Quid Pro Quo Abroad, Unlawful Force at Sea: The Two Scandals Threatening This Administration’s Stability

The emerging scandal centers on a phone call between the head of this administration and the Saudi Crown Prince in 2019, made shortly after the murder of a journalist. A former National Security Council staffer says the call showed signs of a quid pro quo, and Congress is now demanding the transcript. Whether the White House releases it or refuses, the situation could escalate into hearings, subpoenas, or even impeachment inquiries because of concerns that presidential power may have been used for foreign or personal interests. At the same time, the administration is facing legal scrutiny over a series of lethal strikes near Venezuela on vessels the White House claimed were tied to narcotics trafficking. Legal experts argue the strikes lacked congressional authorization, did not meet conditions of imminent threat, and may violate both United States and international law. Together, the Saudi call and the Venezuela strikes point to a wider pattern of executive overreach and disregard for constitutional limits. This increases the likelihood of multiple investigations, potential bipartisan fractures in the Senate, and meaningful political consequences outside of the Epstein scandal.

#Politics #USNews #GovernmentAccountability #ForeignPolicy #SaudiArabia #CongressWatch #WarPowers #Venezuela #ExecutiveOverreach #PublicInterest #InvestigativeReview #ConstitutionalLaw #NationalSecurity #OutsideTheEpsteinScandal

Episode Transcript

(00:03):
Hello andwelcome to theVlogging pod.
Currently, Iwant to talkabout the
bombshell callbetween thehead of this
administrationand SaudiArabia. What
we know so faris that a
transcript isbeing demandedof a phone
call of thehead of thisadministration
in his firstterm in the

(00:24):
White Housewith the CrownPrince. Saudi
Arabia Thecallreportedly
dates to June2019, after
the murder ofa journalist
and the Saudiconsulate in
Turkey. AformerNationalSecurityCouncil
staffer,Eugene Binman,says he
reviewed thecall andcaught a

(00:44):
chalk,implying somequid pro quo.
Or at leastserious,Impractical.
The WhiteHouse declined
to release thetranscript and
dismiss VinMen's claims,
calling him aserial reply.
Media outletsandcommentators
say that giventhe context,
the call couldraise seriousquestions
about thepresident'srelationship

(01:06):
with a foreignleader. Andwhether
nationalinterest wascompromised. Why this
matters isbecausepresidentialdealings with
foreignleaders arealways subject
to scrutinyunder theConstitution. Foreign
Relationschecks theCongress'spower to
declare war,the treatypower, and
etcetera, ifthe executivebranch appears
to act in itsown interest.

(01:29):
Or a foreignpowersinterests
rather thanthe nationsthat raises
issues ofabuse ofpower,
obstruction ofoversight andpotentially
impeachablemisconduct. Specifically,
if the callinvolved a
quid pro quo,
then it couldbearsimilarities
to earlierimpeachmentquestions,

(01:49):
though eachcase depends
on verydifferentfacts. The
fact that thecall occurred
in the shadowof a
journalist'sdemise?Reputationsrisk. This
intelligenceconcluded MBSapproved these
actions andthe US still
welcomed him,reportedlyshielding him

(02:10):
from thecongressionalsanctions.
Congress isasking fortransparency
if thetranscripts
are harmful torelease could
triggerhearingsubpoenas,evenimpeachment
inquiries. Conversely,refusing to
release canalso fuelallegations
and of cover
up. What couldhappen?

(02:30):
Congress,especially theSenate andHouse
committees onForeignRelations,intelligence
and oversight,could demandthetranscripts,
formallysubpoena theWhite House
officials andhold hearings.
If the callreveals A
corrupt ornationalinterestcompromising
arrangement,then senatorsmight break
ranks and joina bipartisan

(02:53):
accountabilitypushed. Ifevidence
emerges of awillfulconsumerobstruction of
Congress orthe presidentusing his
office forprivateforeign gain,that could
triggerimpeachmentproceedings in
the House anda trial in the
Senate. Evenif impeachment
doesn'tsucceed, thepoliticaldamage could
be seriouserosion ofsupport among

(03:15):
moderatesenators,public trustdecline and
possible lossof seats in
Congress. Nowlet's take a
moment to lookat the federallaw issuing
concerns of USbombings orboat strikes
in Venezuela. What we know
so far is thattheadministrationhas carried
out multiplestrikes onVenezuela's
north of itsRamsar onvessels north

(03:37):
of Venezuela,claiming theybelonged to
the Venezuelagang. Transporting
narcotics oracting asnarcoterrorists
legal expertsincluded the
New York CityBarAssociation
Rule of Lawtask force
have said thatthese strikes
might beunlawful underUS and
internationallaw becausethey appear to

(03:58):
be summaryexecutions ofcivilians
carried outwithout. Congressional
authorizationor proper
process?Forexample, one
strikereportedlyunaligned 11people aboard
a vessel inthe Caribbean. The
administrationsaid the boatcarriedillegal
narcotics. Butexperts say noimminent
threat, noformal warstatus, no

(04:20):
congressionalauthorization,making the
strike legallydubious. After
anothercommentary ofthe states
that if thestrikescontinuewithout
oversight,they pose a
risk of beingconsideredextrajudicial
killings andcould open thelegal
liability forservicemembers and
the WhiteHouse.

(04:42):
Congress hasbegun to raise
war powerconcerns that
under the WarPowers
Resolution of1973, the
president mustin hostilities
after 60 daysunlessCongress
authorizes. Why this
matters? TheConstitutiongives Congress
the power todeclare war.

(05:03):
That's Article1. And thepresident's
role ofcommander inchief is
Article 2 isthe executive
uses militaryforceunilaterallywithout
sagittary ortreatyauthorization.
That raisesseriousseparation ofpowers
concerns. It's
a violation ofinternationallaw, can
damage UScredibility,

(05:23):
open the US toforeign
lawsuits andanguish anddegrade
alliances. Ifserver membersfollowunlawful
orders, thelegalexposuresincludescriminal
liability. Theadministrationmay also be
politicalvulnerablefor. Whoauthorized
this and wasit done with
legitimatenationalscrutinyreasons or

(05:44):
politicalgain? Becausethe strikesinvolve
foreignvessels,ambiguousjurisdiction,
and possibleviolations oflaws that
protect dueprocess andprohibit these
type ofactions, which
is a legal
risk and it is
elevated. Whatcould happen?
Well, theCongress couldhold hearings,
issuesubpoenas orclassifieddocuments

(06:06):
explaininglegal bases,refusal of
which could betreated asobstruction.
Significantnumber ofsenators couldsupport
resolutionslimiting thepresident's
war powers ofdemandingjustification
that maywithholdbudgetauthority or
attach. Oversightconditions tomilitary
defensefunding Theadministrationcould face
lawsuits,though theymay bedifficult

(06:28):
givendeference tothe executive
and ForeignRelations andnationalsecurity
issues. Butreputationalharm andpolitical
costs could bevery real if
the Senatealigns moreagainst the
administration'sactions. There
could also berestrictions
based onfuturestrikes,possibly
legislativeefforts torequirecongressional

(06:50):
authorizationor judicialreview.
Potentialpolitical andconstitutional
consequencescould be such
as impeachmentor revival,
risk a Senatebudget
leveragelegislated tolimit
executivepower, loss of
politicalcapital orparty

(07:11):
cohesion,criminal orcivil
liability. Electoral
implication?
How these twostrands ofinformation
I've justsupplied can
risk for theinformation?
Well, the callwith the Saudi
Arabiasuggestspotentialmisuse of
presidentialpower andForeignRelations. The

(07:32):
Venezuelansstrikessuggestspotential
misuse ofmilitarypower. Wars
both traced tothe sameroute.
Executiveacting withoutmeaningfulchecks or
transparency. If Congresssees a
pattern, willthey cut themilitary
authorization?Will havesecret calls
with foreignpowers? Willthey do
militarystrikeswithoutoversight?

(07:53):
Then politicalsystem couldrespond with
broadaccountabilityefforts rather
than isolatedcases. At this
point, theadministration'svulnerability
isn't just onescandal
outside of theEpstein, but
in being seenas a pattern
ofdisregardingconstitutionallimits that
raises thestakes. Instead of 1

(08:14):
hearing, youcould getmultipleinterlocking
investigations,ForeignRelations, war
powers,oversight. The
presence ofboth Foreign
Cal scandaland theVenezuela
bombingquestionsmeans multiplecommittee
jurisdictions,ForeignRelations,Armed
Services,judiciary. Itcould be
massive. Thatraises the

(08:35):
likelihood ofSenate action,
even if enoughsenators feel
they must. Respond to
preserveinstitutionalintegrity.
Today'ssources comefrom ReutersDemocrat
demandsrelease ofshocking Trump
Saudi A callthe New
Republic todemandstranscripts of

(08:55):
Trump MBS callthe Financial
Post Trump'sbeen bombing
boats in theCaribbean. New
York City BarAssociationunlawful
attacks. OnVenezuelanvessels?
Reuters Wasthe deli US
attack on theVenezuela
vessel legal?Just scrutiny.
US servicemembersexposed to

(09:16):
criminalliability,Responsiblestatecraft.
Senate effecteffort effort
to rein in
Trump war onnarcoterrorist
fairs. Oguraupdates Trump
said he willsend the
National Guardto hellholeChicago
theguardian.comWhite Housevows to appeal
after judgesites withHarvard and

(09:37):
reversebillions oftrump cuts
India timestrump Epsteinfigures now
maga recallsforgeryexperts to see
Matt. Massdeportation
analyzed theTrumpadministration
attacks onimmigrantsgns.org
Trump sets outto Bibian
Nattawutbombshell call
to drop all
charges. Thankyou for

(09:59):
listening,until nexttime, bye bye
for now.