GAO rules Trump broke the law

[toobfreak]

the right to confront one's accuser is a trial right. The House did not conduct a trial. The constitution is quite clear that the Senate has the trial. The whistleblower is not being used as a witness. Democrats haven't called on him. His complaint is not being used as testimony. He cannot be considered the accuser given he hasn't witnessed the actions.

Glad you understand that as the triers of the case, that Trump and the Senate will have the right and ability to call the whistleblower to the stand and face his accuser. The whistleblower's complaint is the entire basis of Trump's impeachment and now you admit that he hasn't even witnessed the actions? Wow.

Now I admit he hasn’t witnessed the actions? I never stated he did. Why would I? Not even the whistleblower said he did.

OH, MOONPIE, You are such a delicate delinquent. You even deny saying you never said something while copying the proof that you DID right in your own post!

Does the fact that 99 out of 100 posts here (and hundreds at that) having all disagreed with you tell you anything? Nope. Like the immortal deadhead tard, you plod ahead fully assured that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong. Precious!

 

[Faun]

Blah blah blah. It's what you guys did to Clinton.

You guys? Firstly I am an Independent, secondly I was 18 when that happened, thirdly Clinton did lie under oath. Still should not have been impeached. Trump was impeached on an opinion.

Uh, no, Impeached Trump was impeached for soliciting foreign aid for his campaign for re-election.

"Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it..." - Impeached Trump​

Perfect!

Yes he said our country has been through a lot. Can you help us. The fact that we disagree shows it’s an opinions. We agree that WJC lied under oath as he did have relations with Monica.

LOL

He asked a foreign national to investigate his political rival.

That's an impeachable offense. I don't give a shit about Clinton, that's old news and irrelevant.

Rival? He was a rival in 2016 and that is what he was curious about. Did it on an open phone call. Never said me or I .

Try and focus.... we're talking about 2019, not 2016. In 2019, both are campaigning for the same office. They're political rivals. In 2019, Impeached Trump solicited a foreign national to investigate a political rival. That's an impeachable offense.

 

[toobfreak]

The whistle blower is not the accuser. He is a messenger. Everything in the report was independently confirmed. There is no need for him to be facing Trump.

Right. The whistleblower is just the messenger. Of what? The accusations. Accusations that Trump was this dangerous power-mad dictator so bad that he had to blow the whistle. If he isn't accusing Trump of anything, then why the need for total anonymity and protection? Most everything in the report is hearsay confirmed only by more hearsay from biased anti-Trump democrats. Adam Schiff practically had his tongue up all their asses. They hardly needed to even testify because Adam Schiff spoke for all of them putting words in their mouths. Let's get the whistleblower on the stand and start a real hearing now.

The whistle blower's identity is protected under LAW.

Then you should have no difficulty linking me to that law? Why then are whistleblowers routinely used in business to testify? And sometimes they are even retaliated against (fired) despite all that.

Everything he reported has been independently verified through sworn testimony.

C'mon, C, "independently" verified? By who? Hearsay democrat witnesses openly hostile to the president that were coached, protected and never allowed full vetting by the Republicans?

You know darn well if his identity is revealed, he will lose his job, possibly his life

Oh Jesus. Now you have Trump putting out a hit on the guy? Basically what you are saying is that you have a weasel planted inside close to Trump that you want to stay there to continue to leak stuff to the Democrats, and that Trump isn't allowed to know BY YOU so that he can pick and choose a staff around him actually helpful and supportive of him and his policies! Much like James Commie! I guess it's right, you folks really DO think the president serves at the DNC's pleasure instead of the American People!

Seig Heil, Democrats!

 

[Coyote]

The whistle blower is not the accuser. He is a messenger. Everything in the report was independently confirmed. There is no need for him to be facing Trump.

Right. The whistleblower is just the messenger. Of what? The accusations. Accusations that Trump was this dangerous power-mad dictator so bad that he had to blow the whistle. If he isn't accusing Trump of anything, then why the need for total anonymity and protection? Most everything in the report is hearsay confirmed only by more hearsay from biased anti-Trump democrats. Adam Schiff practically had his tongue up all their asses. They hardly needed to even testify because Adam Schiff spoke for all of them putting words in their mouths. Let's get the whistleblower on the stand and start a real hearing now.

The whistle blower's identity is protected under LAW.

Then you should have no difficulty linking me to that law? Why then are whistleblowers routinely used in business to testify? And sometimes they are even retaliated against (fired) despite all that.

Everything he reported has been independently verified through sworn testimony.

C'mon, C, "independently" verified? By who? Hearsay democrat witnesses openly hostile to the president that were coached, protected and never allowed full vetting by the Republicans?

You know darn well if his identity is revealed, he will lose his job, possibly his life

Oh Jesus. Now you have Trump putting out a hit on the guy? Basically what you are saying is that you have a weasel planted inside close to Trump that you want to stay there to continue to leak stuff to the Democrats, and that Trump isn't allowed to know BY YOU so that he can pick and choose a staff around him actually helpful and supportive of him and his policies! Much like James Commie! I guess it's right, you folks really DO think the president serves at the DNC's pleasure instead of the American People!

Seig Heil, Democrats!

The Intelligence Community Whistleblowers: What You Need to Know - National Whistleblower Center

How are whistleblowers’ anonymity protected?

As noted above, whistleblowers are entitled to their anonymity as several whistleblower protections laws include clauses to protect whistleblower identities and guarantee confidentiality.

Both the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) and the Inspector General Act state that a whistleblower’s identity must be protected unless the employee making the disclosure consents to disclosing their identity. The Inspector General Act states:

(h) The identity of any individual who makes a disclosure described in subsection (a) may not be disclosed by the Special Counsel without such individual’s consent unless the Special Counsel determines that the disclosure of the individual’s identity is necessary because of an imminent danger to public health or safety or imminent violation of any criminal law.

Additionally, the Inspector General Act mandates the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) must protect whistleblower confidentiality only disclosing it in the same manner as required by the WPA. This act also prohibits retaliation based upon whistleblowers disclosures to the OIG. While the WPA does not explicitly cover intelligence community whistleblowers, the Inspector General Act does after amendments from the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA).

Anonymity protection provisions are not only detailed in laws pertaining to whistleblowers. Many government-wide laws apply to the cases of whistleblower disclosures and protections, such as the Privacy Act of 1974. The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. §552a prevents any disclosure of the personal information of a government employee without their consent. This clause would prohibit any government or agency official, even the President, from releasing the identity of an employee, whistleblowers included. If violated, civil and criminal penalties would apply to those exposing the identities of government employees.

Retaining the right to confidentiality and anonymity are critical not only for the safety of whistleblowers, but also for the security of the whistleblowing process. Congress delineated these provisions to protect whistleblowers from reprisals in the forms of damages to reputation, loss of career, threats on livelihood, etc.

Under these protections, whistleblowers are entitled to their anonymity. All government officials and employees, even those in the Office of the President, must abide by these protections to guarantee the safety of whistleblowers.

 

[Rambunctious]

So being president is now illegal?....its up to the commander and chief to determine if our tax dollars we send to other nations will be used in a non corrupt fashion....OMB?...don't make us laugh...no one votes for the OMB....

Where does the constitution say that?

In the part where foreign diplomacy is the sole responsibility of the President.

And appropriations are the sole responsibility of Congress. If Congress decides that tax dollars should go somewhere, they have to go there.

For one Trump said it in his campaign...it was a campaign promise to clean up DC and be more responsible with our nations largest...we work hard to pay our taxes some of which that are sent to other nations...why don't you care is the question of the day....

 

[Rambunctious]

So being president is now illegal?....its up to the commander and chief to determine if our tax dollars we send to other nations will be used in a non corrupt fashion....OMB?...don't make us laugh...no one votes for the OMB....

It's up to Congress, not the president.

Did the Ukraine get their money before the deadline?.....yes....so what is your problem?...don't you want to make sure your tax dollars are not wasted?...

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You guys? Firstly I am an Independent, secondly I was 18 when that happened, thirdly Clinton did lie under oath. Still should not have been impeached. Trump was impeached on an opinion.

Uh, no, Impeached Trump was impeached for soliciting foreign aid for his campaign for re-election.

"Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it..." - Impeached Trump​

Perfect!

Yes he said our country has been through a lot. Can you help us. The fact that we disagree shows it’s an opinions. We agree that WJC lied under oath as he did have relations with Monica.

LOL

He asked a foreign national to investigate his political rival.

That's an impeachable offense. I don't give a shit about Clinton, that's old news and irrelevant.

Rival? He was a rival in 2016 and that is what he was curious about. Did it on an open phone call. Never said me or I .

Try and focus.... we're talking about 2019, not 2016. In 2019, both are campaigning for the same office. They're political rivals. In 2019, Impeached Trump solicited a foreign national to investigate a political rival. That's an impeachable offense.

Biden won the nomination? Link please

 

[toobfreak]

The Intelligence Community Whistleblowers: What You Need to Know - National Whistleblower Center

How are whistleblowers’ anonymity protected?

As noted above

Thanks for including that. Well, after skimming through thousands of words and a dozen links, including one for the Inspector General of 1978 that was nine pages long of legalese gobbledygook and not actually SEEING the actual words but it implied in the general text, I'll take you at your word. So they have a "special" whistleblower law just for people to rat out in the intelligence community.

HOW AMAZING that with all the thousands of sordid and incredible things that went on just in the previous administration between Obumma and Hillary, that NOT ONE PERSON ever blew a whistle!!!! Guess they were smart enough to know to close their door when on the phone, or as we all know, democrats don't blow the whistle on other democrats.

No matter. As has been said here many times, the WB wasn't part of the Schiff/Nadler Hearings. We still have the myriad incredible injustices contained within that I'll enjoy watching the Senate tear to shreds.

 

[colfax_m]

the right to confront one's accuser is a trial right. The House did not conduct a trial. The constitution is quite clear that the Senate has the trial. The whistleblower is not being used as a witness. Democrats haven't called on him. His complaint is not being used as testimony. He cannot be considered the accuser given he hasn't witnessed the actions.

Glad you understand that as the triers of the case, that Trump and the Senate will have the right and ability to call the whistleblower to the stand and face his accuser. The whistleblower's complaint is the entire basis of Trump's impeachment and now you admit that he hasn't even witnessed the actions? Wow.

Now I admit he hasn’t witnessed the actions? I never stated he did. Why would I? Not even the whistleblower said he did.

OH, MOONPIE, You are such a delicate delinquent. You even deny saying you never said something while copying the proof that you DID right in your own post!

Does the fact that 99 out of 100 posts here (and hundreds at that) having all disagreed with you tell you anything? Nope. Like the immortal deadhead tard, you plod ahead fully assured that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong. Precious!


View attachment 301452

You need to read more closely. I have never claimed that the whistleblower witnessed anything. You made it sound as if I had claimed he did.

This is what you said:

now you admit that he hasn't even witnessed the actions

No, I’m not "now admitting" anything. I’m restating what I’ve said the entire time. The whistleblower did not witness anything and I've never said he had.

 

[colfax_m]

So being president is now illegal?....its up to the commander and chief to determine if our tax dollars we send to other nations will be used in a non corrupt fashion....OMB?...don't make us laugh...no one votes for the OMB....

Where does the constitution say that?

In the part where foreign diplomacy is the sole responsibility of the President.

And appropriations are the sole responsibility of Congress. If Congress decides that tax dollars should go somewhere, they have to go there.

For one Trump said it in his campaign...it was a campaign promise to clean up DC and be more responsible with our nations largest...we work hard to pay our taxes some of which that are sent to other nations...why don't you care is the question of the day....

His campaign promises are irrelevant in the fact of constitutional limitations on his power as president.

 

[martybegan]

The GAO has always been number crunchers. The new "mandate" is outside their scope and expertise.

Here is some observations on their "opinion" from someone who knows what they are talking about.

Four Observations Concerning the GAO Decision

Yes. Brilliantly. Like this:

If Trump's underlings delayed making a timely transfer of funds to Ukraine, as required by the relevant appropriations act, then it is they who are legally responsible (though the president always bears political responsibility for the actions of all his subordinates in the executive branch).

Documents, which the Senate will likely refuse to consider, show:

According to a rough transcript released by the White House, the July 25 call between Trump and Zelenskiy took place between 9:03 and 9:33 a.m.

At 11:04 a.m., an official with the White House's budget office, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Mike Duffey, sent an email to Deputy Secretary of Defense David Norquist, the chief of staff to Defense Secretary Mark Esper and the Pentagon's chief financial officer telling them to withhold the aid to Ukraine, the documents showed.

"Based on guidance I have received and in light of the Administration’s plan to review assistance to Ukraine, including the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, please hold off on any additional DoD obligations of these funds, pending direction from that process," the email from Duffey said, according to the documents.

White House official ordered aid to Ukraine be withheld 91 minutes after Trump call with Ukraine president, documents show

The blogger ignores that the OMB was acting at the express direction of unnamed persons. That's pretty ******* convenient, if you want to shift blame to OMB. He does conclude he will have to think more about Trump's failure to make the requisite notification to Congress over the hold on aid.

By and large, he's just bullshitting:

Second, did GAO provide any evidence to show that President Trump personally directed his subordinates to withhold the funds? I hesitate before concluding that the President ordered his subordinates to violate the law, when there is a dispute about what exactly the law requires.

Here, he's astutely avoiding mention of witnesses and documents blocked from the inquiry. How that's an argument against the GAO is a mystery.

This is his purported third point:

Third, did GAO provide any evidence to show that President Trump directed his subordinates to deliberately violate the ICA? This question is premised on a disputed legal issue: was the withholding of certain funds, for some period of time, a violation of the ICA. I don't have nearly enough expertise in budgetary law to opine on this question.

Four, did GAO find that President Trump violated the Constitution's Take Care Clause? No. The decision states, "Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law."


Did you even read the article you linked?

Yes, and mostly its about GAO not providing any actual evidence, just assumptions. What the guy is doing is pointing the holes in GAO's legal opinion.

He's just filling space. He doesn't have a point worth making.

Lol, after you spent all that time quoting and referencing snippets, you read the whole thing and found you didn't agree with it and thus "filling space"

Go back to your hackery, Hacky McHack-hack.

It certainly didn't do what you wanted it to do. My 'filling space' conclusion was - as you noted - based on reading it, quoting it, and referencing snippets. You? Just a printed fart.

You dismissed it out of hand, then thought it helped your case, then realizing it didn't dismissed it again.

Hack.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Yes. Brilliantly. Like this:

If Trump's underlings delayed making a timely transfer of funds to Ukraine, as required by the relevant appropriations act, then it is they who are legally responsible (though the president always bears political responsibility for the actions of all his subordinates in the executive branch).

Documents, which the Senate will likely refuse to consider, show:

According to a rough transcript released by the White House, the July 25 call between Trump and Zelenskiy took place between 9:03 and 9:33 a.m.

At 11:04 a.m., an official with the White House's budget office, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Mike Duffey, sent an email to Deputy Secretary of Defense David Norquist, the chief of staff to Defense Secretary Mark Esper and the Pentagon's chief financial officer telling them to withhold the aid to Ukraine, the documents showed.

"Based on guidance I have received and in light of the Administration’s plan to review assistance to Ukraine, including the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, please hold off on any additional DoD obligations of these funds, pending direction from that process," the email from Duffey said, according to the documents.

White House official ordered aid to Ukraine be withheld 91 minutes after Trump call with Ukraine president, documents show

The blogger ignores that the OMB was acting at the express direction of unnamed persons. That's pretty ******* convenient, if you want to shift blame to OMB. He does conclude he will have to think more about Trump's failure to make the requisite notification to Congress over the hold on aid.

By and large, he's just bullshitting:

Second, did GAO provide any evidence to show that President Trump personally directed his subordinates to withhold the funds? I hesitate before concluding that the President ordered his subordinates to violate the law, when there is a dispute about what exactly the law requires.

Here, he's astutely avoiding mention of witnesses and documents blocked from the inquiry. How that's an argument against the GAO is a mystery.

This is his purported third point:

Third, did GAO provide any evidence to show that President Trump directed his subordinates to deliberately violate the ICA? This question is premised on a disputed legal issue: was the withholding of certain funds, for some period of time, a violation of the ICA. I don't have nearly enough expertise in budgetary law to opine on this question.

Four, did GAO find that President Trump violated the Constitution's Take Care Clause? No. The decision states, "Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law."


Did you even read the article you linked?

Yes, and mostly its about GAO not providing any actual evidence, just assumptions. What the guy is doing is pointing the holes in GAO's legal opinion.

He's just filling space. He doesn't have a point worth making.

Lol, after you spent all that time quoting and referencing snippets, you read the whole thing and found you didn't agree with it and thus "filling space"

Go back to your hackery, Hacky McHack-hack.

It certainly didn't do what you wanted it to do. My 'filling space' conclusion was - as you noted - based on reading it, quoting it, and referencing snippets. You? Just a printed fart.

You dismissed it out of hand, then thought it helped your case, then realizing it didn't dismissed it again.

Hack.

You introduced the article. You're just saying stupid shit.

 

[colfax_m]

So being president is now illegal?....its up to the commander and chief to determine if our tax dollars we send to other nations will be used in a non corrupt fashion....OMB?...don't make us laugh...no one votes for the OMB....

It's up to Congress, not the president.

Did the Ukraine get their money before the deadline?.....yes....so what is your problem?...don't you want to make sure your tax dollars are not wasted?...

Not quite. They got most of the money. Not all. Now what?

 

[Coyote]

The Intelligence Community Whistleblowers: What You Need to Know - National Whistleblower Center

How are whistleblowers’ anonymity protected?

As noted above

Thanks for including that. Well, after skimming through thousands of words and a dozen links, including one for the Inspector General of 1978 that was nine pages long of legalese gobbledygook and not actually SEEING the actual words but it implied in the general text, I'll take you at your word. So they have a "special" whistleblower law just for people to rat out in the intelligence community.

HOW AMAZING that with all the thousands of sordid and incredible things that went on just in the previous administration between Obumma and Hillary, that NOT ONE PERSON ever blew a whistle!!!! Guess they were smart enough to know to close their door when on the phone, or as we all know, democrats don't blow the whistle on other democrats.

No matter. As has been said here many times, the WB wasn't part of the Schiff/Nadler Hearings. We still have the myriad incredible injustices contained within that I'll enjoy watching the Senate tear to shreds.

Maybe there was nothing to blow the whistle on...imagine that!

You guys have three years of control and still can’t come up with a proper scandal to dump on Obama. Not for lack of trying.

 

[toobfreak]

The Intelligence Community Whistleblowers: What You Need to Know - National Whistleblower Center

How are whistleblowers’ anonymity protected?

As noted above

Thanks for including that. Well, after skimming through thousands of words and a dozen links, including one for the Inspector General of 1978 that was nine pages long of legalese gobbledygook and not actually SEEING the actual words but it implied in the general text, I'll take you at your word. So they have a "special" whistleblower law just for people to rat out in the intelligence community.

HOW AMAZING that with all the thousands of sordid and incredible things that went on just in the previous administration between Obumma and Hillary, that NOT ONE PERSON ever blew a whistle!!!! Guess they were smart enough to know to close their door when on the phone, or as we all know, democrats don't blow the whistle on other democrats.

No matter. As has been said here many times, the WB wasn't part of the Schiff/Nadler Hearings. We still have the myriad incredible injustices contained within that I'll enjoy watching the Senate tear to shreds.

Maybe there was nothing to blow the whistle on...imagine that!

You guys have three years of control and still can’t come up with a proper scandal to dump on Obama. Not for lack of trying.

Really C? Do you really want me to list (again) the HUNDREDS of impeachment-worthy, whistle-blower-worthy actions by Barry and his little mistress Hildegarde that never went anywhere only because the deep state didn't WANT them to go anywhere?

We BOTH know all too well that Washington has been 100% dead set against Trump the day he announced his even running, fully committed to getting him OUT of office by any means necessary come hell or high water.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, and mostly its about GAO not providing any actual evidence, just assumptions. What the guy is doing is pointing the holes in GAO's legal opinion.

He's just filling space. He doesn't have a point worth making.

Lol, after you spent all that time quoting and referencing snippets, you read the whole thing and found you didn't agree with it and thus "filling space"

Go back to your hackery, Hacky McHack-hack.

It certainly didn't do what you wanted it to do. My 'filling space' conclusion was - as you noted - based on reading it, quoting it, and referencing snippets. You? Just a printed fart.

You dismissed it out of hand, then thought it helped your case, then realizing it didn't dismissed it again.

Hack.

You introduced the article. You're just saying stupid shit.

Lol.

 

[joaquinmiller]

He's just filling space. He doesn't have a point worth making.

Lol, after you spent all that time quoting and referencing snippets, you read the whole thing and found you didn't agree with it and thus "filling space"

Go back to your hackery, Hacky McHack-hack.

It certainly didn't do what you wanted it to do. My 'filling space' conclusion was - as you noted - based on reading it, quoting it, and referencing snippets. You? Just a printed fart.

You dismissed it out of hand, then thought it helped your case, then realizing it didn't dismissed it again.

Hack.

You introduced the article. You're just saying stupid shit.

Lol.

"Since when does the GAO offer anything but accounting figures and tabulations of values?"

You haven't been right in this thread since sometime before the preceding sentence. Your LOL is just more stupid shit.

 

[martybegan]

Lol, after you spent all that time quoting and referencing snippets, you read the whole thing and found you didn't agree with it and thus "filling space"

Go back to your hackery, Hacky McHack-hack.

It certainly didn't do what you wanted it to do. My 'filling space' conclusion was - as you noted - based on reading it, quoting it, and referencing snippets. You? Just a printed fart.

You dismissed it out of hand, then thought it helped your case, then realizing it didn't dismissed it again.

Hack.

You introduced the article. You're just saying stupid shit.

Lol.

"Since when does the GAO offer anything but accounting figures and tabulations of values?"

You haven't been right in this thread since sometime before the preceding sentence. Your LOL is just more stupid shit.

i wasn't aware of the switch, and this is the first time their legal analysis is being made a big thing, of course to bash Trump, even though they ruled against Obama several times and partisan hacks like you didn't even notice.

To me their extension of law is stupid. They are supposed to be a giant calculator, providing data on proposed economic plans, nothing more.

 

[joaquinmiller]

It certainly didn't do what you wanted it to do. My 'filling space' conclusion was - as you noted - based on reading it, quoting it, and referencing snippets. You? Just a printed fart.

You dismissed it out of hand, then thought it helped your case, then realizing it didn't dismissed it again.

Hack.

You introduced the article. You're just saying stupid shit.

Lol.

"Since when does the GAO offer anything but accounting figures and tabulations of values?"

You haven't been right in this thread since sometime before the preceding sentence. Your LOL is just more stupid shit.

i wasn't aware of the switch, and this is the first time their legal analysis is being made a big thing, of course to bash Trump, even though they ruled against Obama several times and partisan hacks like you didn't even notice.

To me their extension of law is stupid. They are supposed to be a giant calculator, providing data on proposed economic plans, nothing more.

Yeah, right. You win. I'm a hack. Jesus.

 

[martybegan]

You dismissed it out of hand, then thought it helped your case, then realizing it didn't dismissed it again.

Hack.

You introduced the article. You're just saying stupid shit.

Lol.

"Since when does the GAO offer anything but accounting figures and tabulations of values?"

You haven't been right in this thread since sometime before the preceding sentence. Your LOL is just more stupid shit.

i wasn't aware of the switch, and this is the first time their legal analysis is being made a big thing, of course to bash Trump, even though they ruled against Obama several times and partisan hacks like you didn't even notice.

To me their extension of law is stupid. They are supposed to be a giant calculator, providing data on proposed economic plans, nothing more.

Yeah, right. You win. I'm a hack. Jesus.

Admittance is the fist step in acceptance.