 |
|
he never said it wasn't a quid pro quo, he talking about
Posted on: January 30, 2020 at 14:45:48 CT
CulturedDan MU
Posts:
92694
Member For:
14.94 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
unlawful quid pro quo
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR QUESTION. YESTERDAY I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF ATTENDING THE ROLLING OUT OF A PEACE PLAN BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES REGARDING THE ISRAEL PALESTINE CONFLICT. I AUTHORED YOU A HYPOTHETICAL THE OTHER DAY. WHAT IF THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT WERE TO BE ELECTED AND CONGRESS WERE TO AUTHORIZE MUCH MONEY TO EITHER ISRAEL OR THE PALESTINIANS AND THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT WERE TO SAY TO ISRAEL NO, I WILL WITHHOLD THIS MONEY UNLESS YOU STOP ALL SETTLEMENT GROWTH OR TO THE PALESTINIANS, I WILL WITHHOLD THE MONEY AND CONGRESS AUTHORIZED TO YOU UNLESS YOU STOP PAYING TERRORISTS. THE PRESIDENT SAID QUID PRO QUO. IF YOU DON'T DO IT YOU DON'T GET THE MONEY. IF YOU DO IT YOU GET THE MONEY. THERE IS NO ONE IN THIS CHAMBER THAT WOULD REGARD THAT AS IN ANY WAY UNLAWFUL. THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD MAKE THE QUID PRO QUO UNLAWFUL IS IF THE QUOTE WERE, IN SOME WAY ILLEGAL. WE TALKED ABOUT MOTIVE. THERE ARE THREE POSSIBLE MOTIVES THAT THE POLITICAL FIGURE CAN HAVE. ONE, AUTOMOTIVE AND PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE ISRAEL ORGAN IT WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE SECOND IS IT IS IN HIS OWN POLITICAL INTERESTS IN THE THIRD WHICH HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED WOULD BE IN HIS OWN FINANCIAL INTERESTS. HIS OWN PURE FINANCIAL INTEREST AND JUST PUTTING MONEY IN THE BAG. I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE SECOND ONE FOR JUST ONE MOMENT. EVERY PUBLIC OFFICIAL THAT I KNOW BELIEVES THAT HIS ELECTION IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. MOSTLY YOU ARE RIGHT. YOUR ELECTION IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. IF A PRESIDENT DOES SOMETHING WHICH HE BELIEVES WILL HELP HIM GET ELECTED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT CANNOT BE THE KIND OF WOOD PRO QUOTE THE RESULTS IN IMPEACHMENT. I QUOTED PRESIDENT LINCOLN. WHEN PRESIDENT LINCOLN TOLD GENERAL SHERMAN TO LET THE TROOPS GO TO INDIANA SO THAT THEY CAN VOTE FOR THE REPUBLIC AND PARTY, LET'S ASSUME THE PRESIDENT WAS RUNNING AT THAT POINT AND IT WAS HIS ELECTORAL INTEREST TO HAVE THESE SOLDIERS PUT AT RISK FOR LIVES OF MANY OTHER SOLDIERS WHO WOULD BE LEFT WITHOUT THEIR COMPANY, WOULD THAT BE AN UNLAWFUL QUID PRO QUO? NO, BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT A, BELIEVED IT WAS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND BE, HE BELIEVED IN HIS OWN ELECTION WAS ESSENTIAL TO VICTORY IN THE CIVIL WAR. EVERY PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT. THAT IS WHY IT IS SO DANGEROUS TO TRY TO PSYCHOANALYZE THE PRESIDENT AND TRY TO GET INTO THE INTRICACIES OF THE HUMAN MIND. EVERYBODY HAS MIXED MOTIVES AND FOR THERE TO BE A CONSTITUTIONAL IMPEACHMENT BASED ON MIXED MOTIVES WOULD PERMIT ALMOST ANY PRESIDENT TO BE IMPEACHED. HOW MANY PRESIDENTS HAVE MADE FOREIGN POLICY DECISIONS AFTER CHECKING WITH THEIR POLITICAL ADVISORS AND THEIR POLLSTERS? IF YOU ARE JUST ACTING IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST WHAT YOU NEED POSTERS? MARTINI POLITICAL ADVISORS? JUST DO WHAT IS BEST FOR THE COUNTRY BUT IF YOU WANT TO BALANCE WHAT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTERESTS WITH WHAT IS IN YOUR PARTY'S ELECTORAL INTEREST IN YOUR OWN ELECTORAL INTERESTS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISCERN HOW MUCH WEIGHT IS GIVEN TO -- WE MAY ARGUE THAT IT'S NOT IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST FOR A PARTICULAR PRESIDENT TO GET REELECTED OR FOR A PARTICULAR SENATOR OR MEMBER OF CONGRESS AND MAYBE YOU ARE RIGHT. IT'S NOT IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST FOR EVERYONE WHO IS RUNNING TO BE ELECTED BUT FOR IT TO BE IMPEACHABLE YOU WOULD HAVE TO DISCERN THAT HE OR SHE MADE A DECISION SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF AS A HOUSE MANAGERS PUT IT, CORRUPT MOTIVES. IT CANNOT BE A CORRUPT MOTIVE IF YOU HAVE A MIXED MOTIVE THAT PARTIALLY INVOLVES THE NATIONAL INTEREST IMPARTIALLY INVOLVES ELECTORAL AND DOES NOT INVOLVE PERSONAL PECUNIARY INTERESTS IN THE HOUSE MANAGERS DO NOT ALLEGE THAT THIS DECISION IS QUID PRO QUO, AS THEY CALL IT, THE QUESTION IS BASED ON THE HYPOTHESIS THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO, I'M NOT ASKING THE FACTS BUT THEY NEVER ALLEGE THAT IT WAS BASED ON PURE FINANCIAL REASONS BUT IT WOULD BE A MUCH HARDER CASE IF A HYPOTHETICAL PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SAID TO A HYPOTHETICAL LEADER OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY, UNLESS YOU BUILD A HOTEL WITH MY NAME ON IT AND UNLESS YOU GIVE ME A MILLION DOLLAR KICKBACK I WILL WITHHOLD THE FUNDS. THAT'S AN EASY CASE. THAT IS PURELY CORRUPT AND PURELY PRIVATE INTEREST BUT A COMPLEX METAL CASE IS CARLA, I WANT TO BE ELECTED BECAUSE I THINK I'M A GREAT PRESIDENT AND THE GREATEST PRESENT THERE EVER WAS AND IF I'M NOT ELECTED THE NATIONAL INTEREST WILL SUFFER GREATLY. THAT CANNOT BE. THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
I apologize for the all caps- it's a cspan transcript
Edited by dangertim at 14:47:29 on 01/30/20
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR QUESTION. YESTERDAY I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF ATTENDING THE ROLLING OUT OF A PEACE PLAN BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES REGARDING THE ISRAEL PALESTINE CONFLICT. I AUTHORED YOU A HYPOTHETICAL THE OTHER DAY. WHAT IF THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT WERE TO BE ELECTED AND CONGRESS WERE TO AUTHORIZE MUCH MONEY TO EITHER ISRAEL OR THE PALESTINIANS AND THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT WERE TO SAY TO ISRAEL NO, I WILL WITHHOLD THIS MONEY UNLESS YOU STOP ALL SETTLEMENT GROWTH OR TO THE PALESTINIANS, I WILL WITHHOLD THE MONEY AND CONGRESS AUTHORIZED TO YOU UNLESS YOU STOP PAYING TERRORISTS. THE PRESIDENT SAID QUID PRO QUO. IF YOU DON'T DO IT YOU DON'T GET THE MONEY. IF YOU DO IT YOU GET THE MONEY. THERE IS NO ONE IN THIS CHAMBER THAT WOULD REGARD THAT AS IN ANY WAY UNLAWFUL. THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD MAKE THE QUID PRO QUO UNLAWFUL IS IF THE QUOTE WERE, IN SOME WAY ILLEGAL. WE TALKED ABOUT MOTIVE. THERE ARE THREE POSSIBLE MOTIVES THAT THE POLITICAL FIGURE CAN HAVE. ONE, AUTOMOTIVE AND PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE ISRAEL ORGAN IT WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE SECOND IS IT IS IN HIS OWN POLITICAL INTERESTS IN THE THIRD WHICH HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED WOULD BE IN HIS OWN FINANCIAL INTERESTS. HIS OWN PURE FINANCIAL INTEREST AND JUST PUTTING MONEY IN THE BAG. I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE SECOND ONE FOR JUST ONE MOMENT. EVERY PUBLIC OFFICIAL THAT I KNOW BELIEVES THAT HIS ELECTION IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. MOSTLY YOU ARE RIGHT. YOUR ELECTION IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. IF A PRESIDENT DOES SOMETHING WHICH HE BELIEVES WILL HELP HIM GET ELECTED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT CANNOT BE THE KIND OF WOOD PRO QUOTE THE RESULTS IN IMPEACHMENT. I QUOTED PRESIDENT LINCOLN. WHEN PRESIDENT LINCOLN TOLD GENERAL SHERMAN TO LET THE TROOPS GO TO INDIANA SO THAT THEY CAN VOTE FOR THE REPUBLIC AND PARTY, LET'S ASSUME THE PRESIDENT WAS RUNNING AT THAT POINT AND IT WAS HIS ELECTORAL INTEREST TO HAVE THESE SOLDIERS PUT AT RISK FOR LIVES OF MANY OTHER SOLDIERS WHO WOULD BE LEFT WITHOUT THEIR COMPANY, WOULD THAT BE AN UNLAWFUL QUID PRO QUO? NO, BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT A, BELIEVED IT WAS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND BE, HE BELIEVED IN HIS OWN ELECTION WAS ESSENTIAL TO VICTORY IN THE CIVIL WAR. EVERY PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT. THAT IS WHY IT IS SO DANGEROUS TO TRY TO PSYCHOANALYZE THE PRESIDENT AND TRY TO GET INTO THE INTRICACIES OF THE HUMAN MIND. EVERYBODY HAS MIXED MOTIVES AND FOR THERE TO BE A CONSTITUTIONAL IMPEACHMENT BASED ON MIXED MOTIVES WOULD PERMIT ALMOST ANY PRESIDENT TO BE IMPEACHED. HOW MANY PRESIDENTS HAVE MADE FOREIGN POLICY DECISIONS AFTER CHECKING WITH THEIR POLITICAL ADVISORS AND THEIR POLLSTERS? IF YOU ARE JUST ACTING IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST WHAT YOU NEED POSTERS? MARTINI POLITICAL ADVISORS? JUST DO WHAT IS BEST FOR THE COUNTRY BUT IF YOU WANT TO BALANCE WHAT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTERESTS WITH WHAT IS IN YOUR PARTY'S ELECTORAL INTEREST IN YOUR OWN ELECTORAL INTERESTS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISCERN HOW MUCH WEIGHT IS GIVEN TO -- WE MAY ARGUE THAT IT'S NOT IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST FOR A PARTICULAR PRESIDENT TO GET REELECTED OR FOR A PARTICULAR SENATOR OR MEMBER OF CONGRESS AND MAYBE YOU ARE RIGHT. IT'S NOT IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST FOR EVERYONE WHO IS RUNNING TO BE ELECTED BUT FOR IT TO BE IMPEACHABLE YOU WOULD HAVE TO DISCERN THAT HE OR SHE MADE A DECISION SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF AS A HOUSE MANAGERS PUT IT, CORRUPT MOTIVES. IT CANNOT BE A CORRUPT MOTIVE IF YOU HAVE A MIXED MOTIVE THAT PARTIALLY INVOLVES THE NATIONAL INTEREST IMPARTIALLY INVOLVES ELECTORAL AND DOES NOT INVOLVE PERSONAL PECUNIARY INTERESTS IN THE HOUSE MANAGERS DO NOT ALLEGE THAT THIS DECISION IS QUID PRO QUO, AS THEY CALL IT, THE QUESTION IS BASED ON THE HYPOTHESIS THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO, I'M NOT ASKING THE FACTS BUT THEY NEVER ALLEGE THAT IT WAS BASED ON PURE FINANCIAL REASONS BUT IT WOULD BE A MUCH HARDER CASE IF A HYPOTHETICAL PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SAID TO A HYPOTHETICAL LEADER OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY, UNLESS YOU BUILD A HOTEL WITH MY NAME ON IT AND UNLESS YOU GIVE ME A MILLION DOLLAR KICKBACK I WILL WITHHOLD THE FUNDS. THAT'S AN EASY CASE. THAT IS PURELY CORRUPT AND PURELY PRIVATE INTEREST BUT A COMPLEX METAL CASE IS CARLA, I WANT TO BE ELECTED BECAUSE I THINK I'M A GREAT PRESIDENT AND THE GREATEST PRESENT THERE EVER WAS AND IF I'M NOT ELECTED THE NATIONAL INTEREST WILL SUFFER GREATLY. THAT CANNOT BE. THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
I apologize for the all caps- it's a cspan transcript
Edited by dangertim at 14:47:29 on 01/30/20
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
he never said it wasn't a quid pro quo, he talking about - dangertim MU - 1/30 14:45:48