Treaty With Ukraine On Mutual Legal Assistance In Criminal Matters

us capitol

Congressional democrats have begun inquiries into impeachment of President Trump allegedly because Trump “tried to pressure” the Ukrainians into investigating possible corruption by former VP Joe Biden and his son. I have not heard reference of this treaty from the democrats or the “mainstream” press.

However, Trump was entirely within his legal purview according to a treaty signed into law during the Clinton administration: Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters.

If you like murder mysteries, type the name Lonni Lees into Amazon or Barnes & Noble sites to see her novels, a book of short stories, and reviews. For synopses and more reviews of her books click here.

The original treaty was signed in Kiev on July 22, 1998. Clinton transmitted the treaty to the Senate on October 19, 1999, and it was ratified by the Senate on October 18, 2000. The following link shows Clinton’s Letter of Transmittal, Clinton’s Letter of Submittal in which he summarizes the main points. This is follow by the full text of the treaty.

Treaty: https://www.congress.gov/106/cdoc/tdoc16/CDOC-106tdoc16.pdf

Senate confirmation: https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text

29 Comments

  1. 1. Treaties are the laws of the country. It is the constitutional duty of the President to
    enforce the laws of the country. That is why the impeachment mob and the fake news will never mention this treaty.
    2. Trump should offer Joe and Hunter Biden an award in a big White House event.
    Who can just go to China and bring back 1.5 billion dollars to improve the trade
    imbalance so quickly?

  2. I’ve read through the comments (and please try to focus on attacking messages rather than messengers in the future) — and there are a few things missing from the discussion:

    (1) Whatever actions Vice President Biden took against the prosecutor he did it with the collaborative support of other international organizations. I don’t recall specifically which ones at this moment, but let’s say the European Union, NATO, and perhaps the IMF. In other words, he was only the latest political figure to visit Ukraine and call for the Prosecutor’s ouster — certainly not the only one.

    (2) There is nothing illegal about accepting an invitation to be on the board of a foreign company. You can argue a case for bad judgement (because his father was Vice President), perhaps, but not illegality. I’ve conducted business in 106 countries around the world; I should know.

    (3) As we well know by now over these past three years, whenever the President expresses outrage at some action it is often only a tactic used to distract from the fact that he himself (or his associates) are doing that very same action. In the case of Ukraine, there is nothing different. Need an example? Here: https://apnews.com/d7440cffba4940f5b85cd3dfa3500fb2

    If you actually read the above AP NewsStory, you can only conclude that the President’s action with respect to (former) Vice President Biden and the Ukraine were 100% political. He is trying to attack the integrity of someone who is likely to be his opponent in the General Election in 13 months.

    • The one thing that Trump does that infuriates the Left is when accused of false stuff he doubles down and fights back. They just aren’t used to anyone doing that to them. This is an example of that. A month or so ago the Left (i.e. Dems and the Press) were calling for investigations into the fact that visiting delegations stay at the Trump hotel in DC or that Air Force pilots stayed at a Trump hotel in Scotland during layovers. Petty cash stuff. Now every time we hear that Joe Biden might have used his influence to get Hunter millions of dollars from the Ukraine or over a billion from China the press always includes “Never mind, nothing to see here, its legal” in the story.

    • And threatning to pull the funds if they did not fire the prosecutor who just happened to be investigating Junior Biden within six hours, is not a factor. I have some ocean front property near Ajo for sale, you interested?

    • As a member of the government that deals in financial transactions from time to time, we are regularly counseled on not only avoiding illegal actions, but avoiding even the appearance of shady actions. Sure Biden’s son was not a government official, but appearances matter and an investigation is warranted.

      In the meantime, if there was quid pro quo on Trump’s part, he deserves what happens. Most of us know by now that he’s been in business a long time and knows how to separate himself from dealings in such a way as to not be caught in this mouse trap.

    • … and we all know that the AP is 100% correct 100% of the time, right?

      In the meantime: All actions of ALL political parties in Ukraine should be investigated for at least the last 10 years. That would be an interesting exercise. Including US organizations that received donations from Ukraine (Clinton Foundation) and any quid pro quo that might have come about as a result.

  3. The list of acts of the 106th United States Congress includes all Acts of Congress and ratified treaties by the 106th United States Congress, which lasted from January 3, 1999 to January 3, 2001.

    Acts include public and private laws, which are enacted after being passed by Congress and signed by the President, however if the President vetoes a bill it can still be enacted by a two-thirds vote in both houses. The Senate alone considers treaties, which are ratified by a two-thirds vote.

    Summary of actions

    Public laws

    Private laws

    TreatiesEdit

    No treaties have been enacted this Congress.

  4. Mutual assistance implies an already existing Investigation. Going to Ukraine and not the FBI is not how this works, especially when there is no basis for any investigation in the first place.

    • No Basis? Willful blindness.
      Investigating and Exposing corruption is a duty of the President.

    • You’re an imbecile. Why did Joe Biden threaten the govt of Ukraine to fire the prosecutor in charge of the investigation if there’s “no basis”. How do you know there’s “no basis” when the prosecutor was fired, this is circular reasoning.
      The Treaty states that we can and WILL discuss criminal matters with those governments, not the “FBI”? Where on earth did you get that? You didn’t read it. Fortunately for everyone who doesn’t only get their information from the Leftist MSM, we have heard the direct quote, from the treaty, that gives the President broad authority to work with THEIR GOVERNMENT, on criminal investigations.
      Go learn WTF you’re talking about

      • I think that Vice Pres. Biden went to Ukraine and advocated firing the investigator was specifically because the man would not do his job, investigate corruption. That is what Ukraine investigators, at the time, reported.

        • Why would Biden interfere like that in a notoriously corrupt country? What does HE care?

          unless… he has reason to, like his son’s company?

          Did Democrats fail to hear AG Barr’s announcement in May about Durham investigating Obama admin spying/entrapment with foreign countries?
          Nellie Ohr said Ukraine provided disinfo for dossier in hearing. Don’t your Overlords tell you anything?

      • Wrong do some reading, it was after the investigation was closed by them and he and a bunch of others wanted him fired nothing to do with each other

      • Maybe you should do some more research yourself. You seem to have fallen for the Republiturd b.s. that Joe Biden did this all by himself. Heard of Sen. Ron Johnson? Heard of Sen. Rob Portman? Those are just two of the Republiturd Senators that signed a letter back in Feb. 2016 that was sent to Ukraine regarding the prosecutor that Joe Biden and OTHER nations were concerned, stating that there needed to be some reform with that office. Go to Rob Portman’s Congressional page. The letter is right there, signed by everyone that was on that committee they were on. I notice Ron Johnson and Rob Portman seem to be scared to open their mouth because of Trump and admit they were on board WITH Biden, not against him or Biden being by himself on this!

    • This is ridiculous. An investigation did exist, which Biden had shut down for his own personal gain and that of his family. Trump asked that that investigation be reopened and that the corruption which initiated it be looked into.

    • Treaties approved by our Senate are not restricted to existing investigations. This treaty wasn’t approved until WJC’s last year in office. Your statement demonstrates wishful thinking.

    • “Mutual assistance implies an already existing Investigation.”

      Who says? You? Based on what?

      Where in the agreement does it say this?
      “especially when there is no basis for any investigation in the first place.”

      Really? What about the viral video where Biden brags about threatening Ukraine with withholding 1 BILLION in aide unless they fire the prosecutor investigating his son?

      LOL, geez, talk about desperate and grasping at straws.

    • There is a lot more basis for an investigation (million dollars or so going to Hunter Biden for no reason whatsoever) than there was for the Trump Russian collusion investigation.

    • To be fair, he did specifically tell the Ukrainian President that he would like to have the U.S. AG get with and work with him on any investigation. That is actually on the up and up. As far as I can tell, the big stink isn’t that he didn’t handle it appropriately, it’s that he specifically targeted a Dem Presidential rival. After all, if we did not accept investigative information from foreign countries or nationals, we would never have had the Fusion GPS files that we used to open another investigation. That turned out well……

  5. Art. 4 specified the forms in which a request for mutual legal assistance are to be made, and they do not include a phone call between heads of government unless confirmed in writing within 10 days.

    • Legal Purview under the Treaty With Ukraine On Mutual Legal Assistance In Criminal Matters
      Article 4, Treaty [may accept a request in another form in ‘‘urgent situations”] (phone calls are not discussed)
      Article 4, Treaty [must be confirmed in writing within ten days unless the Central Authority of the Requested State agrees otherwise]
      “The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case.” -Zelensky (Trump/Zelensky phone call released transcript inferred agreement)

    • Treaties will, if required, contain an expiration date OR a conditional termination…The Kiev treaty contained no such limitations. PDF of the original treaty in my last response.

Comments are closed.