This matters actually, as you didn't pose that if aid is already approved to be dispersed by congress, it is likely that there is a misunderstanding to believe that you were provided answers that only reinforced a preconceived notion. We are also at the mercy that this aid even is knowledgeable enough to provide these responses accurately.
"Is withholding aid normal"
Withholding aid by whom matters. Under what circumstances matter. I imagine aid is held for a variety of reasons as conditions are met, but given witness testimony of multiple witnesses, this hold defied normalcy.
"Do we give out money without terms" or
Who is we? United states, congress, executive branch? Also, I presume this is probably a no? It looks like a loaded question that would prompt job justification answers from someone who is asked, but I guess it depends who is asked.
"Do we ever renegotiate those terms before sending the aid"
Again, Who is we? An ambassador, the President, Congress? This can happen by the President, with notification to congress and congress will have to approve, without approval (even if a vote is never held) the aid is supposed to be dispensed.
Just to re-clarify, this isn't a trade agreement, but foreign aid with bipartisan approval by congress with pre-defined conditions (the anti-corruption efforts) that were approved by the pentagon. Yet the President attempted to subvert his restriction on aid impoundment that would require congressional notification and subsequent congressional approval and forced OMB to perform a hold under the guise of 'corruption' in-spite of the pentagon's findings. This isn't an impeachable offense, or at least I wouldn't dare think anyone in congress would assert that, but when taken in context with the requests made to Zelensky, and if one believes that dealing with 'corruption' in fact isn't the purpose of Trump's request (this provides context to prove state of mind and intent) then you have a case of solicitation of a foreign power to investigate into a political opponent (or merely even just announce investigations via cnn interview) which would influence an upcoming US election, you also have the constitutional definition of bribery. A definition provided by the most recent hearing, that definition (not the criminal definition) is derived by what is known as bribery during the time that article II was written in our constitution.
Criminal bribery - The federal
bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b), criminalizes the corrupt promise or transfer of any thing of value to influence an official act of a federal official, a fraud on the United States, or the commission or omission of any act in violation of the official's duty.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201
Constitutional bribery - "the idea that when you took private benefits or when you asked for private benefits… in return for an official act, or someone gave them to you to influence an official act, that was bribery.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=219&v=ba-PJ6CYbKs&feature=emb_logo
https://www.rev.com/blog/house-judiciary-committee-impeachment-hearing-transcript-day-1
---
What they were thinking about was bribery, as it was understood in the 18th century, based on the common law up until that point. That understanding was an understanding that someone, and generally even then, it was mostly talking about a judge. It wasn’t talking about a President because there was no President before that, and wasn’t talking about the King, because the King could do no wrong. What they were understanding then was
the idea that when you took private benefits, or when you asked for private benefits in return for an official act, or somebody gave them to you to influence an official act, that was bribery.
---
the 1792 version of Johnson’s dictionary. I don’t have the initial one and there he defines bribery as
the crime of giving or taking rewards for bad practices.
---
This seems to be an immensely broad definition of bribery in relation to the more narrowed criminal definition of bribery and the reason is likely again that impeachment was never designed to be a criminal trial but a political one. The framers of the constitution decided if congress who represent the people believed that the President has committed bribery then he is able to be subject to impeachment. That is not to say that Criminal bribery wouldn't also apply, but this is to show the threshold for constitutional bribery (what bribery was understood by common law at the time of the constitution) is able to be reached.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
----
Ted Lieu: (
01:57:57)
I’m also a former prosecutor. I believe the record and that evidence would also meet the standards for criminal bribery. The Supreme Court’s decision in McDonnell was primarily about what constitutes an official act. Their key finding was an official act must involve a formal exercise of governmental power on something specific pending before a public official. Pretty clearly got that here. We have hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid that Congress specifically appropriated. The freezing and unfreezing of that aid is a formal exercise of governmental power.
Ted Lieu: (
01:58:33)
But we don’t even have to talk about the crime of bribery. There’s another crime here, which is the solicitation of assistance of a foreign government in a federal election campaign. That straight up violates the Federal Election Campaign Act at 52 USC 30101. And oh, by the way, that act is also one reason Michael Cohen is sitting in prison right now. I yield back.
----
