Diplomatic quid pro quo — requiring certain actions, behavior or “conditions” in return for U.S. aid — is common, according to current and former diplomats I spoke with, and foreign policy guidance. “Under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the President may determine the terms and conditions under which most forms of assistance are provided.”
The notion that there’s something inherently wrong with this sort of foreign-aid diplomacy is raising concern among some career diplomats. A former Obama administration State Department official told me that, by controversializing this common practice, “the Democrats are basically hamstringing any future president.” He adds: “That’s why this is a constitutional moment.”
So I read through the 1961 Foreign assistance act, and it does provide that the authority to determine what conditions come with foreign aid was given to the executive branch by way of the Secretary of State. Since the SOS answers directly to and is provided constitutional authority from the President, by all legal and constitutional accounts the same authority is provided to the President.
More to the point, the plain language of the statute pretty much provided the expectation that most all aid approved by Congress will be released based on some set of conditions. In other words, the statute not only allows for "quid pro quo" but actually suggests that most all examples of foreign aid will be released under some negotiation for terms and conditions. The idea that Congressional aid is to be released without conditions is no where to be found in this law, and quite frankly nowhere to be found in historical precedent.
What this tells us in plain simple logic is that the entire concept that the President is breaking some sort of law (or even general protocol) by asking for something in return for military aid to Ukraine has absolutely zero basis in reality. Once again, the "law" as well as "historical precedent" is in the favor of the President. The President isn't the one breaking from the norms by requesting conditions in exchange for aid, the people demanding that it's wrong are the ones breaking from both the law and the norms of the past several decades.
In their quest to take down the "bad orange man" and "undo the 2016 election" the Democrats are attempting to rewrite the law (without actually rewriting the law). As stated by these former State Department officials, the Democrats would literally be handcuffing our foreign policy moving forward... all in their ultimate quest to drive Trump from office.
33 comments:
You got the feeling that this is the last gasp attempt to get Trump.
Electoral disaster for the Democrats is on the horizon.
With all the news flooding out it may be smart to just stop the impeachment "inquiry" proceedings and let true justice be served.
Of course the likelihood of that is about zero.
But this will likely create a tidal wave. Just not in the direction Schiff/Pelosi/Schumer were trying to "manufacture".
The Last two years of California wild fires Fires has created more air pollution then 10 years of every wood burning unit in all the homes of US and Canadian .
Republicans Are Struggling to Defend Trump
Amber Phillips:
“Republicans are flailing to defend President Trump from the impeachment inquiry, right as some key members of the Senate shift from implicitly defending Trump to acknowledging recent testimony has been damaging to his case. This suggests conviction of Trump in the Republican-controlled Senate, should the House impeach him, isn’t a door that’s entirely slammed shut.
“As the impeachment inquiry presents stronger evidence Trump was holding up military aid for his personal gain, his congressional defenders are pulling even more Trumpian tactics. Most of them collapse under the weight of the facts. Some are so obviously political stunts that there’s no other way to describe them.”
Key takeaway: “Republicans’ erratic attempts to defend the president are derived from the fact the White House has no coherent defense either, and it largely isn’t coordinating with Republicans on what to say or do.”
their quest to take down the "bad orange man" and "undo the 2016 election"
Seig Heil Mr. President Trump
At what point did Speaker in Name Only Polosi and Adam Schitt come to the realization the fucked up?
Now is their time and all that support them to "Embrace the suck".
Warner Calls on William Barr to Testify
October 25, 2019 at 11:26 am EDT
Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) criticized Attorney General William Barr over reports that the Justice Department is launching a criminal investigation of the Russia probe.
Said Warner: “Senate Intel is wrapping up a THREE-year BIPARTISAN investigation, and we’ve found NOTHING REMOTELY justifying this… He needs to come before Congress and explain himself.”
Warner is an empty windbag.
Kind of like the old fool that posted that tripe
Blogger KansasDemocrat said...
At what point did Speaker in Name Only Polosi and Adam Schitt come to the realization the fucked up?
I don't think Shitts will ever realize it his state of self-denial is so great. Pelosi had no choice if she want to keep control of her caucus but it's going to cost her the speakership.
Hmmm... but after three congressional investigations showing no evidence of any Trump or his team being Russian agents...
We still went forward with a 22 month Special Counsel!
Barr is going off what the IG report has provided. We all know that Horowitz recommended criminal charges in multiple areas of his probe against multiple people.
While Sessions did little, Barr put Durham on the case and quite obviously they have been digging much further than our Senate would have.
But I notice James has nothing to say about an actual law that proves that Democrats are attempting to impeach the President over something that is (by statute) perfectly legal.
All he has is more "opinions" and "anonymous sources" talking shit!
Mike Pence would be the President. Not crooked Hillary
The Constitution grants the right to the legislative branch the right to determine if the President has committed high crimes or misdemeanors.
If you actually understand what the Constitution says, you would not be lying through your teeth.
Deep throat took down Richard Nixon, as well as the tapes. He actually didn't commit crimes, but he committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
Barry Goldwater was a great American patriot. I didn't agree with him on politics. But unlike you, he was a patriot.
You want this evil Orange monster to turn the country into a dictatorship.
Grow some balls.
We have the transcript of his conversation with the President of Ukraine. This is the same damn thing as the Nixon tapes and this is even worse, because he is putting the nation at risk.
He is abusing the power of the Presidency and he should be impeached and convicted and removed from office.
The identity of Deep throat, didn't get released until long after Nixon was dead.
The Three Socialist Stooges of CHT cut n paste is out of control.
They know so little.
"2500 sq ft home "🤣
"He is abusing the power of the Presidency and he should be impeached and convicted and removed from office. "
Evicted Suicidal Alky
Blogger C.H. Truth said...
But I notice James has nothing to say about an actual law that proves that Democrats are attempting to impeach the President over something that is (by statute) perfectly legal.
neither does the alky. i heard a commentator yesterday make a salient point -
if "abuse of power' (which is the true impeachment standard here) was enforced through our nation's history, virtually every president since washington could be impeached.
definitely lincoln (suspension of habeas corpus), kennedy (bay of pigs), and LBJ (vietnam gulf of tonkin).
They can't think for themselves.
His impulsive decisions on Syria and a few other things matter, but he is the President and it is within his power to do so.
But this is not what matters.
He is abusing the power of the Presidency and he should be impeached and convicted and removed from office.
Pelosi will bring it to a vote fairly soon.
Right now Trump is trying to delay the impeachment proceedings to go on for months and into the election season.
This is why they are defying to testify under oath. They are hoping that it will take months to get Barr and others, by putting the courts it might take months.
He's scared shitless.
So are you Scott A**hole
You want this evil Orange monster to turn the country into a dictatorship.
really.
projecting again, i see.
i don't see trump offering a gren nude eel at the cost of +$70 TRILLION, or threatening to criminalize private health insurance, or forcing me onto medicaid for all, or saddling me with a crushing middle tax tax increase, or forcing me to pay for everything thing free under the fucking sun for illegals, or, or, or...
trump is the only thing standing between me and the terror of totalitarian socialism.
and you've never been able to accept the fact that your drunken feckless cunt LOST.
Huffington Post Top story
"Trump Organization Considering Sale Of Washington, D.C., Hotel"
He is abusing the power of the Presidency and he should be impeached and convicted and removed from office.
and you've made this claim dozens of times without ever substantiating the claim in DETAIL.
not fucking ONCE.
this is an exercise in objectivity, not subjectivity, alky.
your reasons must be demonstrable, legitimate and DETAILED.
"orange man bad" and "he hurt my feelings so i need a fucking shrink" don't meet the criteria.
TDS dos not meet the criteria.
having your wife leave you does not meet the criteria.
being driven to threaten suicide on facebook does not meet the criteria.
iow's...the steaming shitpile that is your failure of a life is not an impeachable offense alky.
Roger
"You want this evil Orange monster to turn the country into a dictatorship."
Care to have a "cut n paste" free discussion on your topic?
Care to have a "cut n paste" free discussion on your topic?
he doesn't dare.
every single 2020 democrat candidate has lodged a specific and demostrable threat to my freedom and liberty. from the 2nd amendment to healthcare to green energy, to repealing tax cuts. every one of them seeks to do me harm.
trump?
not at all.
guys like the alky are such intellectual and emotional weaklings they NEED the government to run every aspect of their lives.
You are correct RRB.
They hated when Pres. Trump.started to Erase the "pen and phone" Lost Years .
When Pres. Trump erased the small streams and puddles over reach on my properties , they went Cray cray.
The Constitution grants the right to the legislative branch the right to determine if the President has committed high crimes or misdemeanors.
Congress already wrote the law in 1961.
Congress provided the power to negotiate the terms and conditions to the executive branch, including the Secretary of State, and ultimately the President.
So what is being admitted here is dangerous. The admission is that the entire impeachment fiasco is built on the foundation that Congress doesn't have to follow the laws that they wrote...
The argument being made is that when it comes to impeachment of the "bad orange man" that Congress can just "declare" that actions that are perfectly legal (based not only on their own law but on every precedent from every President we have ever elected) are now illegal.
But I would guess... only for Trump?
I don't believe that is how the constitution works.
As they are losing, the Socialist Democrats go back to the playbook as I predicted two weeks ago they would.
"Activists hope to take impeachment fight to the streets"
By NICHOLAS RICCARDItoday
Socialist Democrats Losing.
"What happened: Fewer Americans expressed anxiety about the festering trade dispute with China in October than they did in September, when President Trump upped the ante with a vow to raise tariffs again. Trade tensions eased in October, however, after the U.S. and China resumed negotiations.
Some 27% of respondents mentioned the negative effect of tariffs without being prompted, down from 36% in September.
The potential move by Democrats to impeach President Trump had little affect on confidence. Only 2% of survey respondents mentioned impeachment."
Post a Comment