What is the Basis in Law that an &quot;Investigation &#39;Quid Pro Quo&#39;&quot; is Unlawful or Unconstitutional?
<p>In cases of investigating election fraud, there seems to be a potential for a conflict of interest no matter who investigates it.</p>

<p>So, why can't the White House investigate campaign issues (involving the Ukraine, Clintons, and Bidens), regardless of any perceived conflict of interest?</p>

<p><strong>How is it unlawful/unconstitutional for a President to <em>order Executive Branch employees to</em> investigate election fraud, (or if they were to solicit foreign allies to do the same with reciprocity)?</strong></p>

<p>Suppose that any given sets of facts regarding President Trump's actions are true and constitute "basis in fact".  But, what would be the "basis in law" to impeach over those acts?</p>

<p>Aren't these types of negotiations expected of heads of state?</p>

<p>"Conflict of interest" has a specific meaning w.r.t. various <a href="https://www.imls.gov/sites/default/files/federal-conflict-interest-statutes.pdf" rel="noreferrer">federal laws</a>, which have financial gain as their underpinning. The so-called conflict which your referring to is an abstract moral duty, eforced at the polls every few years: there is no conflict of interest.</p>

<p>"Obstruction of justice" is defined in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-73" rel="noreferrer">18 USC 73</a>. The law does not require a person to passively submit to an investigation, thus you can file motions with a competent court to resist a subpoena. If there is a <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1510" rel="noreferrer">criminal investigation of a US criminal statute</a>, it is illegal to</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent
  the communication of information relating to a violation of any
  criminal statute</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Saying "you don't have authority to tell me to do that" is not obstruction of justice.</p>

<p>I have not seen any (credible) claim that it is unconstitutional for the president to order an investigation of election fraud, for example 
<a href="https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13799" rel="noreferrer">Executive Order 13799</a>. That commission was disbanded, but a new commission could be ordered via the same mechanism. Congress has the power to defund any such commission, and there was an unsuccessful attempt to use that power in the previous instance. </p>

<p>I think there is some confusion here between unconstitutional and just plain unlawful. Even leaving aside whether the President needs to order the Attorney General to perform the investigative steps, with respect to the various election issues that have arisen the current Administration, there have been significant potential problems with existing law.</p>

<p>If you are referring to the commission headed by Kris Kobach, whose ostensible purpose was finding votes cast by ineligible persons, they had significant problems with data privacy protected by law. There was also a strong whiff of racial discrimination that would be prohibited by the 14th Amendment.</p>

<p>If you are referring to the various entanglements between President Trump and Ukraine, there's the Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (colloquially, the Anti-Impoundment Act), extortion, bribery, and false accusation issues.</p>

<p>Perhaps the OP can be more specific about where the Constitution is coming into play in the investigation?</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol>
  <li>So, in cases of investigating election fraud, why couldn't the White House investigate campaign issues (involving the Ukraine, Clintons, and Bidens), regardless of any perceived conflict of interest? How is it unconstitutional for a President to investigate election fraud?</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>Because that office doesn’t have that power - the Attorney General does.</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="2">
  <li>If the Executive Branch cannot pursue these investigations, who can? Isn't there conflict of interest all-around?</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>The Executive Branch (Department of Justice) <em>can</em>, the Executive Branch (President) can’t.</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="3">
  <li>Couldn't actions stalling these investigations also be considered obstructions of justice?</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>Obstructing an legal investigation might be illegal, stopping an illegal one isn’t.</p>

constitutional-law elections investigation obstruction foreign-relations