Politics: Trump Impeachment Inquiry Delves into Idea of Quid Pro Quo - - PressFrom - US
  •   
  •   
  •   

Politics Trump Impeachment Inquiry Delves into Idea of Quid Pro Quo

23:45  09 november  2019
23:45  09 november  2019 Source:   online.wsj.com

Judge fast-tracks case over former White House official's refusal to testify in impeachment inquiry

  Judge fast-tracks case over former White House official's refusal to testify in impeachment inquiry A federal judge on Thursday fast-tracked a case involving a key impeachment witness caught between House Democrats seeking to compel his testimony and a White House order to defy a congressional subpoena. Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee to the federal district court in D.C., called the legal dispute over the testimony of Charles Kupperman, a former deputy to former national security adviser John Bolton, a "matter of great publicJudge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee to the federal district court in D.C.

At the heart of the House impeachment inquiry into President Trump ’s Ukraine dealings is a Latin term that is easy to translate but legally difficult to define and prove. Democrats beginning public hearings next week are focused on whether Mr. Trump engaged in an inappropriate quid pro quo .

White House official says Trump made a quid pro quo “demand” of Ukraine’s president. The White House’s top Ukraine expert told the House Democrat-led impeachment inquiry that President Donald Trump made a “demand” of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden and his

U.S. President Donald Trump addresses an event to celebrate his federal judicial confirmations in the East Room of the White House in Washington, U.S., November 6, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst© Reuters U.S. President Donald Trump addresses an event to celebrate his federal judicial confirmations in the East Room of the White House in Washington, U.S., November 6, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

At the heart of the House impeachment inquiry into President Trump’s Ukraine dealings is a Latin term that is easy to translate but legally difficult to define and prove.

Democrats beginning public hearings next week with three key witnesses are focused on whether Mr. Trump engaged in an inappropriate quid pro quo. Specifically, they are probing the president’s temporary withholding of hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid to Ukraine, allegedly to pressure the country into opening investigations related to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and the 2016 election.

Perry refuses to testify in House impeachment inquiry

  Perry refuses to testify in House impeachment inquiry House lawmakers have asked outgoing Energy Secretary Rick Perry to testify as part of Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into President Trump, an official working on the probe told The Hill."The Secretary will not partake in a secret star chamber inquisition where agency counsel is forbidden to be present," Department of Energy press secretary Shaylyn Hynes wrote in a statement to The Hill.

US officials said Trump would not ‘sign a check’ for military aid without investigation into Joe Biden, Bill Taylor tells inquiry .

Here’s what you need to know: A Pence aide is giving closed testimony on Capitol Hill. Another diplomat described what he saw as a quid pro quo and Giuliani’s role. The impeachment investigation goes public next week. Catch up on impeachment : What you need to know.

Get news and analysis on politics, policy, national security and more, delivered right to your inbox

A quid pro quo—literally “something for something” or “one thing for another”—is often associated with political corruption, but it isn’t synonymous. And determining when a quid pro quo is unlawful or just hardball politics has been one of the most contentious areas of criminal law.

To successfully impeach the president, Democrats don’t necessarily have to connect the Ukraine controversy to a specific crime. Charging the president with a more general abuse of power likely suffices under the constitution’s definition of impeachment, legal scholars said.

But how federal courts have handled quid pro quos in the past offers a window into how the impeachment inquiry could unfold for Mr. Trump and what arguments his supporters and critics will deploy.

White House dismisses impeachment transcripts: Trump 'has done nothing wrong'

  White House dismisses impeachment transcripts: Trump 'has done nothing wrong' The White House claimed Tuesday that newly released transcripts showed there is “even less evidence” underscoring House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into President Trump’s interactions with Ukraine than previously known. © The Hill White House dismisses impeachment transcripts: Trump 'has done nothing wrong' "Both transcripts released today show there is even less evidence for this illegitimate impeachment sham than previously thought," White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement.

WASHINGTON – Quid pro quo . It's hard to say and can require some nuance to prove, but it's the phrase at the center of a contentious impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump . Did he withhold military aid to Ukraine by pressuring the country to investigate his political rivals?

The West Point graduate and career diplomat first testified behind closed doors to the impeachment inquiry on October 22, providing what Democrats described as the clearest evidence yet that the president engaged in a “ quid pro quo ” arrangement with his Ukrainian counterpart.

The key bribery offenses in the federal criminal code generally require evidence of an unlawful quid pro quo. That has been defined by the courts as an “official act” or “formal exercise of governmental power” traded for money or anything of value.

Some legal scholars point to Section 201(b)(2) of the federal criminal code as the most relevant offense. Some legal commentators have suggested the president may have run afoul of campaign-finance laws, but the quid-pro-quo allegations represent more serious claims of misconduct.

The bribery statute makes it a crime for a public official to corruptly demand or seek “anything of value personally” in return for “being influenced in the performance of any official act.”

Applying that statute, the allegation would be that the president (the public official) sought dirt on a political rival (the thing of value) in exchange for releasing aid (the official act).

Graham now says Trump's Ukraine policy was too 'incoherent' for quid pro quo

  Graham now says Trump's Ukraine policy was too 'incoherent' for quid pro quo A day after saying he wouldn’t bother reading transcripts released by House Democrats in the impeachment inquiry into President Trump, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., now says he did read the testimony, and his conclusion is that the administration’s Ukraine policy was too “incoherent” for it to have orchestrated the quid pro quo that is at the heart of the probe. © Provided by Oath Inc. Sen. Lindsey Graham at an Oct. 24 press conference on impeachment. (Photo: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images) Testimony released Tuesday included depositions from Gordon Sondland, U.S.

"There was no quid pro quo ": President Trump , speaking at a news conference, denied that he tried to pressure Ukraine's president "to do things that they wanted under the form of Impeachment inquiry : House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump .

According to transcripts released Friday in the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry , Vindman and Fiona Hill, a former White House Russia adviser, both gave Alexander Vindman returns to the Capitol to review transcripts of his testimony in the impeachment inquiry of US President Donald Trump , in

Mr. Trump has denied any quid pro quo and called the impeachment inquiry a hoax. Several witnesses, including the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, have laid out evidence that security aid to Ukraine was linked to investigations sought by Mr. Trump.

The fact that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky denied feeling pressure from Mr. Trump during their July phone call isn’t exonerating, and nor is the fact that the aid was suspended only temporarily and released without any probes into the Bidens and Burisma Group, a Ukrainian gas company where Mr. Biden’s son, Hunter, had sat on the board.

Generally, a quid pro quo doesn’t need to be successful or explicitly spelled out to be unlawful. And there is no requirement that both the giver and recipient of a bribe have a corrupt intent.

But other factors cast doubt on the criminality of Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. For one, it isn’t clear that an investigation into Burisma Group would constitute “anything of value” under the law.

A thing of value exchanged for an official action doesn’t have to be a good or service with a clear price tag. Judges have broadened the scope to include more intangible items, such as conjugal visits for a federal prisoner.

Graham on the impeachment inquiry: 'I made my mind up. There's nothing there'

  Graham on the impeachment inquiry: 'I made my mind up. There's nothing there' Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) doubled down on his defense of President Trump amid the ongoing impeachment inquiry, arguing there's "nothing there" in the call between Trump and Ukrainian leaders to suggest the president did anything wrong. "You make your mind up about the phone call. I made my mind up. There's nothing there," Graham said in an interview Saturday with KCCI, a Des Moines CBS affiliate. "I'm trying to let the House know, 'You're"You make your mind up about the phone call. I made my mind up. There's nothing there," Graham said in an interview Saturday with KCCI, a Des Moines CBS affiliate.

WASHINGTON — The top American diplomat in Ukraine identified Rudolph W. Giuliani, President Trump ’s personal lawyer, as the instigator behind the drive to get Ukraine’s president to announce investigations into Mr. Trump ’s political rivals

From 'no quid pro quo ' to attacking the process, here's how Republican defenses of Donald Trump have shifted during the impeachment inquiry . Since the moment he authorized the release of a transcript, Trump has maintained there was no quid pro quo in his withholding military aid from

But legal experts can’t point to any case law where a government investigation was deemed a thing of value in a corruption prosecution.

At the same time, courts in recent years have drawn sharper lines between ordinary political horse-trading and corrupt schemes. A series of Supreme Court rulings—such as the 2016 overturned conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell—have narrowed the scope of bribery statutes and made it harder for prosecutors to prove a politician broke the law.

“Existing corruption statutes are ill-equipped to address the type of conduct the president was alleged to have committed,” said Luke Cass, a white-collar defense attorney in Washington, D.C., and a former federal prosecutor.

Skeptics of the House impeachment inquiry into Mr. Trump have also questioned whether the president had a corrupt intent—a required element of a quid-pro-quo crime—in his interactions with Mr. Zelensky. Kenneth Starr, who led investigations of former President Bill Clinton, said in a podcast last month that the number of people listening in on the July 25 call suggests Mr. Trump wasn’t trying to hide his actions. “That goes to his intent. There is no corrupt bargain,” Mr. Starr said. Other defenders say even if a quid pro quo happened, such presidential political skulduggery isn’t without precedent in recent times.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has also argued that the Trump administration’s Ukraine policy was too incoherent to be criminal. Other defenders say the president’s sweeping executive authority over foreign affairs makes it more difficult to allege a criminal quid pro quo.

A quid pro quo could be undefined in the criminal code but at the same time be a troubling abuse of power, said Stanford criminal law professor David Alan Sklansky. Then the question would be whether Mr. Trump’s foreign policy put his private interests above the nation’s.

“Just because something isn’t a crime doesn’t mean it’s not an impeachable offense,” said Mr. Sklansky.

Write to Jacob Gershman at jacob.gershman@wsj.com

Giuliani pens op-ed slamming 'unprecedented' impeachment inquiry .
Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's personal attorney, penned an op-ed published Tuesday slamming the House's "unprecedented" impeachment investigation.The op-ed, which comes a day before the House holds its first public hearings in the inquiry, claims Trump's interactions with Ukraine were "innocent" and that House Democrats are unfairly targeting his client."The manner in which [Rep. Adam Schiff] and Speaker Nancy Pelosi are conducting this impeachment investigation is unprecedented, constitutionally questionable, and an affront to American fair play," Giuliani wrote in The Wall Street Journal.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

usr: 1
This is interesting!