo, but that it was an unofficial and private use of official aid to get dirt on an opponent--in short, an abuse of the power of office. Corruption.