The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on January 16, 2020, 03:33:29 pm
-
GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding aid from Ukraine
By Rebecca Klar - 01/16/20 10:06 AM EST
The Trump administration violated the law by withholding appropriated security assistance to Ukraine, the Government Accountability Office said Thursday in a report.
The independent watchdog said the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld the appropriated funds last summer.
The report said U.S. law “does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law.â€
“Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the [Impound Control Act],†GAO said.
The withholding of the aid is central to the ongoing impeachment proceedings against President Trump.
--This breaking news report will be updated.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/478557-gao-finds-trump-administration-broke-law-by-withholding-aid-from
-
The independent watchdog
What a coinkydink...just in time for the impeachment trial....btw who heads the GAO?
-
There's another federal law that says aid shall be contingent upon the recipient nation taking affirmative action towards eliminating corruption.
Apparently the GAO is another agency corrupted by ideology.
-
READ: GAO report finding Trump administration broke the law on Ukraine aid
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/478565-read-gao-report-finding-trump-administration-broke-the-law-on-ukraine
-
he report said U.S. law “does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law.â€
So, that means all the past president are guilty of not securing the borders?
There is no such thing as sanctuary cities?
Obamacare was illegal from the start?
What a load of $$$$... Deep state strikes again..
-
Eugene Louis Dodaro is the acting Comptroller and head the Government Accountability Office (GAO). On March 13, 2008, Dodaro became the Acting Comptroller General and was confirmed by the U.S. Senate for a term of fifteen years on December 22, 2010.
So, it seems that he was appointed by Bush, left in by Bammy and is now serving under Trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Dodaro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Dodaro)
https://www.cpajournal.com/2017/04/21/conversation-u-s-comptroller-general-gene-l-dodaro/ (https://www.cpajournal.com/2017/04/21/conversation-u-s-comptroller-general-gene-l-dodaro/)
-
And another day passes where the sins of the Biden's aren't aired.
-
What nonsense. Obummer also used the "carrot/stick" (some might say "quid pro quo") approach to aid.
-
What nonsense. Obummer also used the "carrot/stick" (some might say "quid pro quo") approach to aid.
Speaking of the aid the GAO is referring to here Obama refused the aid, period.
-
...and, let’s not forget Lev Parnas—criminally indicted, and the wellspring of all truth regarding Donald Trump’s pressuring Ukraine—cleared his schedule and is conveniently available to testify against Trump in the impeachment trial!
Chris Plante calls Lev the Julie Swetnick of impeachment (the whacky Kavanaugh accuser).
-
“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law."
"Faithful execution of the law???" What a joke. At most, Trump only delayed those payments for a couple of months. Contrast that with Obama's order not to enforce immigration law, and the concurrent grant of benefits to people who were in the country illegally. That lasted for years, and remained in place for more than four years of his Presidency. And not a peep from the Dems, the media, or the GAO regarding the legality of that action. Why? Because they liked the result.
-
So, that means all the past president are guilty of not securing the borders?
There is no such thing as sanctuary cities?
Obamacare was illegal from the start?
What a load of $$$$... Deep state strikes again..
Apparently some laws are more equal than others.
-
This is to what the GAO is referring:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974#Impoundment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974#Impoundment)
-
So...the finding is Trump violated the law by not sending military aid to Ukraine? That means O'Bastard was breaking the law before his signature was even dry, and broke it all the way to 1/20/17. Some Presidents are more equal than others. :shrug:
-
So, that means all the past president are guilty of not securing the borders?
There is no such thing as sanctuary cities?
Obamacare was illegal from the start?
What a load of $$$$... Deep state strikes again..
But... as we've discovered over the years.... it's only "illegal" if you don't happen to be a card-carrying commie Democrat. Otherwise it (anything) is perfectly OK.
-
Reading through to the end of the report (https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016f-aee6-dda2-af6f-efef31580000), the target of this legal argument is OMB director Mick Mulvaney - not President Donald Trump. But you wouldn't know that if you stopped reading after paragraph 2. Clearly, there are quite a few deep-staters at GAO (falsely labeled as the General Accountability Office on morning drive-by-media outlets).
The GAO report confirms (if you keep reading past paragraph 3) that Congress was indeed notified by DOD of the delay. The gist of this scandalous hit piece is that OMB held up the funding for an additional week after DOD released it. Yes, ladies and gentlemen. A whole week. And for that, Donald Trump should be executed.
-
The Red Thread: A Search for Ideological Drivers Inside the Anti-Trump Coup (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TQDQ2TV/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1)
Get it, read it, and understand what is happening to your country!
-
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Obama Administration violated federal law in 44 separate instances
Clinton lost 31, Bush 30
And none of those were impeachable offenses
-
And none of those were impeachable offenses
And in none of those did the General Accounting Office decide it wanted to join the Judicial Branch of government and unilaterally distribute verdicts against the President.
-
"Can't be a cover up if there was no crime." nevermind.
-
Apparently some laws are more equal than others.
:cool:
True
-
"Can't be a cover up if there was no crime." nevermind.
Any port in a storm, eh?
-
Reported on Fox
The GAO also said, years ago..that O'Bama broke the law by not notifying Congress on the ransom for Bergdahl.....
found it
Obama broke the law in Bergdahl release deal, GAO report says
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Politics-Voices/2014/0825/Obama-broke-the-law-in-Bergdahl-release-deal-GAO-report-says (https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Politics-Voices/2014/0825/Obama-broke-the-law-in-Bergdahl-release-deal-GAO-report-says)
-
These government accountants who made this pronouncement about Trump lawbreaking, do they pack heat? Also, can they file indictments in addition to making sure the digits in the debit column are correct?
:smokin:
-
I
intend to send a 100 billion dollar in cash at midnight on pallets on pallets of cash
What "law" have I
You guys are too stupid to even play with...LOL
-
These government accountants who made this pronouncement about Trump lawbreaking, do they pack heat? Also, can they file indictments in addition to making sure the digits in the debit column are correct?
:smokin:
It's hard to say. O'Bastard armed the bureaucrats to the hilt.
-
I
intend to send a 100 billion dollar in cash at midnight on pallets on pallets of cash
What "law" have I
You guys are too stupid to even play with...LOL
I'm still trying to get my mind around an agency called the "Government Accounting Office" dinging the president for delaying taxpayer subsidized aid to the most corrupt country on the face of the planet.
-
Any port in a storm, eh?
Corruption-it's the new conservatism.
-
Corruption-it's the new conservatism.
At least you can rest easy knowing our children and grandchildren will be punished.
-
The GAO is just another swamp creation and it likes the swamp just as it is.
-
"Law"
Is meaningless
Unless there is someone
willing a able to enforce it.
Otherwise, it is just jibberish
Nonsensical nonsense paraded by fools.
-
At least you can rest easy knowing our children and grandchildren will be punished.
I'm sorry @skeeter I don't understand why you think I want anyone punished except the crook-in-chief and his enablers.
-
I'm sorry @skeeter I don't understand why you think I want anyone punished except the crook-in-chief and his enablers.
Exactly. And it may happen, hang in there.
-
Is the GAO another highly respected, and never questioned National Agency like the FBI, CIA, NSA and DOJ?
...asking for a FRiend. wink777
-
I'm sorry @skeeter I don't understand why you think I want anyone punished except the crook-in-chief and his enablers.
Punished for what, exactly?
-
Punished for what, exactly?
Irrelevent.
-
Is the GAO another highly respected, and never questioned National Agency like the FBI, CIA, NSA and DOJ?
...asking for a FRiend. wink777
Tell your friend that the answer is Yeah! Pretty much and that is to the detriment of every one of us.
-
Is the GAO another highly respected, and never questioned National Agency like the FBI, CIA, NSA and DOJ?
...asking for a FRiend. wink777
The GAO effectively legitimizes all monies that the federal government wastes.
-
Is the GAO another highly respected, and never questioned National Agency like the FBI, CIA, NSA and DOJ?
...asking for a FRiend. wink777
:cool:
-
Punished for what, exactly?
Breaking the law in order to dig up political dirt, then covering up the crime. Same as Nixon had the good sense to resign over.
-
Irrelevent.
Seemly true for Republicans.
-
Seemly true for Republicans.
says Nadler and you.
-
Another "news of the day" thread, shot to Hell. 9999hair out0000
-
Another "news of the day" thread, shot to Hell. 9999hair out0000
Hey there’s some good stuff here. It only got shot to hell at the end.
-
Another "news of the day" thread, shot to Hell. 9999hair out0000
Wouldn't happen nearly so much absent the trolls.
-
Breaking the law in order to dig up political dirt, then covering up the crime. Same as Nixon had the good sense to resign over.
- Trump didn't break the law. The GAO report cites a one-week gap by OMB.
- No political dirt was ever dug up, nor was the one-week delay tied to politics in any way.
- There was no cover-up. Trump volunteered the transcript without even being asked.
Three false premises in one sentence. You've outdone yourself.
-
Breaking the law in order to dig up political dirt, then covering up the crime. Same as Nixon had the good sense to resign over.
#1. The so-called "dirt" was an open secret in Ukraine political circles.
It's exactly to what Hillary was referring on Election Night when she realized she'd lost, and in a rare albeit inebriated mind, SCREAMED: "You'd better effing fix this or we're all going to hang!"
#2. There were 22 people who ran a Dems. What? Just because you decide to declare, shouldn't exclude you from criminal investigation by the CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES.
#3This entire Biden fiasco is to give not only Biden shelter...but Pelosi (husband/son) and many others too! It was a money laundering operation of the first order. And don't forget this: Hillary Clinton's State Department 'lost' and can't account for $6Billion.
-
says Nadler and you.
I wish the GOP could recognize a President breaking the law again.
-
#1. The so-called "dirt" was an open secret in Ukraine political circles.
It's exactly to what Hillary was referring on Election Night when she realized she'd lost, and in a rare albeit inebriated mind, SCREAMED: "You'd better effing fix this or we're all going to hang!"
#2. There were 22 people who ran a Dems. What? Just because you decide to declare, shouldn't exclude you from criminal investigation by the CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES.
#3This entire Biden fiasco is to give not only Biden shelter...but Pelosi (husband/son) and many others too! It was a money laundering operation of the first order. And don't forget this: Hillary Clinton's State Department 'lost' and can't account for $6Billion.
Great! Then it will all come out during the Senate trial.
-
I wish the GOP could recognize a President breaking the law again.
I wish you could explain to us what law the President broke.
-
Breaking the law in order to dig up political dirt, then covering up the crime. Same as Nixon had the good sense to resign over.
Nixon took the easy way out. He should have fought the bastards.
-
I wish you could explain to us what law the President broke.
Irrelevant!
-
Nixon took the easy way out. He should have fought the bastards.
Nixon broke the law. Trump didn't.
Nixon was digging up political dirt. Trump wasn't.
Nixon tried to cover up the crime. Trump isn't covering up anything.
Nixon was never impeached. Trump was.
Other than that, the remaining points are exactly the same.
-
Nixon broke the law. Trump didn't.
Nixon was digging up political dirt. Trump wasn't.
Nixon tried to cover up the crime. Trump isn't covering up anything.
Nixon was never impeached. Trump was.
Other than that, the remaining points are exactly the same.
Let me say again. Nixon took the easy way out. He should have fought the bastards.
-
Irrelevant!
2 U.S. Code § 683
Any candidate who receives more electoral votes than Hillary Clinton in a Presidential election is considered in violation of this statute and guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors against the Democrat Party.
-
I wish you could explain to us what law the President broke.
https://congress.gov/116/bills/hres755/BILLS-116hres755rh.pdf
-
2 U.S. Code § 683
Any candidate who receives more electoral votes than Hillary Clinton in a Presidential election is considered in violation of this statute and guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors against the Democrat Party.
That sums it up nicely.
-
https://congress.gov/116/bills/hres755/BILLS-116hres755rh.pdf
Thus explaining your puzzlement.
-
Let me say again. Nixon took the easy way out. He should have fought the bastards.
I hear you. I just don't think it would have worked because of bastards like John Dean. Bottom line, breaking into DNC offices when George McGovern is their candidate is just plain stupid.
-
I hear you. I just don't think it would have worked because of bastards like John Dean. Bottom line, getting caught breaking into DNC offices when George McGovern is their candidate is just plain stupid.
fixed, but yeah...
-
https://congress.gov/116/bills/hres755/BILLS-116hres755rh.pdf
That's really beautiful and all. Now, can you please explain to us what law the President broke? And please don't insult us by doing what liberals do. Instead of posting a link, how about using your brain, applying some critical thought, and actually write a few sentences making your case.
-
Thus explaining your puzzlement.
What makes you think I'm puzzled? I'm just saddened.
-
That's really beautiful and all. Now, can you please explain to us what law the President broke? And please don't insult us by doing what liberals do. Instead of posting a link, how about using your brain, applying some critical thought, and actually write a few sentences making your case.
He withheld appropriations to leverage Ukraine to dig up political dirt and lied about it to America. It's like I'm talking to a wall.
-
He withheld appropriations to leverage Ukraine to dig up political dirt and lied about it to America. It's like I'm talking to a wall.
Again, can you please explain to us what law the President broke?
-
He withheld appropriations to leverage Ukraine to dig up political dirt and lied about it to America. It's like I'm talking to a wall.
You are litigating the Impeachment. This is another matter, because it's not included in the Articles sent over. Too bad Pelosi would not take the time to develop this aspect.
-
To their credit, the GAO actually came up with a statute. Not that it had anything to do with Trump, but at least they cited an actual law.
-
A general comment about the Original Topic (remember that?): The headline screams "Trump broke the law!" And people dutifully envision an armed robbery. I remind all readers of this Overtime Parking is also "breaking the law." So is literal Jaywalking.
The article is engaging in hyperbole, and we're talking about it like it's a serious issue, that's Impeachable. Focus!!
-
A general comment about the Original Topic (remember that?): The headline screams "Trump broke the law!" And people dutifully envision an armed robbery. I remind all readers of this Overtime Parking is also "breaking the law." So is literal Jaywalking.
The article is engaging in hyperbole, and we're talking about it like it's a serious issue, that's Impeachable. Focus!!
And if anyone actually read the GAO report, they would find that it was OMB that "broke the law" - not Trump.
So let's nail the bastards! How dare they delay paying out funds for an entire week without notifying Congress first! Who in the hell does Mulvaney think he is? He should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and then be handed the maximum sentence for this infraction, which is . . . oh wait, there isn't one.
-
And if anyone actually read the GAO report, they would find that it was OMB that "broke the law" - not Trump.
So let's nail the bastards! How dare they delay paying out funds for an entire week without notifying Congress first! Who in the hell does Mulvaney think he is? He should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and then be handed the maximum sentence for this infraction, which is . . . oh wait, there isn't one.
That's it. It's less than a parking ticket.
-
This is Brian Cates, he switches his name around on twitter but he tweeted:
RussiaGate Was Fake! SpyGate Is Real!
@drawandstrike
Did you know Trump temporarily held up the funds to check out the newly installed Zelensky admin., then once they passed muster, he released the funds to Ukraine **before** the date Congress had set?
https://twitter.com/drawandstrike/status/1217870617430675456
-
You are litigating the Impeachment. This is another matter, because it's not included in the Articles sent over. Too bad Pelosi would not take the time to develop this aspect.
Too bad the OJ prosecutors screwed up. Doesn't make OJ innocent. Trump is a very bad person and a bad President. He broke the law as stated in the headline above for bad reasons. Then he lied about it, and continues to lie about it. I can't make it more simple why I think he should be punished.
-
Too bad the OJ prosecutors screwed up. Doesn't make OJ innocent. Trump is a very bad person and a bad President. He broke the law as stated in the headline above for bad reasons. Then he lied about it, and continues to lie about it. I can't make it more simple why I think he should be punished.
I'm clear on that. We are supposed to have a government of laws, and that's what counts. The laws are pointing away from Trump guilt. Just as with OJ.
-
Trump is a very bad person and a bad President. He broke the law as stated in the headline above for bad reasons.
What law?
-
Too bad the OJ prosecutors screwed up. Doesn't make OJ innocent. Trump is a very bad person and a bad President. He broke the law as stated in the headline above for bad reasons. Then he lied about it, and continues to lie about it. I can't make it more simple why I think he should be punished.
Shouldn’t you want to wait for the actual trial to conclude first? Since you cited the rats impeachment articles as proof of guilt.
-
I'm clear on that. We are supposed to have a government of laws, and that's what counts. The laws are pointing away from Trump guilt. Just as with OJ.
I'm really sick (to death) of the bullshit and lies from the idiot effing left (here). I really need to take a break from it all.
Later...
-
Trump is a very bad person
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/HappygoluckySoreDuck-size_restricted.gif)
-
I'm really sick (to death) of the bullshit and lies from the idiot effing left (here). I really need to take a break from it all.
Later...
Personally, I find it fascinating (in a sort of twisted mentally ill way) to see people confronted for months on end with the question as to what law Donald Trump broke, yet be completely devoid of the ability or even willingness to address it as they repeat their claim. This mental disconnect with 'truth' is a remarkable flaw that is common in those who reject reason while relying on emotion to direct their beliefs.
-
He withheld appropriations to leverage Ukraine to dig up political dirt and lied about it to America. It's like I'm talking to a wall.
Your argument rests on the absurd premise that Donald Trump was worried that Joe Biden posed a threat to his re-election.
Informal poll: How many people here think that Donald Trump was afraid he’d lose to Joe Biden (or even gave that improbability a half second thought)?
The other absurd premise is that Trump wanted “dirt†on Biden and that he thought to get it from the new president of Ukraine, rather than simply do as Hillary did and buy the opposition research.
-
Your argument rests on the absurd premise that Donald Trump was worried that Joe Biden posed a threat to his re-election.
Informal poll: How many people here think that Donald Trump was afraid he’d lose to Joe Biden (or even gave that improbability a half second thought)?
The other absurd premise is that Trump wanted “dirt†on Biden and that he thought to get it from the new president of Ukraine, rather than simply do as Hillary did and buy the opposition research.
That is the absurd b.s. that the DEMS are trying to push. They can't afford to have the corruption of Uncle Joe and Where's Hunter revealed.
-
Your argument rests on the absurd premise that Donald Trump was worried that Joe Biden posed a threat to his re-election.
Informal poll: How many people here think that Donald Trump was afraid he’d lose to Joe Biden (or even gave that improbability a half second thought)?
The other absurd premise is that Trump wanted “dirt†on Biden and that he thought to get it from the new president of Ukraine, rather than simply do as Hillary did and buy the opposition research.
Or was investigating the deep state in order to expose it and break it up
-
Shouldn’t you want to wait for the actual trial to conclude first? Since you cited the rats impeachment articles as proof of guilt.
I was convinced Trump was bad after the Mueller Report. I could cite Moses with "Thou shall not bear false witness" as a law. I don't need the Senate trial to make up my mind about President Trump.
-
I was convinced Trump was bad after the Mueller Report. I could cite Moses with "Thou shall not bear false witness" as a law. I don't need the Senate trial to make up my mind about President Trump.
I think that’s perfectly clear by now.
-
I think that’s perfectly clear by now.
I thought so too.
-
Your argument rests on the absurd premise that Donald Trump was worried that Joe Biden posed a threat to his re-election.
The only think Joe Biden poses a threat to is other women's hair.
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/en551b4afc.jpg)(http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2015/02/17/17-joe-biden-dilma-rouseff.w710.h473.2x.jpg)(https://foodandeverythingelsetoo.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Screenshot-2019-04-01-20.17.27.png)
(http://www.gopusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/biden_mcconnell_daughters.jpg)(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOhuyoSUEAAkZ88.jpg)(https://www.citizenfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/biden-sniff-eva-longoria.jpg)
Informal poll: How many people here think that Donald Trump was afraid he’d lose to Joe Biden (or even gave that improbability a half second thought)?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The other absurd premise is that Trump wanted “dirt†on Biden and that he thought to get it from the new president of Ukraine, rather than simply do as Hillary did and buy the opposition research.
He didn't even need to do that. The evidence already existed on Youtube with Biden openly admitting he pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating his son.
-
I don't need the Senate trial to make up my mind about President Trump.
It is clear you do not need a law either. Yet for some reason, you continue the charade as if Trump broke the law. At least now you admit that your mind is made up and it doesn't matter whether he did or not.
-
It is clear you do not need a law either. Yet for some reason, you continue the charade as if Trump broke the law. At least now you admit that your mind is made up and it doesn't matter whether he did or not.
I'm sorry you voted for a crook.
-
I'm sorry you voted for a crook.
Darrell Castle isn't a crook. Care to try again?
-
Darrell Castle isn't a crook. Care to try again?
When you stop and think every Republican President since Ike has been called a "crook," that accusation has no purchase with me. 333cleo
-
Your argument rests on the absurd premise that Donald Trump was worried that Joe Biden posed a threat to his re-election.
I don't think it's absurd.
Informal poll: How many people here think that Donald Trump was afraid he’d lose to Joe Biden (or even gave that improbability a half second thought)?
Well, I'm one. I also think Trump believes Biden poses the biggest risk of all the Dems because he'd have more appeal in battleground midwest states (add Pa. in there also) than any of the hard lefties. He's also always drawn strong black support, and is less likely to alienate moderate voters.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-starts-2020-as-the-biggest-threat-to-trump (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-starts-2020-as-the-biggest-threat-to-trump)
-
Well, I'm one. I also think Trump believes Biden poses the biggest risk of all the Dems because he'd have more appe in battleground midwest states (add Pa. in there alao) than any of the hard lefties. He's also always drawn strong black support, and is less likely to alienate moderates voters.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-starts-2020-as-the-biggest-threat-to-trump (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-starts-2020-as-the-biggest-threat-to-trump)
Probably. But then if I knew my most likely opponent was a corrupt POS who used his previous position to line his sons pockets I’d want proof of that out there, as well.
I don’t know why we have to pretend there’s something horribly wrong with that.
-
I wish the GOP could recognize a President breaking the law again.
Pity they missed it from Jan. 2009 through Jan 2017.
-
I was convinced Trump was bad after the Mueller Report. I could cite Moses with "Thou shall not bear false witness" as a law. I don't need the Senate trial to make up my mind about President Trump.
So a report that showed no wrong doing by the President convinced you he was a bad man?
-
I'm sorry you voted for a crook.
I voted for Cruz. He's not a crook.
-
Well, I'm one. I also think Trump believes Biden poses the biggest risk of all the Dems because he'd have more appeal in battleground midwest states (add Pa. in there also) than any of the hard lefties. He's also always drawn strong black support, and is less likely to alienate moderate voters.
You are referring to a guy who garnered a grand total of 1% of the Democrat vote in his two previous Presidential bids. If anything, Trump should be propping up Biden hoping he wins the nomination, just like the Dems did with McCain in 2000 and 2008. The only reason this story broke to begin with is because the Warren campaign leaked it.
-
You are referring to a guy who garnered a grand total of 1% of the Democrat vote in his two previous Presidential bids. If anything, Trump should be propping up Biden hoping he wins the nomination, just like the Dems did with McCain in 2000 and 2008. The only reason this story broke to begin with is because the Warren campaign leaked it.
Biteme is being propped up as the "Elder Statesman," "put upon by the crooked President." The default candidate. We've seen this playbook, it's how the Rats spun a 180 in 2004, and rejected Dean for Kerry. Dean had a lock on the polls going into IA. "Poof!"
-
A general comment about the Original Topic (remember that?): The headline screams "Trump broke the law!" And people dutifully envision an armed robbery. I remind all readers of this Overtime Parking is also "breaking the law." So is literal Jaywalking.
The article is engaging in hyperbole, and we're talking about it like it's a serious issue, that's Impeachable. Focus!!
Focus is what they be a trying to do.
Focem.
-
I voted for Cruz. He's not a crook.
888high58888
-
@Once-Ler .
Remind me. I voted third party. Can you please tell me who I really voted for?
It is so confusing.
-
Biteme is being propped up as the "Elder Statesman," "put upon by the crooked President." The default candidate. We've seen this playbook, it's how the Rats spun a 180 in 2004, and rejected Dean for Kerry. Dean had a lock on the polls going into IA. "Poof!"
I think they will turn on Biden just like they turned on Dean. The Dems know that Biden is a disaster waiting to happen. That is why they are rushing this impeachment now so they can have enough time to dump him before the primaries really get going. By the time the South Carolina primary ends, you will see an entirely different outlook on the Dem nominee. And it ain't gonna be Biden.
-
When you stop and think every Republican President since Ike has been called a "crook," that accusation has no purchase with me. 333cleo
And equated to Hitler ... and accused of trying to start WW3 ... and accused of wanting to dump little old ladies from their wheelchairs over a cliff ...
-
I think they will turn on Biden just like they turned on Dean. The Dems know that Biden is a disaster waiting to happen. That is why they are rushing this impeachment now so they can have enough time to dump him before the primaries really get going. By the time the South Carolina primary ends, you will see an entirely different outlook on the Dem nominee. And it ain't gonna be Biden.
I think they are going to try to run Warhen, but I don't think the full Socialist crap will play that well with the base.
-
I think they are going to try to run Warhen, but I don't think the full Socialist crap will play that well with the base.
New Hampshire should decide between Sanders and Warren. But I am still looking for that surprise candidate (Klobuchar) to come out of nowhere just like Bill Clinton did after LOSING the New Hampshire primary in 1992.
-
I don't think it's absurd.
Well, I'm one. I also think Trump believes Biden poses the biggest risk of all the Dems because he'd have more appeal in battleground midwest states (add Pa. in there also) than any of the hard lefties. He's also always drawn strong black support, and is less likely to alienate moderate voters.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-starts-2020-as-the-biggest-threat-to-trump (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-starts-2020-as-the-biggest-threat-to-trump)
agreed
-
Name me one dem prez in the last 60 years that wasn't a disaster.
-
Name me one dem prez in the last 60 years that wasn't a disaster.
A low bar... I can only name you one Republican likewise.
-
Darrell Castle isn't a crook. Care to try again?
I voted for Cruz. He's not a crook.
@Once-Ler .
Remind me. I voted third party. Can you please tell me who I really voted for?
It is so confusing.
Three times he was denied before the rooster crowed. :0001:
-
Three times he was denied before the rooster crowed. :0001:
Yeah, but those three were by the same guy.
-
So a report that showed no wrong doing by the President convinced you he was a bad man?
ask someone you trust to read it for you @txradioguy
-
ask someone you trust to read it for you @txradioguy
I've read it. Heard Mueller stumble f*ck his way through his own report too.
Even Mueller said Trump did nothing wrong.
-
2008 Democrat Presidential Primary Vote Totals:
- Obama – 16,706,853
- Clinton – 16,239,821
- Edwards – 742,010
- Richardson – 89,054
- Uncommitted – 82,660
- Kucinich – 68,482
- Biden – 64,041
'Uncommitted' brought in more votes than Joe Biden. The only thing Biden brought to the ticket was life insurance for Obama. Even Delaware's 3 electoral votes would have gone Dem without Biden.
-
Yeah. And he wasn't perfect.
AFAIK it has been a shitshow all my life.
-
It's funny that someone would bring up Nixon considering it was the Democrats who got caught spying on a Presidential campaign.
-
I've read it. Heard Mueller stumble f*ck his way through his own report too.
Even Mueller said Trump did nothing wrong.
link to quote please
-
It's actually being reported today that the two peeing prostitutes are Ukrainian and not Russian.
(https://i2.wp.com/www.chinasmack.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/ukraine-girls-fashion-8.jpg)
This could get interesting.
-
link to quote please
Will that be before or after you cite the law that Donald Trump broke?
-
It's actually being reported today that the two peeing prostitutes are Ukrainian and not Russian.
Nyet!
-
Nyet!
The only Russian word I know is pravda. It's true.
-
Fine. Don't defend your assertion.
I'll defend mine. Pravda = True. :tongue2: :tongue2: :tongue2:
-
Fine. Don't defend your assertion.
I have no problem defending my assertions here or anywhere.
- Trump did not commit a crime.
- Trump did not ask Zelenskiy to publicly open an investigation against Hunter Biden.
- Trump did not ask Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election.
- Trump did not cover up a crime.
- The Democrats have no valid case.
The defense of these assertions rests in the fact that there has not been a single shred of contrary evidence produced by anyone, including you.
Personally, I couldn't go on repeating a claim that I knew I couldn't back, especially after being called out on it repeatedly. You see, it is simply a matter of integrity. If I can't defend 'truth', then my words no longer matter. You on the other hand don't seem to have any concern for integrity or truth. Which is why you continue to cling to the 'feeling' that Trump broke the law even though confronted by your inability to cite one.
-
This is to what the GAO is referring:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974#Impoundment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974#Impoundment)
Looks like he broke the law.
-
Nixon broke the law. Trump didn't.
Nixon was digging up political dirt. Trump wasn't.
Nixon tried to cover up the crime. Trump isn't covering up anything.
Nixon was never impeached. Trump was.
Other than that, the remaining points are exactly the same.
Right, why he advised Bolton and Mulvaney not to testify.
-
Looks like he broke the law.
How so? All funds were made available. Please explain exactly how Trump broke the law.
-
How so? All funds were made available. Please explain exactly how Trump broke the law.
How does the ICA work?
The ICA lays out procedures the President must follow to reduce, delay, or eliminate funding in an account. The Act divides impoundments into two categories: rescissions and deferrals.
Rescissions
Put simply, if the President wants to spend less money than Congress provided for a particular purpose, he or she must first secure a law providing Congressional approval to rescind the funding in question. The ICA requires that the President send a special message to Congress identifying the amount of the proposed rescission; the reasons for it; and the budgetary, economic, and programmatic effects of the rescission. Upon transmission of such special message, the President may withhold certain funding in the affected accounts for up to 45 legislative session days. If a law approving the rescission is not enacted within the 45 days, any withheld funds must be made available for obligation.
A 2018 Government Accountability Office legal opinion holds that if the President proposes a rescission, he or she must make the affected funds available to be prudently obligated before the funds expire, even if the 45-day clock is still running. This means, for example, that the President cannot strategically time a rescission request for late in the fiscal year and withhold the funding until it expires, thus achieving a rescission without Congressional approval.
Deferrals
The ICA defines a “deferral†as withholding, delaying, or – through other Executive action or inaction – effectively precluding funding from being obligated or spent. The ICA prescribes three narrow circumstances in which the President may propose to defer funding for a program: (1) providing for contingencies; (2) achieving budgetary savings made possible through improved operational efficiency; and (3) as specifically provided by law.
The ICA requires that the President send a special message to Congress identifying the amount of the proposed deferral; the reasons for it; and the period of the proposed deferral. Upon transmission of such special message, the funds may be deferred without further action by Congress; however, the deferral cannot extend beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the special message is sent. The ICA language on deferrals is long-standing budget law that allows the Executive branch to delay the obligation or expenditure of funding only for the specified reasons rather than policy reasons.
https://budget.house.gov/publications/report/impoundment-control-act-1974-what-it-why-does-it-matter
Which might demonstrate why its important for Presidents to have competent lawyers who are aware of existing laws so you don't get in trouble. Not personal lawyers out chasing Russian propaganda in other countries and only getting you involved with shady criminals who have ulterior motives for other foreign governments.
-
Name me one dem prez in the last 60 years that wasn't a disaster.
I actually think you could exetend that time line to at least 100 years. Including the socialist puke FDR.
-
How does the ICA work?
The ICA lays out procedures the President must follow to reduce, delay, or eliminate funding in an account. The Act divides impoundments into two categories: rescissions and deferrals.
Rescissions
Put simply, if the President wants to spend less money than Congress provided for a particular purpose, he or she must first secure a law providing Congressional approval to rescind the funding in question. The ICA requires that the President send a special message to Congress identifying the amount of the proposed rescission; the reasons for it; and the budgetary, economic, and programmatic effects of the rescission. Upon transmission of such special message, the President may withhold certain funding in the affected accounts for up to 45 legislative session days. If a law approving the rescission is not enacted within the 45 days, any withheld funds must be made available for obligation.
A 2018 Government Accountability Office legal opinion holds that if the President proposes a rescission, he or she must make the affected funds available to be prudently obligated before the funds expire, even if the 45-day clock is still running. This means, for example, that the President cannot strategically time a rescission request for late in the fiscal year and withhold the funding until it expires, thus achieving a rescission without Congressional approval.
@Chosen Daughter
Personally, I wholeheartedly believe this section of the ICA to be blatantly unconstitutional. It is a usurpation of Executive Branch power that is Constitutionally reserved exclusively as Executive Power. Having said that, you will find the provisions stated above fully satisfied. The Executive Branch did indeed obligate the funds before they expired.
Deferrals
The ICA defines a “deferral†as withholding, delaying, or – through other Executive action or inaction – effectively precluding funding from being obligated or spent. The ICA prescribes three narrow circumstances in which the President may propose to defer funding for a program: (1) providing for contingencies; (2) achieving budgetary savings made possible through improved operational efficiency; and (3) as specifically provided by law.
The ICA requires that the President send a special message to Congress identifying the amount of the proposed deferral; the reasons for it; and the period of the proposed deferral. Upon transmission of such special message, the funds may be deferred without further action by Congress; however, the deferral cannot extend beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the special message is sent. The ICA language on deferrals is long-standing budget law that allows the Executive branch to delay the obligation or expenditure of funding only for the specified reasons rather than policy reasons.
https://budget.house.gov/publications/report/impoundment-control-act-1974-what-it-why-does-it-matter (https://budget.house.gov/publications/report/impoundment-control-act-1974-what-it-why-does-it-matter)
Which might demonstrate why its important for Presidents to have competent lawyers who are aware of existing laws so you don't get in trouble. Not personal lawyers out chasing Russian propaganda in other countries and only getting you involved with shady criminals who have ulterior motives for other foreign governments.
Deferrals are further defined in 2 U.S. Code § 684. And if you bothered to read the GAO report (https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf), you would learn that DOD did indeed notify Congress of the delays (which explains why the House was unable to include these statutes in their impeachment articles.
So yet again, I ask, what law did the President violate?
-
But... as we've discovered over the years.... it's only "illegal" if you don't happen to be a card-carrying commie Democrat. Otherwise it (anything) is perfectly OK.
Trying to remember how many times any member of Congress called for impeachment of Obammy.Seven Times the GAO Found the Obama Administration Violated Federal Law
Joel B. Pollak
16 Jan 2020
Democrats and journalists were excited Thursday when the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a legal opinion that the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had violated the Impoundment Control Act by withholding congressionally appropriated aid to Ukraine last summer.
The non-binding opinion was disputed by the OMB, which released a memo last month arguing that the “programmatic†delay sought to fulfill, not oppose, congressional intent. ...
Though the GAO works for Congress, it is not the finder of fact in impeachment cases. Moreover, it is not even clear that the Impoundment Control Act is constitution.
Nevertheless, if a mere GAO finding is sufficient to justify impeachment, then President Barack Obama ought to have been impeached at least seven times over for each of the following cases in which the GAO found that the Obama administration had violated federal law. ...
Article at Breitbart goes on to list and explain the seven instances (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/16/seven-times-the-gao-found-the-obama-administration-violated-federal-law/)
-
Looks like he broke the law.
When I was 16 I broke the law by parking too close to a pole. It cost me $3.50, which is $3.50 more than the fine for the law y'all claim Trump broke and therefore must be Impeached, ASAP. Crimes are in progress, I've heard. I guess I can't be a politician now....
-
link to quote please
Well ok...
The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.â€
As far as obstruction, the Mueller report laid out facts on both sides but did not reach a conclusion. Barr’s letter said that “the Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’â€
But Barr said that he and Rosenstein "have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."
https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/ (https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/)
-
The most clear-cut of those violations is the Bergdahl deal, because that came directly from Obama himself, and there isn't any question that it violated the law. The only response is "well yes, we broke the law, but we thought it was a good move so we did it anyway." Obama very clearly did not notify Congress as required because he was afraid of the political blowback. But being afraid that Congress and the American people might (with justification in this case) object to a prisoner exchange is not a valid excuse for ignoring the law.
-
When I was 16 I broke the law by parking too close to a pole.
Wait! There are laws against parking too close to Polish people??
How weird is that?
:tongue2:
-
Wait! There are laws against parking too close to Polish people??
How weird is that?
:tongue2:
I know, right? I thought it was OK, as long as I didn't actually run them down... :shrug:
-
Wait! There are laws against parking too close to Polish people??
How weird is that?
:tongue2:
You have to Czech on such things. Every municipality is different.
-
You have to Czech on such things. Every municipality is different.
Ukraine your neck to make sure you're not too close...
-
I know, right? I thought it was OK, as long as I didn't actually run them down... :shrug:
I always thought so long as you weren't actually parked on their toes... :whistle:
-
Ukraine your neck to make sure you're not too close...
As long as you aren't Russian it shouldn't be a problem. Just take a little time.
-
Ukraine your neck to make sure you're not too close...
But, I'm not gonna be one to Georgia.
-
:2popcorn:
-
Ukraine your neck to make sure you're not too close...
Oh Crimea river.
-
Oh Crimea river.
Like I'm so Hungary for your approval... *****rollingeyes*****
-
@txradioguy
Even Mueller said Trump did nothing wrong.
As far as obstruction, the Mueller report laid out facts on both sides but did not reach a conclusion. Barr’s letter said that “the Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’â€
Thanks for your reply