Tijn Von Ingersleben
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2018
- 8,558
- 2,593
- 290
- Banned
- #101
Shup ****.
Now Enter The Trump "Impoundment Control Act" Criminal Violations
- Thread starter mascale
- Start date
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,830
- 87,267
- 2,645
Trump knew that Soros was using his democrat Party to launder billions through the Ukraine
Pelosi did not call for impeachment for 2 1/2 years....
Few, like Maxine Waters called for impeachment EARLY on, Al Green too....
And those 2 are not the whole Democratic party or many dems... when their calls to impeachment were brought up before the House, the Democratic party turned down impeachment, several times.
Not one republican chose to impeach BECAUSE THEY were being partisan and holding together as a strategy, not because the democrats were being impartial, the Rs were.
The House was serious, the witnesses like the whistle blower were irrelevant to the impeachment or Trump' s impeachment defense.... the Rs were trying to put on a ridiculous dog and pony show for you Trumpets personally..
BECAUSE they had no real first hand witnesses they could call, that could exonerate Trump.
Trump was treated as fairly as Clinton, Nixon and Johnson were....
Trumpy bear needs to put his big boy pants on and stop crying and whining like a baby, and show us some actual facts and witnesses in his own defense, NOT to obfuscate....
YOU KNOW if Obama had self dealt, using military aid, to get an upper hand in the upcoming election, and helped our adversary Russia to have the upper hand above our ally.
You not only would have impeached him, you would have called for his hanging.
Last edited:
Correction, the USA chose to support the Ukraine, including grass root anti corruption groups.
berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 33,721
- 27,481
- 2,820
Nope.
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974: What Is It? Why Does It Matter?
Chairs Yarmuth and Lowey Call on White House to Release Documents on the Withholding of Ukraine, Foreign Aid Funds
Requests for the documents regarding the hold Trump put on the military aid to Ukraine are part of the reason he is illegally stonewalling all requests for any documents.
berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 33,721
- 27,481
- 2,820
Are you sure about that? At the least it's a matter of some dispute.
What a Nixon-era law means for Trump, Ukraine aid
- Thread starter
- #107
The Republican Contention that they have an "Anti-case" exonerating the White House is now shown to definitely not exist. The Democrats contend for their case via the Articles of Impeachment.
______________________
Republicans in Congress, with White House support, have said the Democrats’ criticisms are unjustified, citing multiple reasons: Ukraine, they say, did not even know the aid was being withheld until it was reported publicly by Politico about five weeks after the holdup began – making the delay virtually irrelevant to any actions by Ukraine’s government. Trump was only concerned, they say, about limiting corruption in Ukraine.
They also have said that the pause wasn’t extraordinary: “It is not unusual for U.S. foreign assistance to become delayed,” said a House Republican staff report released on Dec. 2. The provision of aid to Lebanon was delayed in the fall of this year, for example, after the president there resigned, their report noted. Aid to Afghanistan was delayed in September due to corruption concerns. During the summer, aid to Central America was reprogrammed to compel governments there to curtail the flow of their migrants to the United States. And in 2017, aid to Egypt was frozen over human rights concerns.
But all the aid interruptions cited by the Republicans were publicly announced and reported to Congress, as the Impoundment Act requires. The holdup in the Ukraine aid, in contrast, was kept quiet. When Sandy was asked during his testimony if he had ever previously issued orders like those used to stop the flow of aid to Ukraine, he replied, “I don’t recall an example just like this.” It was, he emphasized, a unique event.
Trump, moreover, didn’t raise the issue of Ukraine corruption with Zelensky in two phone calls, one on the day of Zelensky’s election, with the second on July 25 – despite having been urged to do so in advance by his own aides. And the Pentagon had no overarching concerns about the magnitude of corruption or the path on which Zelensky had put the country, according to Cooper’s testimony. A top Pentagon official, policy chief John Rood, had previously certified in a May 23 letter to Congress that Ukraine “has taken substantial actions … for the purposes of decreasing corruption [and] increasing accountability.” He said, “There remain areas that require significant attention,” but stated that Ukraine has met all conditions for the remaining U.S. aid to be provided.
Cooper said that at the interagency meeting of so-called “deputies” or high-ranking officials from around the government on July 26, “all I had to go on was that the President is concerned about corruption in Ukraine and somehow therefore we were holding security assistance. So the conversation at the deputies, a lot of the members were saying, you know, corruption, yes, it’s been an issue. Yes, it’s a concern. Yes, there’s a long way to go, but we’re on the right path, you know, we can move forward. So it felt Iike a conversation where people were trying to explain how corruption shouldn’t be a concern.”
After the Government Accountability Office announced it was auditing the potential mishandling of the funds, OMB general counsel Mark Paoletta, a former legal adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, asserted in a Dec. 9 legal opinion that the holdup was not a policy “deferral,” which would have been illegal, but merely a “programmatic delay” to examine if the funds were going to be used effectively. “It was OMB’s understanding that a brief period was needed, prior to the funds expiring, to engage in a policy process regarding those funds,” Paoletta said without further explanation.
But Cooper, in her testimony, said that while the issue of continuing corruption in Ukraine was mentioned at several interagency meetings during the funding pause, the conversation didn’t amount to a new review of the topic. And one of the largely-redacted Defense Department documents provided on Dec. 12 to Public Integrity at the insistence of a federal judge hints at a sharp disagreement about the propriety of the aid holdup between one of her colleagues, Pentagon comptroller Elaine McCusker, and Duffey at OMB. “Seems like we continue to talk past each other a bit,” McCusker said in an email on Aug. 20.
[B]Sam Berger, a lawyer who was a senior counselor and policy adviser at OMB from 2010 to 2015 before becoming a White House adviser to President Obama, [URL='https://www.justsecurity.org/67738/federal-criminal-offenses-and-the-impeachment-of-donald-j-trump/']says[/URL] that in his view, Trump’s holdup of the funding “constituted an illegal impoundment” and that none of the administration’s claims about it “pass legal muster.” A former assistant attorney general and special counsel to the Defense Department, Jack Goldsmith, said in an Oct. 16 article in a blog called Lawfare that he, too, believes that despite some uncertainty, the 55-day long aid holdup appeared to be in “contravention” of the Impoundment Act, which limits any deferral to 45 days and otherwise requires congressional approval. No such approval was ever granted.
[/B]
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirrred!"
(If Moses was actually skilled in the Subjugation Arts of Egypt, (Acts 7), How is Subjugation arithmetic attributed to a deity, (Deut. 23: 19-20)--unless maybe Pharaoh(?)--a maybe larger issue(?)!)
______________________
Republicans in Congress, with White House support, have said the Democrats’ criticisms are unjustified, citing multiple reasons: Ukraine, they say, did not even know the aid was being withheld until it was reported publicly by Politico about five weeks after the holdup began – making the delay virtually irrelevant to any actions by Ukraine’s government. Trump was only concerned, they say, about limiting corruption in Ukraine.
They also have said that the pause wasn’t extraordinary: “It is not unusual for U.S. foreign assistance to become delayed,” said a House Republican staff report released on Dec. 2. The provision of aid to Lebanon was delayed in the fall of this year, for example, after the president there resigned, their report noted. Aid to Afghanistan was delayed in September due to corruption concerns. During the summer, aid to Central America was reprogrammed to compel governments there to curtail the flow of their migrants to the United States. And in 2017, aid to Egypt was frozen over human rights concerns.
But all the aid interruptions cited by the Republicans were publicly announced and reported to Congress, as the Impoundment Act requires. The holdup in the Ukraine aid, in contrast, was kept quiet. When Sandy was asked during his testimony if he had ever previously issued orders like those used to stop the flow of aid to Ukraine, he replied, “I don’t recall an example just like this.” It was, he emphasized, a unique event.
Trump, moreover, didn’t raise the issue of Ukraine corruption with Zelensky in two phone calls, one on the day of Zelensky’s election, with the second on July 25 – despite having been urged to do so in advance by his own aides. And the Pentagon had no overarching concerns about the magnitude of corruption or the path on which Zelensky had put the country, according to Cooper’s testimony. A top Pentagon official, policy chief John Rood, had previously certified in a May 23 letter to Congress that Ukraine “has taken substantial actions … for the purposes of decreasing corruption [and] increasing accountability.” He said, “There remain areas that require significant attention,” but stated that Ukraine has met all conditions for the remaining U.S. aid to be provided.
Cooper said that at the interagency meeting of so-called “deputies” or high-ranking officials from around the government on July 26, “all I had to go on was that the President is concerned about corruption in Ukraine and somehow therefore we were holding security assistance. So the conversation at the deputies, a lot of the members were saying, you know, corruption, yes, it’s been an issue. Yes, it’s a concern. Yes, there’s a long way to go, but we’re on the right path, you know, we can move forward. So it felt Iike a conversation where people were trying to explain how corruption shouldn’t be a concern.”
After the Government Accountability Office announced it was auditing the potential mishandling of the funds, OMB general counsel Mark Paoletta, a former legal adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, asserted in a Dec. 9 legal opinion that the holdup was not a policy “deferral,” which would have been illegal, but merely a “programmatic delay” to examine if the funds were going to be used effectively. “It was OMB’s understanding that a brief period was needed, prior to the funds expiring, to engage in a policy process regarding those funds,” Paoletta said without further explanation.
But Cooper, in her testimony, said that while the issue of continuing corruption in Ukraine was mentioned at several interagency meetings during the funding pause, the conversation didn’t amount to a new review of the topic. And one of the largely-redacted Defense Department documents provided on Dec. 12 to Public Integrity at the insistence of a federal judge hints at a sharp disagreement about the propriety of the aid holdup between one of her colleagues, Pentagon comptroller Elaine McCusker, and Duffey at OMB. “Seems like we continue to talk past each other a bit,” McCusker said in an email on Aug. 20.
[B]Sam Berger, a lawyer who was a senior counselor and policy adviser at OMB from 2010 to 2015 before becoming a White House adviser to President Obama, [URL='https://www.justsecurity.org/67738/federal-criminal-offenses-and-the-impeachment-of-donald-j-trump/']says[/URL] that in his view, Trump’s holdup of the funding “constituted an illegal impoundment” and that none of the administration’s claims about it “pass legal muster.” A former assistant attorney general and special counsel to the Defense Department, Jack Goldsmith, said in an Oct. 16 article in a blog called Lawfare that he, too, believes that despite some uncertainty, the 55-day long aid holdup appeared to be in “contravention” of the Impoundment Act, which limits any deferral to 45 days and otherwise requires congressional approval. No such approval was ever granted.
[/B]
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirrred!"
(If Moses was actually skilled in the Subjugation Arts of Egypt, (Acts 7), How is Subjugation arithmetic attributed to a deity, (Deut. 23: 19-20)--unless maybe Pharaoh(?)--a maybe larger issue(?)!)
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,830
- 87,267
- 2,645
Is funneling billions to Soros and democrat families corrupt?
berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 33,721
- 27,481
- 2,820
Two budget staffers resigned after voicing concerns about halted Ukraine aid, official says
Two budget staffers resigned after voicing concerns about halted Ukraine aid, official says
Two staffers for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) resigned after expressing frustrations about a hold on military assistance to Ukraine that is now at the center of the impeachment inquiry, a witness has testified.
Mark Sandy, an OMB staffer, testified this month that the two staffers, one of whom was in the legal division, had resigned partially due to frustrations with the unexplained aid freeze, according to a transcript of his testimony released Tuesday.
Sandy recalled that one individual who resigned had "expressed some frustrations about not understanding the reason for the hold," according to the transcript, but he noted that he was "reluctant to speak to someone else's motivations."
Two budget staffers resigned after voicing concerns about halted Ukraine aid, official says
Two staffers for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) resigned after expressing frustrations about a hold on military assistance to Ukraine that is now at the center of the impeachment inquiry, a witness has testified.
Mark Sandy, an OMB staffer, testified this month that the two staffers, one of whom was in the legal division, had resigned partially due to frustrations with the unexplained aid freeze, according to a transcript of his testimony released Tuesday.
Sandy recalled that one individual who resigned had "expressed some frustrations about not understanding the reason for the hold," according to the transcript, but he noted that he was "reluctant to speak to someone else's motivations."
Maxdeath
Diamond Member
- Jun 12, 2018
- 9,603
- 8,566
- 2,250
Funny funny that you also leave out so much. But I expect that from you.
Did you somehow forget AOC and the rest? Do you even recall one of them saying we are going to impeach the moth****ker? That was a long time before his phone call.
Pelosi stated that with Russia it had been a process that has been in the works for 21/2 years. If you need reminding I can post the videos.
You claim that the republicans were being partisan but you somehow left out the Dems that did not vote yes, you left out the independents that did not. Were they also partisan? Funny how you accuse others but don't see the partisan in front of you.
How do you know what was relevant? None of them were brought forth, none were questioned. Schiff ran his show like a third Riech trial. Only certain questions, certain people may ask, only certain time limits, only certain people may testify. Schiff claimed he spent time with the whistleblower one time then claimed he had not. Schiff did a reading of the transcript but when he was called out on his reading he claimed it was a parody. A parody is serious?
So you now know that Biden is the one that will be chosen to run by the DNC? Well we might as well cancel the democrat primaries and tell Warren and the others to go home. What oh what would he have done if Warren had been the chosen one? I think it is more about being upset that anyone would look into dem dirty tricks. But the financing of the Steele dossier was completely fine.
44 never would have been impeached. He had that magic little race card no one wanted to touch.
Once again there is a thing called executive privilege that even the Supreme Court has ruled is not only legal but nessecary for the president and his people to do their job. They can rule on a case by case basis but the Democrates were in so big a hurry that they did not want to wait. They need something to bolster their failing candidates. The funny part is it seems to be having the opposite effect.
Let Pelosi keep the articles in her pretend bid to be head of the senate. If I were advising Trump I would be using every opportunity to beat the democrats over the head with them and their failure to release them to the senate. I would be asking the Supreme Court to force the Dems to release them. I would be yelling from the mountain tops that the senate trial would be as fair and well done as the house. I would then call at the very least Schiff as a witness and ask how, when, were and how long he met with the whistleblower. I would call Biden and his son. The I would be declaring that any one currently running for president must recuse themselves because of a conflict of intrest.
I would end the trail in the senate as quickly as possible and only call those new witnesses. I would then call for a vote.
j-mac
Nuthin' but the truth
From your own article which I assume from your post here, you didn't read....
"If the president is only asking to temporarily delay spending, then congressional approval is not required."
also
"Spending cannot be stalled through the end of the fiscal year"...
1. This is Schiff stretching.
2. The funds were released before the deadline, and before the fiscal year...
This is just more reaching by triggered Democrats to make up ANYTHING to wipe out 2016...pathetic.
- Thread starter
- #112
Actually, the White House is not asserting so much the "Executive Privilege" concept as the "Absolutely In Denial That Even The July 25 Phone Call Happened," Concept. Only a parody of the actual transcript has ever been made available: Worthy of a Parody on its face.
______________
Two staffers for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) resigned after expressing frustrations about a hold on military assistance to Ukraine that is now at the center of the impeachment inquiry, a witness has testified.
Mark Sandy, an OMB staffer, testified this month that the two staffers, one of whom was in the legal division, had resigned partially due to frustrations with the unexplained aid freeze, according to a transcript of his testimony released Tuesday.
Sandy recalled that one individual who resigned had "expressed some frustrations about not understanding the reason for the hold," according to the transcript, but he noted that he was "reluctant to speak to someone else's motivations."
He was also asked whether the OMB legal division employee said they were leaving "at least in part because of their concerns on frustrations about the hold on Ukraine security assistance."
"Yes, in terms of that process, in part," Sandy responded.
The officials were not named in the transcript.
A senior administration official categorized the assertion that the two officials resigned in part over the aid freeze as false in an email to The Hill.
Sandy also testified that he believed President Trump had directed the hold on Ukraine aid.
___________________
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(If "They Kingdom Come. . . ." actually happened, does that mean that Matt 25:14-30: Has never happened?)
______________
Two staffers for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) resigned after expressing frustrations about a hold on military assistance to Ukraine that is now at the center of the impeachment inquiry, a witness has testified.
Mark Sandy, an OMB staffer, testified this month that the two staffers, one of whom was in the legal division, had resigned partially due to frustrations with the unexplained aid freeze, according to a transcript of his testimony released Tuesday.
Sandy recalled that one individual who resigned had "expressed some frustrations about not understanding the reason for the hold," according to the transcript, but he noted that he was "reluctant to speak to someone else's motivations."
He was also asked whether the OMB legal division employee said they were leaving "at least in part because of their concerns on frustrations about the hold on Ukraine security assistance."
"Yes, in terms of that process, in part," Sandy responded.
The officials were not named in the transcript.
A senior administration official categorized the assertion that the two officials resigned in part over the aid freeze as false in an email to The Hill.
Sandy also testified that he believed President Trump had directed the hold on Ukraine aid.
___________________
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(If "They Kingdom Come. . . ." actually happened, does that mean that Matt 25:14-30: Has never happened?)
- Moderator
- #113
Perhaps you should look up the definitions of "withheld" and delayed. The law required an anti-corruption certification. At the time of the call the new president had been in place less than two months and the new parliament hadn't been seated. Once the new parliament passed new tough anti-corruption laws in August and Zelensky signed them, the aid was released days later. The fact is all you commies have are your wishes and a hand full of cold dog shit.
.
Seriously? Your off topic cowardly post just tells us you have shit for a rebuttal. How embarrassing. Get a clue idiot; Trump Administration officials worried Ukraine aid halt violated spending law – Center for Public Integrity
Negative! They still haven't received $35 million. And the money was released when Trump found out that the scheme had been exposed.
Wrong! They haven't received all the funds.
What election?
Weatherman2020
Diamond Member
So, you support those with something to hide. What a coward.
I can go along with that. The illegal election of 2016. Thanks!
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Australian PM Anthony Albanese was chased out of a mosque by Muslim worshippers- Started by Dont Taz Me Bro
- Replies: 1
-
Price of oil doubles in two weeks thanks to Trumps epstein war.- Started by Tommy Tainant
- Replies: 0
-
-
Iran is both the richest and poorest of Middle Eastern countries.- Started by Votto
- Replies: 3
-
