working with a Foreign Government to alter an election, and withholding appropriated funds to that Government if it didn't go along with the scheme.
Originally Posted by Chung Tran
Ok, I will resist the temptation to do a FTFY here... but you can easily substitute the words "expose US political corruption" for the words "alter an election".
As for the second part, there's no proof of a quid pro quo. It has to be explicit, not based on suspicion. (See 2016 Supreme Court decision in McDonnell v. United States.) Was it a quid pro quo when the Clinton Foundation took millions in bribes, er I mean donations, from the Russians and Frank Giustra to approve the Uranium One deal?
I personally think trump acted inappropriately here, but not illegally. There are two sides to this debate, and right now each side is just spinning furiously to convince John Q. Public that its narrative is the correct one. IMO the democrats are over-reaching far more than the Republicans.