Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
It collapsed cause it wasn't a fucken deal at all. It was vassalization.
No, and that's actually what concerns me from a US perspective. The arrangements that Trump were making weren't with the US as beneficiary, but a private entity in the US.
That is, it could be unethical or bad foreign policy or whatever for Trump to ask for a hard bargain for the US. But aside from that, the issue here is that Trump can potentially be asking for a hard bargain that benefits him personally, not -- or not exclusively -- the US in aggregate. The arrangement was not between the US and Ukraine, but between a private entity in the US and Ukraine.
Ukraine is not the only country that the Trump administration will have dealings with. Corruption is a concern for people in the US. If the next thing that Trump gets up to regarding US policy is to go to the next country over and asks, in a private communication between his legal team and another country, for a lot of assets to be transferred to a private entity in the US in order for the US to take some official action, that is a problem for the American public.
The US has always made such deals that benefit US private corporations, not the government. It's not the US government that extracted oil in Saudi Arabia. It was US private corporations. It wasn't the US government that exploited labor and nature to grow bananas in the Caribbean, it was US private corporations.
It is the price to pay for those who sell their country and its people to the interests of the U.S. Empire
Someone just submitted this article to !europe@feddit.org. While that's interesting, it's going to be looking at the issue from Ukraine's standpoint. I am also concerned about the impact on the US, though.
The very short form of my concern: It sounds like, if the story is correct, Trump's legal team, out-of-band with the federal bureaucracy, asked Ukraine to sign over a bunch of (very valuable) rights to a private entity in the US; this would not directly benefit the US as a whole, but this entity, as a precondition to meet with Vance. The agreement was apparently written by Trump's legal team, not the bureaucracy. When Ukraine refused, Vance met anyway.
The reason that I am concerned about this is that it looks like it is asking for a rather large bribe in order to conduct US policy.
I do not believe that this is political theater, as it was done privately; the only reason that we know about it in the US would be because Ukraine was not quiet about it.
This community discusses things from a US standpoint. I think that this is important for the US, not just Ukraine, so I'm going to paste my comments from !europe@feddit.org here.
I do not know whether this is actually potentially breaks US law. If the story is true, it is certainly concerning to me as providing insight into what sorts of arrangements Trump might seek to make with other countries. I also do not believe -- and this is most of what my material below is about -- that the Congressional Democrats presently have the power to initiate investigations into the activity of the Executive Branch, that they require at least some support from Congressional Republicans. I am not expert on Congressional investigations, but my ten minute take, from what I was able to dig up quickly, is that they do not.
[this comment copied from one I made on the !europe@feddit.org post]
Crucially, the beneficiaries on the American side would not be the US government but private investors. The specific companies involved were not determined at this stage. Instead, the US proposed setting up a trust fund to which Ukraine would transfer the rights to develop its resources. This fund would then select the American companies who would extract – and profit from – Ukraine’s minerals.
Notably, the current draft does not appear to have been prepared by the US Department of Energy or the State Department but by Trump’s private legal team, which seemingly failed to distinguish between intergovernmental agreements and commercial contracts.
Uh huh. Well, that sounds pretty sketchy.
EDIT: I'd also add, setting aside the whole Ukraine angle, that that doesn't look all that great to me in conjunction with the FCPA suspension, if Trump's legal team is off looking to cut arrangements out-of-band from the bureaucracy with foreign governments to benefit unspecified private parties in the US. That is, for at last six months, the major legal restriction on American companies on bribing foreign governments is suspended.
On February 10, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order and accompanying fact sheet directing Attorney General (AG) Pam Bondi to, for a period of 180 days (1) effectively halt the initiation of new Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) investigations and enforcement actions and (2) undertake a detailed review of any such existing matters with an eye toward “restoring proper bounds” on enforcement.
I realize that most folks here are probably interested in the impact on Ukraine, but that's got some serious issues for the US as well.
To be blunt, that's a lot of potential money to be changing hands between private parties without record being made of what terms are going on, where decisions on US policy are involved. The only reason that I'm aware of that we're aware of this in the US is because Ukraine disclosed the offer. I don't know whether Trump's legal team might be writing up other contracts potentially involving other countries.
[this comment copied from one I made on the !europe@feddit.org post]
I was curious about what kind of degree of Congressional clout is required to initiate an investigation into Executive Branch activity. Apparently, though this was a while back, during Trump's first term, Trump wanted the Executive Branch not to provide information on Executive Branch activity to Congressional oversight except under some limited cases:
In 2017, the Trump Administration’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a guidance memorandum to agencies regarding the Executive Branch’s duties to respond to and comply with congressional oversight and investigative inquiries, whether accompanied by a subpoena or not. One might think, given that the President was a Republican and he was facing a bicameral Republican majority in Congress at the time, that the guidance would have favored glass door policies and open communication in favor of truly “draining the swamp.” Instead, the guidance stated that there are only three entities to which the Executive Branch has the duty to reply: a House of Congress in its entirety, a committee or subcommittee of jurisdiction, or an aforementioned committee or subcommittee’s chair.
According to the OLC in this memorandum, the constitutional authority to oversee the Executive Branch can only be conducted officially “by each house of Congress or, under existing delegations, by committees and subcommittees (or their chairmen).” Thus, an investigative inquiry from any individual member of Congress other than a committee or subcommittee chair, regardless of his or her political weight, seniority, or caucus leadership “is not properly considered an ‘oversight’ request” as “[i]ndividual members of Congress . . . do not have the authority to conduct oversight in the absence of a specific delegation by a full house, committee, or subcommittee.” Only those who speak or “act on behalf of congressional committees” may conduct official oversight. Because there is no delegation of authority to an individual member, the OLC reasons, his or her in- quiry “does not trigger any obligation to accommodate congressional needs,” especially since it “is not legally enforceable through a subpoena or contempt proceedings.” Therefore, only those congressional inquiries which are accompanied by a subpoena—or supported by the threat thereof—are owed a response. All other responses, the OLC opinion says, are left to the discretion of the agency.
That is, he really didn't want senators or representatives being able to obtain information on what the Executive Branch was doing unless the above conditions were true, was asking for minimum cooperation with Congressional oversight, which I think means that someone requiring such information would need to hold a majority in at least one house, since I think that the chairs of committees are always from the majority party.
kagis
Yes (well, this is specific to the Senate, but I expect that the House is the same):
https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/committee-system/committee-assignments.htm
Since the 1950s, Senate and party rules have gradually changed to distribute coveted committee seats more broadly throughout each party conference. Seniority still matters, however, and the majority party member with the greatest seniority on a particular committee traditionally serves as chair.
So I don't think that as things stand, Congressional Democrats can actually initiate investigations as long as there's a trifecta -- they require at least some Congressional Republican support.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10015
Okay, here's a Congressional Research Service report, which I'd take to be fairly neutral:
Minority Party and Individual Member Authority to Conduct Oversight
The role of minority party Members in the oversight process is governed by the rules of each chamber and its committees. Minority Members are specifically accorded some rights. For example, House and Senate rules provide the minority on a committee a limited right to call witnesses of their choosing at a hearing, and all members of House committees are guaranteed up to five minutes to question each witness.
Ranking members and individual Members (other than committee chairs) are not authorized by chamber or committee rules to initiate official committee hearings or investigations or issue subpoenas. However, individual Members may seek the voluntary cooperation of agency officials or private persons and perform their own oversight, though these activities may be more difficult without the compulsory powers belonging to the committee
They can call witnesses once hearings are initiated, but that sounds like the only way to conduct an investigation of Executive Branch activity is to get a majority of at least one legislative house onboard. Hmm.