Questions about the Impeachment

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Did the budget specify when the funds were to be appropriated? If not, Trump appropriated them before the budget expired. How is that a delay?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Presidents have a window of time whereby they must dispense the funds allocated by Congress for a several things.. not just Aid.

If you look at the headlines out of Puerto Rico today, you'll see what happens when aid is rushed out without any scrutiny.

a reply to: TheRedneck

On the very same day as Trump's perfect call with President Zelenskiy, his administration, through the OMB, sent two emails to the Pentagon ordering them to hold the aid and to not tell anyone about the hold. That is the day that the administration should have sent a "special message" to Congress notifying them of the hold and the reason why.

Even Mitch McConnel couldn't get an answer to why the aid hadn't been distributed yet, when he asked the White House about it, before the whistleblower complaint came out.

"I was not given an explanation," McConnell told reporters Tuesday as the congressional furor grew over President Trump’s interactions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

McConnell said he spoke to Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo twice about the matter without receiving clarification for the delay in $391 million in aid to Ukraine.
“I was very actively involved in advocating [for] the aid. I talked to the secretary of Defense, the secretary of State once,” he said.

thehill.com...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
That is the day that the administration should have sent a "special message" to Congress notifying them of the hold and the reason why.

False.

Whenever the President determines

It had not been determined yet. He had until the day the funds were to be handed over to make that determination. Since he did in fact send the funds on their way is proof he had not determined to withhold them, it was only a possibility. He does not have to notify when he starts looking into what to do, only when the final determination has been made.

Good try though.

a reply to: chr0naut

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual. In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance" to his tribe and not the United States.

It was clearly unconstitutional, as was Obama's use of the 2001 'Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF)' legislation a decade after it was passed due to emergency response to 911.

It was clearly stretching things and arguably should no longer have been held legally valid as it was a circumstantial response to a direct threat at the time (in 2001).

But Obama's infraction against the Constitution is no excuse for Trump's infraction against the Constitution. A precedent of someone else doing the wrong thing is no excuse.

And yet precedent is strong leverage in our legal system. It remains to be seen if it was in fact unconstitutional in the case of Trump.

But we all know it is exactly like the missing WMD's, a deceptive excuse.

There were WMDs You just fall into the word game of "active". Which, there was an active program, else why would Saddam kick the inspectors out?

That treaty specifically identifies who may request such legal assistance.

It says specifically in Article 2 that, on the US side, the Central Authority shall be "the Attorney General or a person designated by the Attorney General" and that "the Central Authorities shall communicate directly with one another for the purposes of the Treaty". This excludes all others on the US side.

So unless the President got pre-approval and deputization from the AG before the phone call, and that this authority to pursue the case also was communicated by the AG to Ukrainian government, the President wasn't acting compliant with that treaty.

Yeah, but since the AG "serves at the pleasure of the President", we don't that the AG wasn't already working on this by the time of the call.

Surely the articles of impeachment are the actual laws that Trump broke. Otherwise they would have no legal force.

It is clear that Trump did attempt to obstruct Congress in its investigation (article 2).

It is clear that Trump made a 'phone call that had potential motivation to discredit a political rival (article 1).

Neither article of impeachment has been tried yet.

Abuse of power is too broad a term, the framers understood this.

Neither article actually specifies a crime.

Hell, Pelosi misspoke on the floor when she was reciting the transcript. He said "do us a favor". As in the US. Not "do me a favor". If it was so clear, why not clearly define a crime in the articles?

Giuliani was beginning his investigation in late 2018. Lutsenko started two investigations in march of 2019, and Biden declared his candidacy in April 2019 stating that "he had to run".

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: mtnshredder
a reply to: chr0naut

Trump ordered an airstrike in a country the US is not in conflict with, on a citizen of another country that the US is also not in direct conflict with. He did so without informing Congress first.

So what, he didn't have to notify congress. In the interest of national security, it's within Trump's Article 2 powers to do what he did without notifying congress.

I don't know why you keep bringing up war and war time? Once again, we're not going to be declaring war on any country, not sure what you're not getting in that regard.

Please re-read the section of my post that you quoted in your reply. I din't make any mention of "war" there.

I did mention, at the end of my post, the Constitutional requirements preventing the invocation of 'wartime powers without Congressional assent', but that is a bit of a different thing as it was explaining the reasoning behind the general principle governing such Congressional approval over Presidential actions in regard to military conflict.

You kept mentioning it several times all through this thread and after my post, but go ahead and spin it how you usually do when you're wrong , which is often.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Whenever the President determines

That determination was made on July 25, 2019, when Trump's OMB sent two emails to the Pentagon instructing them to delay of the funds.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Whenever the President determines

That determination was made on July 25, 2019, when Trump's OMB sent two emails to the Pentagon instructing them to delay of the funds.

Nope, President Trump had 55 days or until the budget renewal date to complete his determination. Congress should have waited and been patient, instead of impulsively jumping the gun. His releasing before those dates, nullifies their complaint.

Impulse control and patience seems to continually be the downfall for the Democrats nowadays.

a reply to: CynConcepts

Citation required.

LOL...CNN and MSNBC are Livid. McConnell released the process/procedure rules an hour ago. The talking heads are angry that much of the Democrat's case will be presented late at night...also cutting into their prime time shows and advertising revenue this week.

Wed/Thurs 1pm to 1am Democrats argue for Removal

Fri/Sat 1pm to 1am Trump's Team argues against Removal

CNN/MSNBC doesn't have to broadcast every hour of same old Democrats droning for 12 hours Wed/Thur about the same old BS, if they don't want to.

Source: www.cnn.com...

The Four Page "Rules" Resolution Published by Leader McConnell today: www.cnn.com...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CynConcepts

Citation required.

Yale law PDF Link

Quite honestly, it is a long read and is only biased on the part that Congress still needs to change law on foriegn assistance more than they have in the past. The executive branch still has authority to enforce disbursement of budget legislation approved via Congress.

They are legislative, Trump is executive. If Trump had decided to change or not send funding as appropriated in the established fiscal period, he would need to advise them 30 days in advance.

As it occurred, he followed through and executed their budget appropriations without any changes before the end of the fiscal period.

Also, as I said, the Democrats were too impulsive and impatient. If they would have waited...they would have an actual case against Trump. They bit his bait and as previous cases listed and sourced in this PDF, they will lose against the executive branch again.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That wasn't my question. The question was, was there a deadline in the funding bill which appropriated the funds? If there was, did Trump miss the deadline? If he did, you have a point; if he did not, then you don't.

Moneys appropriated cannot be spent all the same day they are appropriated. The appropriations are supposed to be for the fiscal year, and often departments will spend the last of their money the last day of the fiscal year. That's just normal practice. There are channels to go through, and Trump has stated he was concerned about two things: using the monies to convince other countries to help out as well (something he has done multiple times already,, even with NATO countries) and ensuring that Zelensky was serious about cleaning up the corruption in Ukraine. Those sound reasonable to me, as long as no law was broken. That's why I asked the (perfectly legitimate) question which you didn't answer.

As long as you make this a 'gotcha' about how evil Trump is, you're going to fail miserably. Make it about the law, and you have a chance of success.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Whenever the President determines

That determination was made on July 25, 2019, when Trump's OMB sent two emails to the Pentagon instructing them to delay of the funds.

Delay, not withhold. Not withhold past the deadline. Sorry, keep playing. No determination was made to withhold funds past the deadline. He can delay all he wants with no notification required as long as he does not delay past the deadline.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Since she obviously can't (or won't) answer my question, maybe you can?

Was a deadline (other than the end of the fiscal year, September 30) specified for the aid? I'd really like to know, and for all the accusations flying no one seems to know.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

That wasn't my question. The question was, was there a deadline in the funding bill which appropriated the funds?

Here's a pretty good breakdown of the timeline and other Ukraine aid details. www.rollcall.com...

But, the "deadline" isn't the problem. The problem is the accusation that the president was secretly dangling the money to coerce Zelenskiy into announcing an investigation in to the DNC/Crowdstrike and the Bidens.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Here's a pretty good breakdown of the timeline and other Ukraine aid details.

Nowhere in your link does it say there was a deadline for appropriation other than the end of the fiscal year. As a matter of fact, it says

While the hold on the fiscal 2019 funds caused delays, administration officials said they were told most of the funding could not be obligated until near the end of the fiscal year anyway. That’s not entirely unusual, and OMB told Pentagon officials to continue planning for how to obligate the funds during the freeze.

That indicates to me that there was no earlier deadline, and coincides with what I have been able to find. If there was no earlier deadline, then the funds were not delayed beyond that which was expected and there is no violation of the 1974 law.

But, the "deadline" isn't the problem. The problem is the accusation that the president was secretly dangling the money to coerce Zelenskiy into announcing an investigation in to the DNC/Crowdstrike and the Bidens.

You just did three things there:

• You just moved the goalposts you set up yourself. Your earlier post stated that Donald Trump broke the law against delaying funds; now you claim that is not an issue. Pick a position, willya?
  
  
• You just admitted that all the House has is an accusation, with no proof.
  
  
• You just admitted that the investigation requested was concerning the 2016 election interference (which is the exact same thing Trump has been investigated for by his political detractors), and not the 2020 elections. Crowdstrike allegations do not concern the 2020 elections; they concern the hacking of the DNC server during the 2016 election. That also implies that Donald Trump was not attempting to investigate Joe Biden (or Hunter Biden) for political purposes, but in keeping with his duty as head of the Executive Branch. This argument directly negates the Article of Impeachment dealing with Abuse of Power.

The fact that you just directly contradicted your earlier position to change the subject from one you cannot answer tells me that your motives are far from concern over the violation of laws, or even for the plight of Ukraine. Your concern is obviously to somehow blame the President you do not want in office for something... anything... that might make him look bad.

That is political punditry and is about as un-American as it gets.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck

That wasn't my question. The question was, was there a deadline in the funding bill which appropriated the funds?

But, the "deadline" isn't the problem. The problem is the accusation that the president was secretly dangling the money to coerce Zelensky into announcing an investigation in to the DNC/Crowdstrike and the Bidens.

President Trump must be losing his touch.

Zelensky has stated 3 times that he felt no coercion or black-mail attempt by President Trump or the U.S. Government.

Just gratitude over receiving several congratulatory phone calls, for winning the Ukraine election. (Trump/Pompeo sent a delegation there too, for Zelensky's swearing-in ceremony.)

a reply to: TheRedneck

You just moved the goalposts you set up yourself.

No. You moved the goal post. Trump was impeached for abuse of power, for trying to coerce Pres. Zelenskiy to open announce the opening of an investigation into the Bidens and the DNC. He was not impeached for violating the Impound Control Act, although the GOA found that he did.

You just admitted that all the House has is an accusation, with no proof.

What? You act like you didn't know that Trump's abuse of power accusations stem from his (corrupt) motive behind Trump's withholding of aid? The proof is in the underlying evidence.

You just admitted that the investigation requested was concerning the 2016 election interference (which is the exact same thing Trump has been investigated for by his political detractors), and not the 2020 elections.

Trump wanted Ukraine to undermine the Mueller report by blaming the DNC for some plot to hack their computers, send documents to WikiLeaks and frame Russia. Undermining the DNC would benefit Trump personally in his re-election campaign. He already campaigns on "all Democrats hate America", etc. etc. etc.

This thread is about why Trump should be removed from office, right? The validity of accusations and the underlying evidence is why.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CryHavoc

If Joe Biden wasn't a rival from an opposing political party, would we even be raising the question of whether Trump did the right thing or not?

Good question! Why isn't Trump asking Ukraine to investigate any other Americans that might be doing corrupt business in Ukraine? Are the Bidens the only ones, in that great big, super corrupt place?

The Bidens were the most visible, because it was Biden who set into place the NABU organization that gets precedence on the investigation of all "Class A" level corruption in Ukraine. (Where class A means top level politicians.)

NABU has a perfect 300/0 loss record in its 5 years of operation.

Ukraine's own corruption prosecution department (which is only allowed to go after class B), has 2000 wins out of 6000 trials, so less than 50%. (But greater than 0%)

Of the crimes being investigated against Burisma, all but 2 of them were considered "Class A" and given to NABU.

Of the 2 that were allowed to Ukraine's own prosecutors, they got a conviction on one of them.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

But we all know it is exactly like the missing WMD's, a deceptive excuse.

There were WMDs You just fall into the word game of "active". Which, there was an active program, else why would Saddam kick the inspectors out?

He would do it to save face with his people. He had to act defiant.

But also I think perhaps Saddam wanted people to think he had a program.

However, he clearly didn't have even the rudiments of the bare beginnings of anything you could possibly call a "nuclear program."

I'm sorry.... going back through my source. NABU has only been at it 3 years, not 5. And they've tried 200 cases, not 300. No convictions, though. (But apparently got 450 million hryvnia back for Ukraine in settlements. Or 18.48 million if converted to USD).

Ukraine's own prosecutors have tried 6,438 cases and gotten sentence is 2,876 cases. (And reclaimed 112 billion Hryvnia or about 4.6 billion if converted to USD.)


It's an interesting interview. It's sad that you have to read foreign news outlets in order to get any real information these days. :-(

thebabel.net... burisma-plenkah-rozenblata-i-istochnikah-korrupcii-bolshoe-intervyu