Should crimes of political rivals be investigated?

[Traveler]

After listening to all the arguments about Trump pressuring Ukraine for information of corruption I am wondering if it is a crime to pressure another government for information concerning if a crime was commuted by a political rival?

As I have observed political campaigns through out my lifetime - it does not appear to be a crime to lie about a political rival.  Generally we say such is politics.  I am not talking about what is moral - I am asking about what is criminal in the political arena. 

There is also talk about using foreign aid as bribery - but is not the very essence of foreign aid bribery?   Can money be involved in anything with out some kine of strings attached?  Again we may say certain strings may not be moral - but would not the strings require crime before the any string be a crime all by itself?  Is asking for truth a crime?

One last point - if we know that an organization is involved in corruption - all we have to do to know who is involved in that corruption is to "follow the money".  And in the case of Ukraine and the Biden family - all we need to know of political corruption in this country - is who thinks the payoffs (cash payments) are void of any possible crime.

 

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

23 minutes ago, Traveler said:

After listening to all the arguments about Trump pressuring Ukraine for information of corruption I am wondering if it is a crime to pressure another government for information concerning if a crime was commuted by a political rival?

As I have observed political campaigns through out my lifetime - it does not appear to be a crime to lie about a political rival.  Generally we say such is politics.  I am not talking about what is moral - I am asking about what is criminal in the political arena. 

There is also talk about using foreign aid as bribery - but is not the very essence of foreign aid bribery?   Can money be involved in anything with out some kine of strings attached?  Again we may say certain strings may not be moral - but would not the strings require crime before the any string be a crime all by itself?  Is asking for truth a crime?

One last point - if we know that an organization is involved in corruption - all we have to do to know who is involved in that corruption is to "follow the money".  And in the case of Ukraine and the Biden family - all we need to know of political corruption in this country - is who thinks the payoffs (cash payments) are void of any possible crime.

 

The Traveler

I have no problem with asking foreign governments to “investigate” stuff.  It feels slimy to use foreign aid—especially defense aid—as an incentive for it, but that’s politics—it certainly isn’t impeachable.

Now, if you’re asking a foreign government to prosecute/jail/confiscate property without following some semblance of due process . . . That, to me, is a problem.  

[NeuroTypical]

I have to remind myself at times like this, but honestly, I'm happiest when our federal government is paralyzed and unable to do anything substantive.  The stuff that happens when the fedgov isn't divided enough (obamacare, 2 decades of war) doesn't make me happy. 

So yeah, I'm sort of hoping impeachment and the elections will keep all the jokers in DC occupied for all of 2020.  Here - I'll even contribute to it:

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I have to remind myself at times like this, but honestly, I'm happiest when our federal government is paralyzed and unable to do anything substantive.  The stuff that happens when the fedgov isn't divided enough (obamacare, 2 decades of war) doesn't make me happy. 

This only works if the things that are being stymied are new legislation.  This doesn't work AT ALL if the things that are being stymied is designed to ALLEVIATE the severe problems caused by existing legislation - e.g. NAFTA, etc.

[anatess2]

35 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I have no problem with asking foreign governments to “investigate” stuff.  It feels slimy to use foreign aid—especially defense aid—as an incentive for it, but that’s politics—it certainly isn’t impeachable.

Just to be clear... this is a hypothetical right?  Because the past week has blown that already tenuous narrative out of the water.

 

 

[Colirio]

Some thoughts: 

 

1. There is a political swamp. 

     a. Denizens of the swamp (long term political officials) use their political power and persuasion to structure the organization for them to stay in power long term. 

     b. Denizens use their power to put down any detractors or factions that might pose a threat to their power. 

     c. Denizens pay the costs (ie. money, favors, extortion, etc.) to enlist the help of others to keep them in power. 

 

2. Political rivals of the swamp fight an uphill battle. 

     a. The structure has been built to keep them out. 

     b. The denizens have the power to protect the people, which includes protecting themselves from corrupting influences. 

     c. Political rivals of the swamp often have few friends except the enemies of the swamp. 

 

 

That being said, if you take away power to investigate crimes of anyone, including political rivals, you undermine the foundation of law. 

 

Does government and law exist anywhere except in the minds of the people? 

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

After listening to all the arguments about Trump pressuring Ukraine for information of corruption I am wondering if it is a crime to pressure another government for information concerning if a crime was commuted by a political rival?

1.)  USA and Ukraine have an existing cooperative agreement on investigation of corruption between both countries.

2.)  Trump did not pressure Ukraine on Biden/Burisma.  He invoked the terms of the agreement regarding Ukraine's involvement in the 2016 election.

That said, can a US President pressure Ukraine to investigate corruption of political rivals 1.5 years before a Presidential election?  Yes.  It is his duty to do so.  But there has to be enough compelling evidence of the existence of corruption.

 

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

As I have observed political campaigns through out my lifetime - it does not appear to be a crime to lie about a political rival.  Generally we say such is politics.  I am not talking about what is moral - I am asking about what is criminal in the political arena. 

Lying can be criminal as is evidenced by Roger Stone's conviction.  Lying can be criminal as evidenced by the lawsuit of Sandmann against Wapo.  One cannot just tell lies about a political rival with impunity.  Political campaigns can rise to the level of libel or defamation and can be prosecutable.

 

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

There is also talk about using foreign aid as bribery - but is not the very essence of foreign aid bribery?   Can money be involved in anything with out some kine of strings attached?  Again we may say certain strings may not be moral - but would not the strings require crime before the any string be a crime all by itself?  Is asking for truth a crime?

No.  You can't use foreign aid for bribery nor quid pro quo nor just any term or condition.  Foreign aid have specific terms and conditions that trigger the aid and cannot be tied to terms and conditions outside of the established triggers. 

 

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

One last point - if we know that an organization is involved in corruption - all we have to do to know who is involved in that corruption is to "follow the money".  And in the case of Ukraine and the Biden family - all we need to know of political corruption in this country - is who thinks the payoffs (cash payments) are void of any possible crime.

 

The Traveler

The case of the Bidens doesn't need to rise to the level of actual quid pro quo.  The Executive policy requirement is to "avoid the appearance of evil".

[Just_A_Guy]

18 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Just to be clear... this is a hypothetical right?  Because the past week has blown that already tenuous narrative out of the water.

 

 

As to Trump, I think so.  (Haven’t been following the hearings closely.  Don’t really care, since the fact pattern they’re trying to prove is to my mind simply irrelevant to the question of impeachment.)

Though it sounds like the Obama admin did it to *kill* an investigation (or, to punish a guy who had previously investigated its friends).  So . . . there’s that.  Slimy, but not impeachable.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

45 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As to Trump, I think so.  (Haven’t been following the hearings closely.  Don’t really care, since the fact pattern they’re trying to prove is to my mind simply irrelevant to the question of impeachment.)

Though it sounds like the Obama admin did it to *kill* an investigation (or, to punish a guy who had previously investigated its friends).  So . . . there’s that.  Slimy, but not impeachable.

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing... maybe we are.  But just to do a clearer comparison between the 2 alleged quid pro quos:

Schiff tried to float the narrative that Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine to pressure Ukraine to investigate Biden - this narrative was blown out of the water when Trump released the transcript from the phone call where this supposedly was discussed because... well, Trump did not ask Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, he asked them to investigate Crowdstrike.  But these are the facts - Trump has consistently campaigned on stopping military aid to countries who do not contribute to their own defense.  In addition, he has withheld defense contributions to NATO and reduced military spending and presence in the Middle East.  Trump instructed the State Dept to hold military aid to Ukraine until other countries (e.g. Germany and UK) have made their military aid to Ukraine as well.  The State Dept eventually had to tell Trump (after the phone call occurred) that the deadline for the aid is looming so Trump issued the go-ahead to make the deadline even without the other countries' contributions as it is a US agreement to Ukraine.  All this happened without Ukraine being aware of it, especially not at the time of the phone call.  The aid came right at the deadline so as far as Ukraine is concerned everything was good.  All this is on official record in the impeachment inquiry.  In addition, Schiff's witnesses from last week and this week's televised inquiries all ended up saying they were not aware of a quid pro quo.  In fact, Sonland's texts unearthed by FOIA showed that Trump specifically stated to avoid the appearance of quid pro quo.

Here's the contrast to Biden's - Biden is on record stating, complete with video, that he forced Ukraine to fire their lead prosecutor by withholding loan guarantees as instructed by Obama.  This lead prosecutor has been deemed as corrupt by international leadership.  So sure - that pressure doesn't necessarily prove a quid pro quo... except there's that little snag of the prosecutor investigating Burisma which gives "appearance of evil" some teeth.  Biden tried to say he never talked to Hunter about Burisma so he wasn't aware how involved Hunter was in Burisma... except there's that little snag of Joe, Hunter, and the CEO of Burisma golfing together before the prosecutor got fired.. so if there's "no there there", why lie?

We're not talking about impeachable.  We're talking about the presence of quid pro quo (last week) or bribery (this week - evidently because polling is dropping on quid pro quo so they're pivoting to bribery that polled better) or whatever it is Schiff is trying to float to lend credibility to the circus.  Biden's quid pro quo is irrelevant to Schiff's investigation as the investigation is about Trump's quid pro quo and not Biden's.

Edited November 21, 2019 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

57 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing... maybe we are.  But just to do a clearer comparison between the 2 alleged quid pro quos:

Schiff tried to float the narrative that Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine to pressure Ukraine to investigate Biden - this narrative was blown out of the water when Trump released the transcript from the phone call where this supposedly was discussed because... well, Trump did not ask Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, he asked them to investigate Crowdstrike.  But these are the facts - Trump has consistently campaigned on stopping military aid to countries who do not contribute to their own defense.  In addition, he has withheld defense contributions to NATO and reduced military spending and presence in the Middle East.  Trump instructed the State Dept to hold military aid to Ukraine until other countries (e.g. Germany and UK) have made their military aid to Ukraine as well.  The State Dept eventually had to tell Trump (after the phone call occurred) that the deadline for the aid is looming so Trump issued the go-ahead to make the deadline even without the other countries' contributions as it is a US agreement to Ukraine.  All this happened without Ukraine being aware of it, especially not at the time of the phone call.  The aid came right at the deadline so as far as Ukraine is concerned everything was good.  All this is on official record in the impeachment inquiry.  In addition, Schiff's witnesses from last week and this week's televised inquiries all ended up saying they were not aware of a quid pro quo.  In fact, Sonland's texts unearthed by FOIA showed that Trump specifically stated to avoid the appearance of quid pro quo.

Here's the contrast to Biden's - Biden is on record stating, complete with video, that he forced Ukraine to fire their lead prosecutor by withholding loan guarantees as instructed by Obama.  This lead prosecutor has been deemed as corrupt by international leadership.  So sure - that pressure doesn't necessarily prove a quid pro quo... except there's that little snag of the prosecutor investigating Burisma which gives "appearance of evil" some teeth.  Biden tried to say he never talked to Hunter about Burisma so he wasn't aware how involved Hunter was in Burisma... except there's that little snag of Joe, Hunter, and the CEO of Burisma golfing together before the prosecutor got fired.. so if there's "no there there", why lie?

We're not talking about impeachable.  We're talking about the presence of quid pro quo (last week) or bribery (this week - evidently because polling is dropping on quid pro quo so they're pivoting to bribery that polled better) or whatever it is Schiff is trying to float to lend credibility to the circus.  Biden's quid pro quo is irrelevant to Schiff's investigation as the investigation is about Trump's quid pro quo and not Biden's.

I think we roughly are talking about the same thing.  I wasn’t aware that Team Trump is now saying the plans to withhold aid from Ukraine were just part of its grander strategy to get NATO and other allies to pull their financial weight.  Not sure I believe that or not; but frankly I don’t care much because even if it’s a complete lie—withholding aid, even for political ends, isn’t impeachable isn’t the first place.  (It’s not nice, but no one ever mistook candidate Trump for a nice guy.) 

And yes, what Biden boasted of doing was far worse than what I understand Trump to be accused of having tried to do.  

My understanding is that the Dems are now floating because some muckety muck is admitting there WAS a quid-pro-quo, in that the Ukrainians had to do some favor or other in order to get a call with President Trump.  To which I would reply “yeah, ever watch West Wing?  Those guys used access to the president to extract favors from international leaders all the time, and we all thought they were righteous geniuses for it.  So why is it suddenly so outrageous when real-life Trump does it?”

[JohnsonJones]

If we get to specifics on what this currently relates to...I find two problems with the Democrats and their current strategy.

 

#1 - They are the boy that called wolf.  They have been after Trump for so long with the same frame...Impeachment at any cost...that at this point many don't care whether Trump did something to impeach him with.  They've constantly been calling for his impeachment since before he even took office.  There comes a point where calling wolf constantly will make people not care anymore...even if it turns out that one out of the 700 other days they've been calling for it they are actually right for once.

#2 - The Democrats did some of the same things they are accusing Trump of.   Overall, I didn't really care whether Biden did what he did as dirty politics seem to be how the US works these days.  HOWEVER...if the democrats are going to push the issue we SHOULD follow that if Trump is guilty, everyone else INCLUDING DEMOCRATS who have participated in activities that are basically the same thing are ALSO guilty and need to be prosecuted.  I think Biden was actually their best candidate and hope in beating Trump out of the current selection and by doing this, they are effectively diminishing that candidate's chances of election.

[mirkwood]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

Should crimes of political rivals be investigated?

Fixed the title for you.  

 

Yes, absolutely.

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think we roughly are talking about the same thing.  I wasn’t aware that Team Trump is now saying the plans to withhold aid from Ukraine were just part of its grander strategy to get NATO and other allies to pull their financial weight.  Not sure I believe that or not; but frankly I don’t care much because even if it’s a complete lie—withholding aid, even for political ends, isn’t impeachable isn’t the first place.  (It’s not nice, but no one ever mistook candidate Trump for a nice guy.) 

And yes, what Biden boasted of doing was far worse than what I understand Trump to be accused of having tried to do.  

My understanding is that the Dems are now floating because some muckety muck is admitting there WAS a quid-pro-quo, in that the Ukrainians had to do some favor or other in order to get a call with President Trump.  To which I would reply “yeah, ever watch West Wing?  Those guys used access to the president to extract favors from international leaders all the time, and we all thought they were righteous geniuses for it.  So why is it suddenly so outrageous when real-life Trump does it?”

You're probably talking about the US Ambassador to the EU... Sondland. 

Okay - here's what came out of the hearings:

But first, the personalities: 
Sondland (US ambassador to EU)
Taylor (US ambassador to Ukraine)
Holmes (political counsel at US Embassy in Ukraine)

Then the Setting:
At a restaurant in Kiev one day after the whistleblown Trump phone call with Ukraine.

The Plot:
Trump had a phone conversation with Sondland while Sondland was at the restaurant with Holmes in Kiev the day after Trump's call to Zelensky (Pres of Ukraine).  Holmes stated in his private testimony that Sondland positioned the phone away from his ear which allowed Holmes to hear what Trump was saying.  In Holmes testimony, he said that Trump discussed the phone call with Zelensky the day before with Sondland to which Sondland told Trump that Zelensky loves him to which Trump replied "so he's going to do the investigations?" to which Sondland replied, "Yes".  Holmes then called Taylor a few days later and told him about Trump's Zelensky phone call as well as Sondland phone call notifying him of investigations about to drop.

Now, what made this blow up the inquiries is Taylor, on his own private testimony, stated that he found out about the Trump-Sondland phone call from a staff member who told him about it the Friday before his testimony in October.

This gives doubt on Holmes testimony of the contents of Trump-Sondland phone call.

In addition - FOIA'd text messages between Taylor and Sondland in October shows that Taylor discussed a quid pro quo between Trump and Zelensky to which Sondland replied to Taylor there's no quid pro quo and that Trump specifically stated to Sondland he doesn't want anything from Ukraine tied to the military aid.

 

My Opinion:

Now, what the MSM never points out is Trump did not ask for a Biden investigation.  Trump asked for a Crowdstrike investigation and Ukraine's involvement in the 2016 elections.  The Biden investigation was brought up by Zelensky to which Trump responded - yes, do that investigation too and coordinate with Giulliani.  So, if Holmes' testimony is accurate, then the "investigation" that Trump mentioned would have been the Crowdstrike investigation because that is what he specifically asked Ukraine for (Ukraine already offered to investigate Burisma).

The Democrats in the House are going to impeach Trump - I'm about 85% sure of it regardless of how the polls go.  I have 99% confidence that the impeachment inquiry has nothing to do with Biden (they already hung him out to dry - this looks terrible for Biden instead of Trump no matter how the MSM spins it), nothing to do with the Democrats' attempt to win the 2020 election, and EVERYTHING to do with the entire DNC as well as complicit Republicans and Intelligence Agency operatives to protect themselves from their attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and their continued coup after the inauguration.  The Senate MIGHT succeed in impeaching Trump depending on how many Republicans are complicit - Romney is complicit, I am 99% sure of it.  He will vote to impeach because it is better to lose political power than to go to jail.  How many more are there?  So Trump's challenge is if he can explode the deep state before he gets impeached in the Senate.

 

 

Edited November 21, 2019 by anatess2

[anatess2]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 I wasn’t aware that Team Trump is now saying the plans to withhold aid from Ukraine were just part of its grander strategy to get NATO and other allies to pull their financial weight.

I forgot to respond to this.

That's not what Team Trump is saying.  Team Trump is saying Nothing.  They're doing the "we don't want to lend credibility to this sham."

Where that info came from is testimony from Mark Sandy from the OMB. 

[Traveler]

Before replying I want to stress how much I enjoy our exchanges - both for sharpening my own ideas as from learning from yours.  Thank you for your input - especially when you and I do not agree.

23 hours ago, anatess2 said:

1.)  USA and Ukraine have an existing cooperative agreement on investigation of corruption between both countries.

It is my understanding that all agreements between countries are part of a greater whole called "Diplomatic Relationship".  How any official investigation takes place is quite interesting to me.  I am not sure - @Just_A_Guy could perhaps respond better - but I am not sure that any country should be involved in the other's internal affairs - except when they have specific interest (like someone in the foreign country involving a citizen of the other country in criminal activities or breaking the laws of their country).

Quote

2.)  Trump did not pressure Ukraine on Biden/Burisma.  He invoked the terms of the agreement regarding Ukraine's involvement in the 2016 election.

That said, can a US President pressure Ukraine to investigate corruption of political rivals 1.5 years before a Presidential election?  Yes.  It is his duty to do so.  But there has to be enough compelling evidence of the existence of corruption.

Asking or referencing can be a type of pressure.  Pressure is a very vague term.  The question is weather or not a crime was commuted.  As for the duty of a president - again it is hare to argue that a president has a duty to serve their own interest.  I do not believe that is the question - the question is - did the president commit a crime?  I am under the impression that many (for political reasons) believe that president Trump did indeed commit a crime by accepting the results of the election.

Quote

Lying can be criminal as is evidenced by Roger Stone's conviction.  Lying can be criminal as evidenced by the lawsuit of Sandmann against Wapo.  One cannot just tell lies about a political rival with impunity.  Political campaigns can rise to the level of libel or defamation and can be prosecutable.

Neither of these prove the point I think you are attempting to make.  Stone's conviction was not for his "political research" but for lying to investigators (not for publishing lies in a political report).  As for Sandmann against Wapo - this has nothing to do with what any politician said in their campaign - it is about abuses of the first amendment (freedom of the press) in an effort to cause injury to a minor.  And I would stress the point of causing injury to a minor.  

President Obama knew it was a lie to say,  "If you like your doctor - you can keep your doctor".  George Costanza (a character in the comedy series Seinfeld) said , "It is not a lie if you believe it to be true".  Even this perverse definition does not mitigate Obama's (and many other politicians) lies.  The definition of a lie in the political arena has been altered to mean - "It is not a lie if it helps a particular political agenda".

Quote

No.  You can't use foreign aid for bribery nor quid pro quo nor just any term or condition.  Foreign aid have specific terms and conditions that trigger the aid and cannot be tied to terms and conditions outside of the established triggers. 

I find this statement very naive.  Money is never just given - there is always a quid pro quo or terms of condition.  Money by itself is worthless and by definition is a quid pro quo or exchange.   I personally believe (and I know you have some disagreement) but this concept of money (all by itself) a means of quid pro quo exchange is especially evil and even a Satanic quid pro quo for those that accept  money thinking that they do not have to give something back in exchange.  I personally believe foreign aid becomes evil when conditions are hidden or changed from the initial agreement.  Anyone in government that does such a thing with tax money in association to any government policy - I believe is evil and should be removed (be they elected or otherwise) by free citizens (that wish to maintain their freedoms and liberties).   

Quote

The case of the Bidens doesn't need to rise to the level of actual quid pro quo.  The Executive policy requirement is to "avoid the appearance of evil".

Policies are not necessarily criminal.  However, I believe that anyone doing business with a foreign entity or even any company that receives government money that also has a political connection (especially campaign contributions) - should be investigated by a team entirely comprised of their rivals and that the results of the investigation should be made public  --  other wise a policy of "avoiding the appearance of evil" is superficial.

The Traveler

Edited November 22, 2019 by Traveler

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Before replying I want to stress how much I enjoy our exchanges - both for sharpening my own ideas as from learning from yours.  Thank you for your input - especially when you and I do not agree.

Same to you.

 

Quote

It is my understanding that all agreements between countries are part of a greater whole called "Diplomatic Relationship".  How any official investigation takes place is quite interesting to me.  I am not sure - @Just_A_Guy could perhaps respond better - but I am not sure that any country should be involved in the other's internal affairs - except when they have specific interest (like someone in the foreign country involving a citizen of the other country in criminal activities or breaking the laws of their country).

Joint investigations of corruption/crime between countries is NOT a standard.  The standard is full Sovereignty.

In the case of US/Ukraine - they have a specific treaty between those 2 countries started by the House under Newt Gingrich and signed by Bill Clinton (so would be in the late 90's) for mutual cooperation in criminal investigations.  

 

Quote

Asking or referencing can be a type of pressure.  Pressure is a very vague term.  The question is weather or not a crime was commuted.  As for the duty of a president - again it is hare to argue that a president has a duty to serve their own interest.  I do not believe that is the question - the question is - did the president commit a crime?  I am under the impression that many (for political reasons) believe that president Trump did indeed commit a crime by accepting the results of the election.

To be able to answer the question of "Did the President commit a crime" you have to state... What Crime?  This is the dead-end-back-and-forth between me and @Just_A_Guy in another thread as he tries to dance away from the subject of that thread which is Swalwell's ignorance and not impeachability of Trump which he keeps on going back to.  

By the way - quid pro quo is not a Federal crime by itself.  Bribery and extortion are crimes under campaign finance law.

 

Quote

Neither of these prove the point I think you are attempting to make.  Stone's conviction was not for his "political research" but for lying to investigators (not for publishing lies in a political report).  As for Sandmann against Wapo - this has nothing to do with what any politician said in their campaign - it is about abuses of the first amendment (freedom of the press) in an effort to cause injury to a minor.  And I would stress the point of causing injury to a minor.  

Your question was not specific to "political research".  Your question was whether Lies made during the campaign is against the law and not just morally repugnant.  I gave you examples of how Lies can rise to the level of criminality in the political arena.  

 

Quote

President Obama knew it was a lie to say,  "If you like your doctor - you can keep your doctor".  George Costanza (a character in the comedy series Seinfeld) said , "It is not a lie if you believe it to be true".  Even this perverse definition does not mitigate Obama's (and many other politicians) lies.  The definition of a lie in the political arena has been altered to mean - "It is not a lie if it helps a particular political agenda".

George Costanza is wise.  I do not think Obama knew the consequences of Obamacare until it blew up on his face.  In any case, if I can't even be convinced it was a lie rather than stupidity when I thoroughly hated Obamacare, it would be hard-pressed for a judge and jury to come up with the same verdict.

 

Quote

I find this statement very naive.  Money is never just given - there is always a quid pro quo or terms of condition.  Money by itself is worthless and by definition is a quid pro quo or exchange.   I personally believe (and I know you have some disagreement) but this concept of money (all by itself) a means of quid pro quo exchange is especially evil and even a Satanic quid pro quo for those that accept  money thinking that they do not have to give something back in exchange.  I

I'm going to thoroughly ignore this statement because it is an insult to all charitable people on the planet.  Money is worth what people assign to it.  If you ever end up homeless and hungry and dying on the side road and I give you money out of the goodness of my heart I would hope you won't think it was worthless or that I want something in return because if you give me something in return as you felt you owed me it would be a complete rejection of my desire to express my love for a downtrodden fellow human.

And that's all I have to say about that.

 

Quote

personally believe foreign aid becomes evil when conditions are hidden or changed from the initial agreement.  Anyone in government that does such a thing with tax money in association to any government policy - I believe is evil and should be removed (be they elected or otherwise) by free citizens (that wish to maintain their freedoms and liberties).   

Foreign aid by governments, on the other hand, is NEVER charity.  And that is because, the government does not own the money - the taxpayers do.  Therefore, anything you do with that money has to provide a benefit to the taxpayers.  Therefore, foreign aid is ALWAYS tied to diplomatic agreements, trade agreements, foreign policy, and what-not.

 

Quote

Policies are not necessarily criminal.  However, I believe that anyone doing business with a foreign entity or even any company that receives government money that also has a political connection (especially campaign contributions) - should be investigated by a team entirely comprised of their rivals and that the results of the investigation should be made public  --  other wise a policy of "avoiding the appearance of evil" is superficial.

The Traveler

An American politician - Federal, State, or Local - cannot receive political contributions nor buy political influence from non-American-citizens UNLESS such a person is a lawful Permanent Resident of the USA (green card holder) AND is not tied to any foreign entities (e.g. foreign businesses, corporations, organizations - including charitable ones, activists, governments, etc.).  As a foreign national, I can endorse Trump under free speech but my connection to the current Philippine government prohibits me from giving money to Trump nor can I have Trump use my house as a campaign office.

And no - having an investigation comprised of "their rivals" is simply idiotic.  That's going under the assumption that political rivals would be honest in their investigation of those they want to wrest power from.  Campaign finance violations is investigated by the FEC which is an independent regulatory commission appointed by the Executive branch and confirmed by the Senate and overseen by the Office of the Inspector General.

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by anatess2

[Traveler]

On 11/22/2019 at 11:44 AM, anatess2 said:

 

I'm going to thoroughly ignore this statement because it is an insult to all charitable people on the planet.  Money is worth what people assign to it.  If you ever end up homeless and hungry and dying on the side road and I give you money out of the goodness of my heart I would hope you won't think it was worthless or that I want something in return because if you give me something in return as you felt you owed me it would be a complete rejection of my desire to express my love for a downtrodden fellow human.

And that's all I have to say about that.

 

I have walked away from civilization and spent over 5 weeks in the wilderness.  I took a coat, a blanket, a knife and rope.   I came across an individual hungry and dying - also suffering greatly from dehydration, open and bleeding blisters and lost.   If I had given him hundreds of thousands of dollars he would have died.  If a person is hungry they cannot eat money and be satisfied.   I was prepared to take care of myself and rely on what G-d and nature provided but not to care for a person twice my weight that was injured and could not walk.  He was hours from death - had I left him to get help he would have died.  It took me 4 days to get him to civilization and nearly died from dehydration myself.  It was a miracle we got out.  Money would not and could not help either of us.

Charity is defined as the pure love of Christ.  Jesus taught about love as laying down one's life for other.  Leaving a few bucks in a panhandlers cup is not charity regardless of how good it makes someone feel for doing it.  But worse is it to receive - with no emotion or determination (quid pro quo) to pay back if not in doing so with helping others.  I am convinced that the one of the worse things a parent can do is give their children money with no quid pro quo or strings attached.

 

The Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

54 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I have walked away from civilization and spent over 5 weeks in the wilderness.  I took a coat, a blanket, a knife and rope.   I came across an individual hungry and dying - also suffering greatly from dehydration, open and bleeding blisters and lost.   If I had given him hundreds of thousands of dollars he would have died.  If a person is hungry they cannot eat money and be satisfied.   I was prepared to take care of myself and rely on what G-d and nature provided but not to care for a person twice my weight that was injured and could not walk.  He was hours from death - had I left him to get help he would have died.  It took me 4 days to get him to civilization and nearly died from dehydration myself.  It was a miracle we got out.  Money would not and could not help either of us.

Charity is defined as the pure love of Christ.  Jesus taught about love as laying down one's life for other.  Leaving a few bucks in a panhandlers cup is not charity regardless of how good it makes someone feel for doing it.  But worse is it to receive - with no emotion or determination (quid pro quo) to pay back if not in doing so with helping others.  I am convinced that the one of the worse things a parent can do is give their children money with no quid pro quo or strings attached.

  

The Traveler

Then, um, why does the church give so much money to charitable causes? 

[anatess2]

19 hours ago, Traveler said:

I have walked away from civilization and spent over 5 weeks in the wilderness.  I took a coat, a blanket, a knife and rope.   I came across an individual hungry and dying - also suffering greatly from dehydration, open and bleeding blisters and lost.   If I had given him hundreds of thousands of dollars he would have died.  If a person is hungry they cannot eat money and be satisfied.   I was prepared to take care of myself and rely on what G-d and nature provided but not to care for a person twice my weight that was injured and could not walk.  He was hours from death - had I left him to get help he would have died.  It took me 4 days to get him to civilization and nearly died from dehydration myself.  It was a miracle we got out.  Money would not and could not help either of us.

Charity is defined as the pure love of Christ.  Jesus taught about love as laying down one's life for other.  Leaving a few bucks in a panhandlers cup is not charity regardless of how good it makes someone feel for doing it.  But worse is it to receive - with no emotion or determination (quid pro quo) to pay back if not in doing so with helping others.  I am convinced that the one of the worse things a parent can do is give their children money with no quid pro quo or strings attached.

 

The Traveler

Got it.  If you're hungry and dying you will not accept my Charity because it is in the form of money and you first have to judge me for that.  I guess your tithes are in the form of bananas.

[Traveler]

19 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Then, um, why does the church give so much money to charitable causes? 

What cash give-aways are you talking about?  The closest program to a charitable cash (money) charity (that I am aware of) is the Perpetual Education Program - that is intended to maintain itself through the recipients giving back - thus the term "perpetual".

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

48 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Got it.  If you're hungry and dying you will not accept my Charity because it is in the form of money and you first have to judge me for that.  I guess your tithes are in the form of bananas.

I would rather eat grubs and grasshoppers than money.  To be blatantly honest - I have been starving and willing to attempt to eat grasshoppers - which are absolutely horrible and bitter.   I have joked that they are rich in vitamin L because they absolutely taste like L.  I have and continue to be involved with assisting poor and homeless.  I believe there are at least 5 distinct categories  of homeless individuals in poverty - most individuals fall into multiple categorizes of why they are poor.  But only two of the categories has any possibility of being helped or assisted by gifts of cash.  And I would add that the two categories that are helped by cash are the smallest set and the least of all other categories to likely die from starvation.

Jesus asked something along the line - "Who among you that seeing someone in desperate need of bread would provide a stone?"  Money is more stone like than bread like.   Every person that is born of mankind is in great need - we are all beggars and unprofitable servants.  But I do not believe that a honest child of G-d requires money - either for sustenance (physical survival) or eternal salvation (spiritual survival).  I have been wrong before - and if someone can provide an example - I would appreciate it. 

 

The Traveler

Edited November 25, 2019 by Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

What cash give-aways are you talking about?  The closest program to a charitable cash (money) charity (that I am aware of) is the Perpetual Education Program - that is intended to maintain itself through the recipients giving back - thus the term "perpetual".

 

The Traveler

Believe me, the church gives money to charities. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. 

[Traveler]

39 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Believe me, the church gives money to charities. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. 

The only time I am aware of cash given is when it is too difficult to provide goods and services directly and then - it is my understanding that the money is donated with strings attached to insure that goods and services will be provided - I have never heard of the Church passing out cash to starving victims of some circumstance.  But perhaps you could enlighten me.  I have received checks (cash) from the Church to pay for a particular person's rent in property I own - but these checks to not come from my tenet but directly from the church.  It is my understanding that whenever possible such cash payments do not go through those receiving charity.

Whenever I receive such a check - I always contact my tenet and offer opportunities for them to work off all or some of their rent.

 

The Traveler

Edited November 25, 2019 by Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

6 hours ago, Traveler said:

The only time I am aware of cash given is when it is too difficult to provide goods and services directly and then - it is my understanding that the money is donated with strings attached to insure that goods and services will be provided - I have never heard of the Church passing out cash to starving victims of some circumstance.  But perhaps you could enlighten me.  I have received checks (cash) from the Church to pay for a particular person's rent in property I own - but these checks to not come from my tenet but directly from the church.  It is my understanding that whenever possible such cash payments do not go through those receiving charity.

Whenever I receive such a check - I always contact my tenet and offer opportunities for them to work off all or some of their rent.

 

The Traveler

"Since 1985, LDS Charities has provided over $2.2 billion in assistance, including cash, commodities and in-kind donations in 197 countries and territories." 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/lds-charities-releases-2018-annual-report
 

Edited November 26, 2019 by MormonGator

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

"Since 1985, LDS Charities has provided over $2.2 billion in assistance, including cash, commodities and in-kind donations in 197 countries and territories." 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/lds-charities-releases-2018-annual-report
 

So, around 64.7 million a year, or with 16 million members around $4 a year per member???

Or if we reduce that to an average of 8 million members...$8  a year per member.

Of course, that's been accelerated recently, it used to be around 40 million a year (I think it was around 2 years ago) which was probably around 2.6 million per member, or if we take the lower average around $5 per member per year at the time...

However, I should note, I do not think this actually is with the Fast offerings that are given locally.  Those are counted differently.  That amount I think is purely to humanities type projects such as hurricane cleanup, medical supplies and other such activities.  Fast offerings I think are given out differently.

Personally, I would rather they spend the money on keeping the church running and ensuring that don't outbuild themselves (build to many buildings and such).  Another area they could ABSOLUTELY improve on is improving internet access (anyone know how aggravating it is to try to log on at times as the Bishopric and jump through loop holes just to get the work done that the Church wants done there!!!!???  And people wonder why callings and rolls sometimes are not the most up to date, the Church does NOT make it easy)...as well as improving SECURITY over personal information (it is VERY unnerving to have some individual you don't know all that well come up to you and start talking about your age, birthdate, and other personal information you never would have allowed them to have in the first place, but the church really gives no other options).  In fact, I'd rank improving internet security as their number one priority.

I imagine they don't let it out but with how lax it seems I would not be surprised if the church membership record database has been hacked many times at this point simply due to lack of the general internet security protocols that they should be using.

So, I don't have a problem with how much the church gives out in regards to charity overall (our tithing dollars are not supposed to be for charity, but to uphold the church and it's organization, Fast offerings are supposed to help the needy, but unfortunately we normally don't have enough of those in many places to support the local needs of those in need)...if they do...great...but if they use it for other things (such as securing our personal information which I feel is VERY insecure under the church)...GREAT!

PS: One of the things that makes me most nervous is how lackadaisical the church acts towards our personal information in this age where identity theft is rife and predators for that information are constantly on the prowl. [I also suspect that an event I had a few years back where a member had used my personal information to obtain access to charging things to my accounts was obtained via their ease at accessing that information from the church records...so...I really would like the Church to stop providing as much personal information on members as they do in the US.  It's somewhat better in Europe now days I understand due to laws in Europe to that effect, but not as restrictive as they probably should be].

Edited November 26, 2019 by JohnsonJones