Its official, Trump broke the law

[eyeball]

12 minutes ago, Shady said:

Btw.  This might interest you.  It’s called the House Committee on Appropriations.  It’s job is pass appropriations bills.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Appropriations

This might be of more interest to Trump but he probably wouldn't understand it any better than you.

Clearly the White House Committee on Misappropriations has a different take on things.

[Shady]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yes I know what Congress does and why in this case. The thing you're overlooking is that they did so with permission.

It would be a lot less complicated if you would stop being disingenuous about the fact that Trump appropriated those funds without permission, inappropriately that is, and is being accused of using them for his own purpose.

No he didn’t appropriate funds without permission.  Congress passed those funds specifically for aid to Ukraine.  He delayed the release.  He didn’t take money for his own use, it still went to Ukraine , but later than it should have.

[eyeball]

Just now, Shady said:

He delayed the release.

Without legal permission and approval from Congress.

The GAO says the same thing but...I guess that's the deep-state for you. Whaddya got in mind for doing something about that?

[Yzermandius19]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

Without legal permission and approval from Congress.

The GAO says the same thing but...I guess that's the deep-state for you. Whaddya got in mind for doing something about that?

He released the aid long before the deadline. Also even if he had violated that law, that's not an impeachable offense, as the law lays out the remedy and it does not include impeachment. Many Presidents have violated it, including Obama and Clinton, they weren't impeached over it, and no one even tried, only the TDS crowd is reaching for this straw. If it goes to SCOTUS, they tend to side with legislative branch on this one, not the executive branch, but this example doesn't have to go there, because Trump released the aid.

Edited January 18, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[eyeball]

20 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

He released the aid long before the deadline.

From the OP article on the GAO findings.

Quote

The funds were set to expire at the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, and while the administration un-paused the money, millions of dollars never made it to Ukraine by the deadline.

You didn't read the OP article did you?  Of course even if you did you covered your ass by pointing out its not like anyone broke a LAW law besides...Whaddabout Obama and Clinton right.

When I think about right-wing conservatism in the context of law and order their jokes about Islam being the religion of peace always come to mind.

[WestCanMan]

On 1/16/2020 at 9:35 AM, godzilla said:

White House violated the law by freezing Ukraine aid, GAO says

of course, detractors will declare that the politically independent GAO has been infiltrated by Deep State forces decades ago in preparation for the anointment of the chosen one.

Trump actually has veto power, so if he withheld the aid I'm fairly certain that it was within his constitutional authority to do so. He just needed to come out and say the words or it's weaselly.

It would truly be a serious abuse of power if Trump withheld the money specifically for the purpose of coercing Ukraine to make up things about Biden, as per Schiff's accusation, but we all know that never happened because there's no need to make anything up about Biden. The truth is that what Biden did really does warrant an investigation. .

Trump did the same thing that Hillary and the Dems did in 2016 when he asked for an investigation, there's no way that you can possibly split this into - it was ok when the Dems did a 3 yr long false accusation and Trump was wrong to ask for a proper, legitimate investigation based on lots of very real, incontrovertible evidence.

[eyeball]

25 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Trump actually has veto power, so if he withheld the aid I'm fairly certain that it was within his constitutional authority to do so.

The GAO OTOH is dead certain it wasn't within his authority. What makes you think you know more than the GAO and why haven't you informed them?  I'm fairly certain they'd revisit their decision if you could provide them something more compelling than your opinion.

[WestCanMan]

18 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The GAO OTOH is dead certain it wasn't within his authority. What makes you think you know more than the GAO and why haven't you informed them?  I'm fairly certain they'd revisit their decision if you could provide them something more compelling than your opinion.

The FBI was considered to be the most respectable police force in the world up until 2 years ago, now they're a farce.

The IG concluded that there was no bias in the FBI despite the fact that they made "17 significant errors and omissions" which all pointed in the same direction. That's farcical.

I never even heard of the GAO until a week ago, I have no reason to believe that they're any more credible than the FBI, The Dems, CNN or the IG.

Quote

The phrase veto does not appear in the United States Constitution, but Article I requires every bill, order, resolution or other act of legislation approved by the Congress to be presented to the president for their approval. After that is done, there are several scenarios in which a bill may or may not be enacted into law.

 

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I never even heard of the GAO until a week ago, I have no reason to believe that they're any more credible than the FBI, The Dems, CNN or the IG.

So it doesn't occur to you to wonder if your lack of reasons for believing the GAO might be based on your ignorance of what it is?

It's incredible how profoundly fucked up this absence of critical thinking is. It's funny how well you seem to know other posters and what motivates their thinking without ever considering what motivates your own.  Which by your own admission is based on not knowing.

It's really really weird.

[WestCanMan]

19 hours ago, eyeball said:

So it doesn't occur to you to wonder if your lack of reasons for believing the GAO might be based on your ignorance of what it is?

It's incredible how profoundly fucked up this absence of critical thinking is. It's funny how well you seem to know other posters and what motivates their thinking without ever considering what motivates your own.  Which by your own admission is based on not knowing.

It's really really weird.

Blah, blah, blah.

You can't swing a dead cat without hitting some moron who will regurgitate CNN vitriol like a Manchurian Candidate. The US Justice System is still rife with them and you fit into that category as well.

And now you're talking about my ability to do critical thinking? LMAO, you can't even understand basic things after I explain them to you, forget about you ever figuring out anything on your own.

 

[eyeball]

38 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

And now you're talking about my ability to do critical thinking?

Actually it was your inability I was talking about. It's crippled by left/liberal/progressive derangement syndrome.  A severe brain-wasting disease that makes TDS look like a mild headache in comparison. 

[WestCanMan]

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Actually it was your inability I was talking about. It's crippled by left/liberal/progressive derangement syndrome.  A severe brain-wasting disease that makes TDS look like a mild headache in comparison. 

Lol. I'm not afraid to look back on my "LLPDS-influenced" posts with the benefit of hindsight to see how well they stood the test of time. 

We both know that TDS victims can't say the same thing.

[WestCanMan]

Is the world waiting with breathless anticipation to see what's gonna happen or what?

 

[LaurieDowler]

For those leaving on US whats the new update regarding the impeachment?

[kactus]

Why should the world care what happens with impeachment!?!? It’s a domestic matter the senate needs to iron out based on the evidence.....Although with the republicans representing the house of senate I doubt this would be the case.....Let’s see how this show trial pantomime will unfold.... 

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, LaurieDowler said:

For those leaving on US whats the new update regarding the impeachment?

Lie-fest will be over in a couple of days.

No new witnesses are being allowed, but if they are, Hunter Biden will be among them.

First two lies you have to understand about lie-fest:

1) When the Demmies repeatedly say "Zelenski talked about Javelins, and Trump came back with "I want a favour", and then Trump talked about Biden".... that's an outright lie. Trump talked about crowdstrike, and crowdstrike had nothing at all to do with Biden. Crowdstrike had everything to do with the Russian collusion investigation. Trump wanted to look into crowdstrike to clear his own name.

2) When Demmies say that Hunter Biden isn't a material witness in this case and therefor shouldn't be called to testify, that's a outright lie as well. Schiff made Hunter a material witness when he said that "Trump asked the Ukrainians for dirt on a political rival". See, there's no "dirt" if there was an actual crime, there's just a crime, and uncovering a crime is never a bad thing to do. There's just dirt if there's no evidence of a crime to start with and you want to investigate someone just to see if you can turn up something that you didn't know about when you started (like the Russian collusion investigation was deigned to do).  

The Republicans get to find out why Hunter and Joe lied about Joe's knowledge of Hunter's job at Burisma, and why they lied when they said that "Joe and Hunter never talked about Hunter's plans to do $500M in business with the Bank of China when they flew there together on AF2".

Anyone with even half a brain knows that it appears obvious that the Bidens were carpet-bagging where they should have been working for the US gov't. Trump asking for an investigation was not unwarranted.

[-TSS-]

I'm sure that most Republican senators would prefer to see some other Republican than Trump as President but yet none of them will support this impeachment because this impeachment is bullshit. So was Clinton's. 

However, since there is no such mechanism as in European parliamentarism where you can table a motion of no-confidence in the leader of the government because you are not pleased with his policies you must resort to impeachment in order to challenge the leader in mid-term. 

[Hal 9000]

On 1/16/2020 at 8:58 PM, eyeball said:

He required more than that according to the law.

You don't have a link to a copy of that approval? Too bad, Trump could probably use it too.

The money was actually for the next years Ukraine budget.  Nobody died because of Trump, at worst a few pencil pushers were inconvenienced.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, -TSS- said:

I'm sure that most Republican senators would prefer to see some other Republican than Trump as President but yet none of them will support this impeachment because this impeachment is bullshit. So was Clinton's. 

l agree this impeachment is bullshit.

I wasn't in favour of Clinton being impeached either and I still don't think he should have been, removing a President from office is too big of a deal - de-stabilizing the planet over a piece of ass (and felony witness tampering and lying under oath) is too extreme.

Having said that, now that I'm more aware of all of the credible accusations of rape and sexual harassment that there were against Bill Clinton, I don't think that he should have ever made it to the oval office to begin with. It's also sad that Trump and Hillary made it to the leadership of their parties. 

Quote

However, since there is no such mechanism as in European parliamentarism where you can table a motion of no-confidence in the leader of the government because you are not pleased with his policies you must resort to impeachment in order to challenge the leader in mid-term. 

Honestly this impeachment is a black eye on all forms of democratic governance. 

For people to stand in Congress and the Senate and openly lie, over and over again, just sets a horrible standard for the USA and the world. 

How can you teach your children 'the importance of telling the truth' when they're watching people at the highest levels of government, in some of the most sacred Democratic institutions on the planet, just lying like it's an awesome thing to do in the face of written evidence that literally everyone on the planet has access to? 

Such a sad time for the Democrat party. Literally pathetic. 

 

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by WestCanMan

[Yukon]

The law doesn't apply to a US President. He is a quasi king.

[eyeball]

On 1/23/2020 at 2:01 PM, Hal 9000 said:

The money was actually for the next years Ukraine budget.  Nobody died because of Trump, at worst a few pencil pushers were inconvenienced.

What did the GAO say when you informed them of their error in thinking Ukraine's budget mattered? I don't recall hearing this apology before so Trump might benefit from a tweet as well. Who knows everyone might go "well yeah, duh...that changes everything". 

[godzilla]

Majority of Americans want witnesses, new testimony in Senate impeachment trial: polls

this push by the GOP Senate not to have witnesses is fascinating... as much because its such a difficult box to get out of for the GOP.

they don't want to call witnesses because they don't want the WH to again refuse to produce to a GOP led Senate. the old excuses used refusing the House the same don't apply here. and, of course, the WH and GOP don't want those witnesses producing... its only going to be more bad news for Trump. they are all going to say the same thing, that they can't clear Trump of these charges... only further imperil them all.

and if the WH refuses the GOP Senate then Trump further imperils the Senate. the GOP Senate will be looking toothless. an unequal branch. imperiling Senate power and democracy itself.

and yet it looks bad to the American people that the GOP Senate don't want witnesses.

[Yzermandius19]

It's not the Senate's job to the do the House's job for them.

[Rue]

For those of you who support Trump's political views, you use that reference point to suspend and refuse to acknowledge how he linked military aid to a partisan investigation of Biden. So you engage in the very partisan politics you accuse the Democrats of engaging in challenging this attempt to link the two.

Interesting this double standard. You seem to think if a President conforms with your partisan views, he can exercise  the powers of his office where he has a clear  conflict of interest when exercising those powers.

You live in a selective world of partisanship.

So to you partisans for Trump, why  pretend he did not act with a conflict of  interest? Why live in a fantasy land not even Trump lives in? He admitted unlike you Trump cult followers that  he acted in conflict of interest. He stated for all to hear he wanted foreign governments to investigate Biden and he would not stop with the Ukraine asking for this and thought nothing wrong about what he did. He never denied he had a conflict of interest-he said as President he can and still act on the issue he is conflicted with. How about you listen to what your own leader stated...he doesn't deny what you Trump zombies do. Come on man stop drinking that Trump koolaid.

You want to call me  partisan and selective for saying this? Lol. I do not support many Democratic policies. In the US I probably would be a Democrat if Ted Kennedy was alive and running the party or former  Gov. Cuomo of New York. However I would be equally as comfortable with  Mitt Romney, the late John McCain, Arnold Schwarznegger (if he qualified), Eisenhower.. . Parties and partisanship to me are not the predicator of merit and morality. How about you Trump partisans? You really think if he was a Democrat doing this shit, you wouldn't be calling for his head?

Right. Kanye West for President.

Edited January 25, 2020 by Rue

[Yzermandius19]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

For those of you who support Trump's political views, you use that reference point to suspend and refuse to acknowledge how he linked military aid to a partisan investigation of Biden. So you engage in the very partisan politics you accuse the Democrats of engaging in challenging this attempt to link the two.

Interesting this double standard. You seem to think if a President conforms with your partisan views, he can exercise  the powers of his office where he has a clear  conflict of interest when exercising those powers.

You live in a selective world of partisanship.

So to you partisans for Trump, why  pretend he did not act with a conflict of  interest? Why live in a fantasy land not even Trump lives in? He admitted unlike you Trump cult followers that  he acted in conflict of interest. He stated for all to hear he wanted foreign governments to investigate Biden and he would not stop with the Ukraine asking for this and thought nothing wrong about what he did. He never denied he had a conflict of interest-he said as President he can and still act on the issue he is conflicted with. How about you listen to what your own leader stated...he doesn't deny what you Trump zombies do. Come on man stop drinking that Trump koolaid.

You want to call me  partisan and selective for saying this? Lol. I do not support many Democratic policies. In the US I probably would be a Democrat if Ted Kennedy was alive and running the party or former  Gov. Cuomo of New York. However I would be equally as comfortable with  Mitt Romney, the late John McCain, Arnold Schwarznegger (if he qualified), Eisenhower.. . Parties and partisanship to me are not the predicator of merit and morality. How about you Trump partisans? You really think if he was a Democrat doing this shit, you wouldn't be calling for his head?

Right. Kanye West for President.

Biden running for office does not preclude him from being investigated, Trump potentially gaining from it doesn't make it illegal. Whether he did it partially for partisan reasons or not isn't relevant to whether or not he should be impeached. Lots of presidents do partisan things all the time that serve their own interests in foreign policy, but they don't get impeached over it, because that's their prerogative, and you don't go around crying that they be impeached for it. You only want that kind of conduct to be impeachable when Trump does it, when anyone else does it you ignore it or create excuses for why it's different when other POTUS's do it.

The entire basis for you're belief that Trump did something wrong is that you don't trust his motives because he could gain from making a foreign policy decision, and you don't know his motives, you are attempting to read his mind quite poorly and think that is enough evidence to impeach. You can be suspicious of his motives all you want, that doesn't mean you being suspicious means he should be impeached.

Throwing stones from a glass house, that's what you're doing.

Edited January 25, 2020 by Yzermandius19