Schiff lost his marbles

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You don't need to commit a crime to be impeached, look at Graham, Dershowitz and others statements from 1999 or you could read the Constitution.
That's why there is no penalty other than being removed from office and prevented from holding another position.

As far as why Floridaman should be removed, work backwards: The “check” on acting in a purely partisan way on matters of law is that your standard will apply to the other party. The only way you don’t care is if you believe the opposition will never hold power again. And to guarantee that, you NEED the foreign interference.

To continue, this assumes that the foreign interference will always work in your favor. What do you do to ensure that? You make sure and permit the money and the power of the U.S. to be used for the benefit of those countries who are willing to “help,” not based on what is truly in our nation’s interest.

This whole thing is setting up the corruption and reorienting of our institutions and processes for the sole purpose of maintaining power. That’s it.

"don't need to commit a crime to be impeached, look at Graham, Dershowitz and others statements from 1999 or you could read the Constitution"

Here's a sincere question, doesn't it say high crime or misdemeanor?

And can you be impeached, out of fear of what you might do in the future? Because that's the case Schiff is making, when he says we have to remove Trump to secure the integrity of the 2020 election, which is 9 months out. In this country, we don't punish people for things we fear they might do in the future.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"don't need to commit a crime to be impeached, look at Graham, Dershowitz and others statements from 1999 or you could read the Constitution"

Here's a sincere question, doesn't it say high crime or misdemeanor?

And can you be impeached, out of fear of what you might do in the future? Because that's the case Schiff is making, when he says we have to remove Trump to secure the integrity of the 2020 election, which is 9 months out. In this country, we don't punish people for things we fear they might do in the future.

The case that Schiff is making is that he has already done so and has said that he is currently and will continue to seek foreign interference in our elections.

Impeachment was not designed as punishment, but as protection for the Constitution and the Republic that it enabled.

In impeachment proceedings, the defendant does not risk forfeiture of life, liberty, or property. According to the Constitution, the only penalties allowed to be imposed by the Senate are removal from office and disqualification from holding any federal office in the future.


I'll defer to Hugo Black on high crimes and misdemeanors and what he thinks they mean It's as short an excerpt as I could make it, you really should read the whole chapter for yourself

"Other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"

This is the third, catchall phrase in the formula designating impeachable offenses. The reader will hardly need to be told that it must generate, and has generated, great difficulties of interpretation. Some definite things can be said about its extent, but we will be left with an area of considerable vagueness. Let us take the definite things first.

It would be well to start with the one and only discussion of the phrase at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. The day was September 8, 1787, just nine days before the Constitution was signed and transmitted for the adherence of the states. The impeachment provision, as reported out by the last of the convention committees (except the final one charged only with polishing the style of the Constitution), listed "treason and bribery" as the only grounds for impeachment and removal. The colloquy we need to look at was brief, taking perhaps five minutes:

The clause referring to the Senate, the trial of impeachments agst. the President, for Treason & bribery, was taken up.

Col. Mason. Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined— As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments. He movd. to add after "bribery" "or maladministration". Mr. Gerry seconded him—

Mr Madison So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.

Mr Govr Morris, it will not be put in force & can do no harm— An election of every four years will prevent maladministration.

Col. Mason withdrew "maladministration" & substitutes "other high crimes & misdemeanors"

On the question thus altered

N. H— ay. Mas.— ay Ct. ay. (N. J. no) Pa no. Del. no. Md ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay.* Geo. ay. [Ayes—8; noes—3.]

This is by far the most important piece of evidence on the original intention with regard to the "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" phrase. It is true that the proceedings of the Convention were secret (a fact, like the fact that the Supreme Court deliberates in deep secrecy, not often mentioned by those who would have us think that secrecy in public affairs is always wrong). But the men present were representative of their time, and their understanding, at the moment when the crucial language was under closest examination, tells us a great deal about its meaning.

It is interesting first that this passage quite definitely establishes that "maladministration" was distinctly rejected as a ground for impeachment. The conscious and deliberate character of this rejection is accentuated by the fact that a good many state constitutions of the time did have "maladministration" as an impeachment ground. This does not mean that a given act may not be an instance both of "maladministration" and of "high crime" or "misdemeanor." It does mean that not all acts of "maladministration" are covered by the phrase actually accepted. This follows inevitably from Madison's ready acceptance of the phraseology now in the text; if "maladministration" was too "vague" for him, and "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" included all "maladministration," then he would surely have objected to the phrase actually accepted, as being even "vaguer" than the one rejected.

On the other hand, Mason's ready substitution of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" indicates that he thought (and no voice was raised in doubt) that this new phrase would satisfactorily cover "many great and dangerous offenses" not reached by the words "treason" and "bribery"; its coverage was understood to be broad.

The whole colloquy just quoted seems to support the view that "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" ought to be conceived as offenses having about them some flavor of criminality. Mere "maladministration" was not to be enough for impeachment. This line may be a hard one to follow, but it is the line that the Framers quite clearly intended to draw, and we will have to try to follow it as best we can.

You can read the rest if the chapter here

https://www.lawfareblog.com/impeachable-offense

and an essay applying Blacks thoughts to our current situation here

https://www.lawfareblog.com/impeach-...-charles-black

[PaulS]

Cipollone stated Tuesday that Republican lawmakers had not been allowed into the secure room where the House Intelligence Committee deposed witnesses last year

Is this Cipollone losing his marbles or just a continuation of the sleazy, lying Republican (in my best JimCT voice) ways?

,

[Pete F.]

Sure, everything is ok. Revenue increased less than inflation and far less than spending increases passed by Congress and signed by Floridaman

1. Our National Debt is High and Rising
2. Debt Could Reach Record Levels by 2030
3. Spending is Above Its 50-Year Average While Revenue is Below
4. Legislation signed into law by President Trump will add $4.1 trillion to the debt between 2017 and 2029. The single-largest contributor was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which is projected to cost $1.8 trillion through 2029 and could easily cost more if lawmakers extend the individual income tax provisions set to expire at the end of 2025.
5. Fiscal Irresponsibility Will Double Budget Deficits

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Sure, everything is ok. Revenue increased less than inflation and far less than spending increases passed by Congress and signed by Floridaman

1. Our National Debt is High and Rising
2. Debt Could Reach Record Levels by 2030
3. Spending is Above Its 50-Year Average While Revenue is Below
4. Legislation signed into law by President Trump will add $4.1 trillion to the debt between 2017 and 2029. The single-largest contributor was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which is projected to cost $1.8 trillion through 2029 and could easily cost more if lawmakers extend the individual income tax provisions set to expire at the end of 2025.
5. Fiscal Irresponsibility Will Double Budget Deficits

Congress is obviously not doing its job.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Congress is obviously not doing its job.

Typical Trumplican response, anything bad is someone else's fault.

Because Floridaman is infallible and must not be questioned.

[detbuch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Congress is obviously not doing its job.

Pete F: Typical Trumplican response, anything bad is someone else's fault.

Because Floridaman is infallible and must not be questioned.

If you're trying to say that it is typical for me to make an accurate statement, I appreciate your judgment.

As for the "Floridaman . . . infallible . . . must not be questioned" crap, I don't use those stupid words and haven't made those stupid, extreme, pronouncements.

It seems it's difficult for you to make a point without making stuff up. Maybe that leftist opinion-morphed-into-fiction thing?

[Got Stripers]

We can all agree the right will NEVER vote to throw their president out of office, I also think we Democrat’s or independents agree he is guilty as charged, I suspect many republicans would in secret also agree, so let’s fing move on to 2020.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

We can all agree the right will NEVER vote to throw their president out of office, I also think we Democrat’s or independents agree he is guilty as charged, I suspect many republicans would in secret also agree, so let’s fing move on to 2020.

Let the voters decide
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

We can all agree the right will NEVER vote to throw their president out of office, I also think we Democrat’s or independents agree he is guilty as charged, I suspect many republicans would in secret also agree, so let’s fing move on to 2020.

"We can all agree the right will NEVER vote to throw their president out of office"

Not in this case, no...

"I also think we Democrat’s or independents agree he is guilty as charged"

Democrats, yes. Independents? We'll see in November.

"I suspect many republicans would in secret also agree"

I suspect you are spectacularly wrong on that one.

"so let’s fing move on to 2020"

Couldn't agree more.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Funny you keep suggesting you are an expert on the real meaning of the constitution,

When the hell did I ever suggest that I am an expert on the real meaning of the Constitution? Or an expert on anything else? As I've said before--you just say stuff. And you seem to have this conviction that what you say is based on some obvious evidence, and it is amazing to you that the rest of us don't see the obvious truth that you do.

yet the crimes you suggest need to be proven weren’t even on the books and part of law when they penned the constitution, what Trump is guilty of is exactly what they were concerned about. None of these crimes you think need to be proven we’re even codified when our founders wrote the constitution.

Are we supposed to assume that by saying this you are suggesting that you're an expert on the real meaning of the Constitution?

No constitutional crimes were "on the books" before they penned the Constitution. Writing the Constitution was the act that created constitutional crimes. That Constitution was the "book" in which those crimes were delineated. We are not speaking of common civil law, or criminal law, but our subject is our Federal government's constitutional law.

And the only way any laws can be added to the Constitution is by amendment.

The way the Constitution is assembled is by broad categories that encompass an indefinite range of possibilities that fall within the proper category. Impeachment of a President is instigated by the President committing an act that is within the possible range of Treason, bribery, and High Crimes and Misdemeanors. It is not necessary to have a massive constitutional codex of specific "crimes" which define what are High Crimes. But there must certainly be what is considered a crime no matter what decade or century the impeachment occurs. And that consideration should be bolstered by legal definitions, court decisions, legal precedent, and common or traditional practices. And a crime must not be so vague that any thing someone wants can be squeezed into its definition.

The articles of this impeachment do not fall within the range of what has been nor is now considered to be a federal constitutional High Crime or High misdemeanor. General obstruction of Congress is too vague and broad to fit. The specific obstruction charged is nullified by executive privilege. The House was not willing to wait for a decision by SCOTUS whether executive privilege can be applied. So that supposed crime has not been established. Abuse of power is also too vague and largely subject to opinion. The House's article of abuse rests specifically on the notion that there was a quid pro quo that Trump imposed on Ukraine that would benefit his reelection. But the only solid, confirmed and direct evidence is that, according to the President of Ukraine, there was no such abuse. Nor was there a reciprocal required action committed by Ukraine in order to get the money.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

As I've said before--you just say stuff. And you seem to have this conviction that what you say is based on some obvious evidence, and it is amazing to you that the rest of us don't see the obvious truth that you do.

.

don't they call this narrow-minded?

[Pete F.]

A true/false test for Trumplicans
Trump asked Zelensky to fight corruption
Rudy Giuliani was acting as Trump's lawyer
Abuse of power could be impeachable according to Bill Barr
Mick Mulvaney said there was a quid pro quo
There are relevant emails the White House won't turn over
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

“Honestly, we have all the material. They don’t have the material.” Trump being Trump, he can’t help incriminating himself in order to grab a headline.

[Pete F.]

White House counsel to the Senate: The House should have gotten a court order.

DOJ to the courts: The House has no right to even ask for a court order.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

A true/false test for Trumplicans

I can't answer for who you call "Trumplicans," but I'll take the test--in spite of it being a slanted selection skewed into your preferred direction, and there are a lot of other questions you're not asking that would lead in another direction.

Trump asked Zelensky to fight corruption

True.

Rudy Giuliani was acting as Trump's lawyer

True.

Abuse of power could be impeachable according to Bill Barr

I'll take your word that he said that. His qualifier "could" implies that abuse of power could also not be impeachable. I assume he meant, therefore, that abuse of power is not, in itself, impeachable. That an actual, specific, action that some might label abuse is what determines impeachability.

Mick Mulvaney said there was a quid pro quo

True and false. He made a GENERAL RESPONSE that there is always that sort of give and take in foreign policy but didn't use the phrase "quid pro quo". But he later SPECIFIED that “there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election."

He also said " it is legitimate for the president to want to know what’s going on with the ongoing investigation into the server … it is completely legitimate to ask about that . . . it’s legitimate to tie the aid to corruption, it’s legitimate to tie the aid to foreign aid from other countries. That’s what I was talking about . . . Can I see how people took that the wrong way? Absolutely. But I never said there was a quid pro quo, because there isn’t.”

There are relevant emails the White House won't turn over

I don't know if the emails are relevant. I don't know what's in them. At this point, they are protected by executive privilege. And there are very sound and basic reasons for that right of secrecy.

Let me give you a true/false test:

President Zelensky said he was not pressured. That he didn't know of any quid pro quo required in order to get the money.

The money was delivered.

Zelensky didn't have to do a quid pro quo to get the money.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I don't know if the emails are relevant. I don't know what's in them. At this point, they are protected by executive privilege. And there are very sound and basic reasons for that right of secrecy.

Let me give you a true/false test:

President Zelensky said he was not pressured. That he didn't know of any quid pro quo required in order to get the money.

The money was delivered.

Zelensky didn't have to do a quid pro quo to get the money.

When did Floridaman mention corruption at all?

When Rudy did all his admitting on TV, he rubbed out most of the lawyer client privilege

Presidential privilege is not all encompassing in scope and the administration has unprecedentedly blocked everything that congress asked for.

As far as Zelensky not being able to say publicly that he was pressured, there is evidence that Ukraine knew the aid was being withheld, arrangements were made to announce an investigation and the whole drug deal blew up when the whistleblower information was coming out and there was no way around it.

No different than any other extortion case, it's a crime whether you were successful or not.

The other question there is what happened to the criminal referral that came out of the whistleblower report, just how did that disappear?

And here's Mulvaney........admitting to a quid pro quo or are you claiming the equal to "did not have sexual relations with that woman"?

[scottw]

pete has also lost his marbles...

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by scottw

pete has also lost his marbles...

He is setting himself up for disappointment
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

He is setting himself up for disappointment
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I hope the disappoint doesn’t cause him to double his efforts
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

When did Floridaman mention corruption at all?

When Rudy did all his admitting on TV, he rubbed out most of the lawyer client privilege

Presidential privilege is not all encompassing in scope and the administration has unprecedentedly blocked everything that congress asked for.

As far as Zelensky not being able to say publicly that he was pressured, there is evidence that Ukraine knew the aid was being withheld, arrangements were made to announce an investigation and the whole drug deal blew up when the whistleblower information was coming out and there was no way around it.

No different than any other extortion case, it's a crime whether you were successful or not.

The other question there is what happened to the criminal referral that came out of the whistleblower report, just how did that disappear?


I answered your true false test. You were not able or not willing to answer mine. That is not unusual for you. You routinely doge, avoid, distract, as in here throwing back more questions to answer than answering the true/false quiz. It comes to a point where there is no purpose in either answering your questions nor expecting an answer from you.

And here's Mulvaney........admitting to a quid pro quo or are you claiming the equal to "did not have sexual relations with that woman"?

It was general response to the give and take involved in foreign policy. I believe that even you had said the same in some previous thread. His answer was not specifically regarding a quid pro quo for information that would benefit the next election.

The phone call that sparked the controversy did not ask for a quid pro quo. The facts are that there was no quid pro quo asked for in the phone call. There was no quid pro quo demanded or received when the money was given. Those are the facts.

As well as the fact that Mulvaney specifically said there was no quid pro quo other than some assurances that corruption would be looked into as Trump had every legal right, and an actual duty, to inquire about.

Those are the discernable facts.

What Mulvaney said is not so much the question as is what Trump said. What is undeniable, manifest, discernable fact, is that Trump has not been shown to ask Zelensky for something, much worse, something illegal, in EXCHANGE for the aid. Zelensky concurred that there was no such quid pro quo. It is conjectured or implied that he did. Those are the facts.

But what is pure conjecture is that what he asked for or intended was dirt to influence the next election. That is pure, unknowable, speculation. It may comfort you to indulge it, but speculation is not grist for impeachment nor for any criminal prosecution.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It was general response to the give and take involved in foreign policy. I believe that even you had said the same in some previous thread. His answer was not specifically regarding a quid pro quo for information that would benefit the next election.

The phone call that sparked the controversy did not ask for a quid pro quo. The facts are that there was no quid pro quo asked for in the phone call. There was no quid pro quo demanded or received when the money was given. Those are the facts.

As well as the fact that Mulvaney specifically said there was no quid pro quo other than some assurances that corruption would be looked into as Trump had every legal right, and an actual duty, to inquire about.

Those are the discernable facts.

What Mulvaney said is not so much the question as is what Trump said. What is undeniable, manifest, discernable fact, is that Trump has not been shown to ask Zelensky for something, much worse, something illegal, in EXCHANGE for the aid. Zelensky concurred that there was no such quid pro quo. It is conjectured or implied that he did. Those are the facts.

But what is pure conjecture is that what he asked for or intended was dirt to influence the next election. That is pure, unknowable, speculation. It may comfort you to indulge it, but speculation is not grist for impeachment nor for any criminal prosecution.

This is what was said when Mulvaney admitted to the ask.
Q: "But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is: Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happens as well."

Mulvaney: "We do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding money at the same time for — what was it? The Northern Triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries so that they would change their policies on immigration."

Claim that only direct evidence counts and ignore as much other evidence as you want, if this was in a court of law with proper discovery, witnesses and documents, Floridaman would be convicted. If he was not president the FBI would have been at the door at 2am and taken the evidence. Cases are concluded with convictions all the time based on indirect, demonstrative and other types of evidence. You don't honestly think that Teflon Don II didn't learn anything from Roy Cohn. Keeping the witnesses with direct evidence out will only work if the crime is well hidden. The corrupt behavior affected several branches of the administration, ‘Everyone was in the loop’.
Obstructing congress is only temporary, the truth always finds the light of day and when it does the enablers will be done.
Perhaps they will wish they had chosen to take the risk of having their heads on a pike.

[scottw]

I moved on to 2020 24 days ago. I think we can all agree that 98% of Americans who have watched any of this impeachment debacle now hate democrats
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by scottw

I moved on to 2020 24 days ago. I think we can all agree that 98% of Americans who have watched any of this impeachment know the boot licking, god is this really my party thinking in private republican senators will never vote against the supreme leader and we too are ready for November.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Better
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got 1184584

Better

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You have clearly outsmarted yourself
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

This is what was said when Mulvaney admitted to the ask.
Q: "But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is: Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happens as well."

Mulvaney: "We do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding money at the same time for — what was it? The Northern Triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries so that they would change their policies on immigration."

Geez . . . I already covered that above. I didn't expect that would satisfy you. But I'm not about to go round and round repeating the same chit.

Claim that only direct evidence counts and ignore as much other evidence as you want,

I'm not ignoring any evidence. I've argued actual evidence with you. But I don't consider conjecture, assumption, speculation, to be evidence.

if this was in a court of law with proper discovery, witnesses and documents, Floridaman would be convicted.

If this was in a court of law, it would be dismissed for lack of an actual crime to adjudicate. The obstruction of Congress charge is a joke. There has been a long accepted, including some adjudication, that the President has executive privilege in protecting conversations with his staff. The abuse of power charge that Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election has not been even closely shown to exist in any pre-trial preparation and discovery. Every thing Trump requested was legitimate under current treaty law. There is no smidgen of FACT that what he did was to effect a future election. That is pure conjecture. That is pure speculation on the President's state of mind. A judge should expect something more solid than a prosecutor's opinion that Trump was doing this for something other than what he would normally do in his office of President in instances where corruption existed.

If he was not president the FBI would have been at the door at 2am and taken the evidence.

The Horowitz investigation has shown that the FBI was quite willing to falsely concoct evidence to spy on Trump. And, anyway, if Trump were not President, he wouldn't have the duties which he was fulfilling and for which he has executive privilege to protect internal communications, for security reasons among others, which I'm sure the FBI would appreciate since it routinely redacts or withholds information for similar reasons.

Cases are concluded with convictions all the time based on indirect, demonstrative and other types of evidence.

When there is direct exculpatory evidence, as in this case, versus a lack of direct evidence of guilt, as in this case, and the prosecution consists of conjecture, assumption, second, third, and fourth hand opinion, conviction would be a breach of justice.

You don't honestly think that Teflon Don II didn't learn anything from Roy Cohn. Keeping the witnesses with direct evidence out will only work if the crime is well hidden. The corrupt behavior affected several branches of the administration, ‘Everyone was in the loop’.
Obstructing congress is only temporary, the truth always finds the light of day and when it does the enablers will be done.
Perhaps they will wish they had chosen to take the risk of having their heads on a pike.

OK. I like that finish. It was an artfully, (slightly but appropriately demented sounding) rant that would do very well for the closing summation of a prosecutor who had a very weak, totally circumstantial and conjectural case which had been demolished by direct exculpatory evidence--or as well as it could.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

OK. I like that finish. It was an artfully, (slightly but appropriately demented sounding) rant that would do very well for the closing summation of a prosecutor who had a very weak, totally circumstantial and conjectural case which had been demolished by direct exculpatory evidence--or as well as it could.

What exculpatory evidence?

What IS the truth? That Floridaman would NEVER cheat in an election? How dare anyone accuse the Chosen One of such behavior. Just because he cheated on all 3 of his wives, cheats on his taxes, launders money, doesn’t pay his contractors, steals from charities to buy portraits of himself?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What exculpatory evidence?

What IS the truth? That Floridaman would NEVER cheat in an election? How dare anyone accuse the Chosen One of such behavior. Just because he cheated on all 3 of his wives, cheats on his taxes, launders money, doesn’t pay his contractors, steals from charities to buy portraits of himself?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why do I feel like you are crying into a towel?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What exculpatory evidence?

The most obvious one is that Zelensky said there was no pressure, no quid pro quo arrangement. The money was delivered. No special quid pro quo was fulfilled to get the money. And Sondman, the only witness who got direct input from Trump re q pro q, said Trump told him no q pro q and tell Zelensky to do the right thing.

What IS the truth? That Floridaman would NEVER cheat in an election?

Who is it, exactly, that would NEVER cheat in an election, and how would you know? This is frivolous postulation, not rational argument.

How dare anyone accuse the Chosen One of such behavior. Just because he cheated on all 3 of his wives, cheats on his taxes, launders money, doesn’t pay his contractors, steals from charities to buy portraits of himself?

Since you ask for the speculation, someone would dare to in order to influence the 2020 election.

[Jim in CT]

trumps lawyer made an opening statement listing all the previous times that aid had been temporarily withheld, and no one cared.

Is there a law that says someone running for president, is immune from being investigated for anything?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device