What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Presidents have THE RIGHT to With Hold Foreign Aide for ANY REASON

The Original Tree

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
30,980
Reaction score
9,303
Points
1,410
Location
OHIO
Don't Let Schittler and Herr Gerry Nadler lie to you. The Executive Branch has the power to withhold and delay foreign aide and make it conditional or change the conditions.

President Johnson did this very thing, and he did not ask Congress. He did ask them to evaluate the situatuion after the fact, but a President does not need permission to withhold aide. He is THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, and as such he has final say so on Foreign Policy which includes Foreign Aide.

Food for Peace and Foreign Policy · The Political Environment

Started by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1954 and renamed Food for Peace by President John F. Kennedy, the Food for Peace Program (P.L. 480) aimed to supply foreign aid with U.S. agricultural surpluses to fight world hunger, expand international trade, and foster U.S. foreign policy. By August 1966, program spending had reached almost $2 billion and was active in 52 countries. President Lyndon Johnson and his ad ministration tied the program to the Great Society goals of eradicating hunger and poverty. When the 89th Congress revisited the legislation in 1966, it redefined a number of provisions, most significantly requiring that a recipient country’s government propose self-help measures to improve food production in order to receive aid.

Many countries benefited from program assistance: India, which was experiencing a severe drought and food shortage, demonstrates the complexities of the program in action.

Under criticism for withholding additional aid until the Indian government produced a plan to improve its agricultural performance, President Johnson requested that a four-member House-Senate bipartisan congressional delegation travel to India to survey the critical food crisis.

The delegation was led by Representative W.R. “Bob” Poage (D-TX), chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, and included Representative Bob Dole (R-KS), and Senator Jack Miller (R-IA). Their trip in December 1966 brought them to drought-stricken farming areas and storage and transportation facilities throughout India. Upon their return, the delegation wrote to Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman recommending that the United States send 1.8 million tons of grain to India. In addition to providing crucial assistance to the Indian people, they argued that the donation would be advantageous to the United States for several reasons, including persuading the Indian government to

 
OP
The Original Tree

The Original Tree

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
30,980
Reaction score
9,303
Points
1,410
Location
OHIO
And for further proof that The DemNazi Party is engaging in yet another HOAX, based on a series of lies and a campaign of Propaganda and Misinformation, I give you the following technical paper on withhold foreign aide based on conditions, or granted foreign aide based on meeting certain conditions.

Foreign Aide is NOT A GIFT WITH NO STRINGS
ATTACHED.

(Full article at the link provided)


Can foreign aid donors credibly threaten to suspend aid? Evidence from a cross-national survey of donor officials
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09692290.2017.1302490

ABSTRACT

Under what conditions are foreign aid donors willing to suspend foreign aid to punish political transgressions, such as election fraud, corruption scandals or political repression? Prior scholarship has emphasized that political sanctions, including foreign aid suspensions, are constrained by the geostrategic considerations of donor countries. However, foreign aid suspensions often occur in strategically important countries, and donors respond differently to different types of political transgressions within the same county. To shed light on this puzzle, in this article, I present evidence from an original survey of top-level donor representatives in 20 African countries, including a list experiment designed to elicit truthful responses about the conditions under which donors are willing to suspend foreign aid. I argue that the likelihood of a foreign aid suspension depends not only on the strategic considerations of the donor government, but also on the institutional incentives of the donor agency. A donor agency's institutional incentives are shaped by the agency's organizational design, as well as by its foreign aid portfolio in the recipient country.



Introduction

Citizens in donor countries have a strong preference for conditioning foreign aid on good governance. Over 90% of respondents in the 2011 Eurobarameter, which sampled more than 25,000 individuals from 27 countries, expressed that foreign aid should be conditioned on democracy, human rights and governance (Bodenstein and Faust 2014). But, how willing are aid donors to condition foreign assistance on good governance? Given the strategic nature of foreign aid, can donor agencies credibly threaten to suspend foreign aid, if a recipient government commits a political transgression such as election fraud, corruption or political repression?

In this article, I argue that political conditionality, or the willingness of donors to condition foreign aid on governance (Baylies 1995), only works when the institutional incentives of donor agencies are aligned to allow the threats of donor agencies’ to be credible. By institutional incentives, I mean how costly an aid suspension is to a donor agency in terms of organizational performance and reputation. Such incentives are shaped by both the donor's foreign aid portfolio in the recipient country, and organizational design features of the agency that make it easier or harder for aid to be suspended.

Prior research largely assumes that the main constraint facing political conditionality is the geopolitical motivations of donor countries (e.g. Dunning 2004; Lebovic 2005; Lebovic and Voeten 2009; Nielsen 2013). That is, donor agencies are unwilling to enforce good governance criteria, because it is diplomatically and commercially costly to donor governments. However, donor agencies sometimes sanction recipient governments who are strategically important to donor countries, and donors’ strategic interests cannot explain why donor agencies respond differently to different types of political transgressions within the same country.

 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: 007

berg80

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Messages
6,196
Reaction score
3,505
Points
970
The Impoundment Control Act was passed in 1974 so...........after the examples given by Johnson and Eisenhower.
 
OP
The Original Tree

The Original Tree

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
30,980
Reaction score
9,303
Points
1,410
Location
OHIO
Nope.

Trump’s Hold on Ukrainian Military Aid was Illegal
Trump’s Hold on Ukrainian Military Aid was Illegal
No it wasn't. You did not bother reading the technical paper on Foreign Aide did you.
If there is suspected corruption in a country, you have the right to request that country clean that up and get to the bottom of why that occurred.

I don't want to read about some Trump Hater's Opinion and neither does most of America. We want facts, precedents, and case law.
 
OP
The Original Tree

The Original Tree

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
30,980
Reaction score
9,303
Points
1,410
Location
OHIO
The Impoundment Control Act was passed in 1974 so...........after the examples given by Johnson and Eisenhower.
You need to do some research. This article was written in 2017 and it clearly states that The President and The United States can withhold aid and make aid conditional.

How about you think for yourself instead of parroting DemTard talking points?
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
95,207
Reaction score
16,759
Points
2,180
Presidents have THE RIGHT to With Hold Foreign Aide for ANY REASON
Actually, this is a lie. You have built your topic on an entirely false premise.

By law, Trump had to release the foreign aid to Ukraine by September 30. He had no choice.

Next topic!
 
OP
The Original Tree

The Original Tree

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
30,980
Reaction score
9,303
Points
1,410
Location
OHIO
The Impoundment Control Act was passed in 1974 so...........after the examples given by Johnson and Eisenhower.
And what does The Impoundment Act Allow? It allows The President to withhold Foreign Aide for up to 45 days, and no more without approval of Congress.

End
of
Story
 

berg80

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Messages
6,196
Reaction score
3,505
Points
970
Nope.

Trump’s Hold on Ukrainian Military Aid was Illegal
Trump’s Hold on Ukrainian Military Aid was Illegal
No it wasn't. You did not bother reading the technical paper on Foreign Aide did you.
If there is suspected corruption in a country, you have the right to request that country clean that up and get to the bottom of why that occurred.

I don't want to read about some Trump Hater's Opinion and neither does most of America. We want facts, precedents, and case law.
I'm sure there are some remedial reading courses available in your area. You need to improve your comprehension skills.
 

DGS49

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
10,514
Reaction score
5,327
Points
1,065
Location
Pittsburgh
But here's the way these things work in the Real World: Donnie could have had twelve reasons to delay or withhold the funding, eleven of which were nefarious and only one legitimate. And that's enough.
 

007

Charter Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
46,748
Reaction score
17,059
Points
2,250
Location
Podunk, WI
FOREIGN AIDE has been HELD UP by EVERY PRESIDENT in the LAST 20 YEARS, and no one said SQUAT ABOUT IT because it's entirely LEGAL, until the democrats turned full blown BAT SHIT CRAZY and decided the ONLY way they'd ever regain the White House was to TRASH the current REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT by ABUSING their power and drudging up EVERY CORRUPT LINE OF BULL SHIT they could IMAGINE.

And it's BACKFIRING on them BIG TIME. I hope they enjoyed themselves, because America is about to SEND THEM PACKING in November. They're SICK OF IT.
 
OP
The Original Tree

The Original Tree

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
30,980
Reaction score
9,303
Points
1,410
Location
OHIO
Presidents have THE RIGHT to With Hold Foreign Aide for ANY REASON
Actually, this is a lie. You have built your topic on an entirely false premise.

By law, Trump had to release the foreign aid to Ukraine by September 30. He had no choice.

Next topic!
Says the Resident Liar, and Putin Puppet who spends 24-7 trashing the United States and our President.

The President has The Right to delay Foreign Aide. All Presidents have done this. It's only an issue now, because you and your friends are afraid of Democratic Elections, and you are trying to stop the 2020 election just like you tried to rig the 2016 election and have been trying to overturn our 2016 election since the day The President was sworn in to office.

It's just another fishing expedition, that has lasted 3 long tortuous years and it shows that The Democrat Party really doesn't care about The American People. They care about keeping the old pay to play system of graft and bribery and self enrichment in place.

They don't want the swamp cleaned up because they are the swamp.
 
Last edited:
OP
The Original Tree

The Original Tree

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
30,980
Reaction score
9,303
Points
1,410
Location
OHIO
FOREIGN AIDE has been HELD UP by EVERY PRESIDENT in the LAST 20 YEARS, and no one said SQUAT ABOUT IT because it's entirely LEGAL, until the democrats turned full blown BAT SHIT CRAZY and decided the ONLY way they'd ever regain the White House was to TRASH the current REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT by ABUSING their power.
Completely True. So what is this, again? COUP 2.0 where The Democrats know The President has not committed any crimes. They just don't know how to defeat him in an election so impeachment has been their plan since 2016. They have admitted that 1,000s of times.

Actually come to think of it, The Democrats & their media allies have accused The President of 100s of crimes and ethical improprieties since 2016 and every single one of them have proven false, so you can't even call this COUP 2.0.

Why doesn't anyone want to discuss the actual articles I posted?
 

Butch_Coolidge

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2018
Messages
3,941
Reaction score
389
Points
170
Nads is going to get his bitch ass handed to him today. He’ll soon be showing his signs of weakness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
37,686
Reaction score
6,381
Points
1,130
The illegal hold happened in August when Duffey was told by DOD that they wouldn't be able to spend funding by the end of the year if the hold continued and they ignored that. That's when the illegal action was," former Senior OMB lawyer Sam Berger told CNN.

Berger added that the Trump administration also failed to explain to Congress in a formal rescission notice why it wanted to withhold funds that Congress had approved. "It's a formal document that explains the money you want to withhold and why. It's a formal process and there's no question they did not do this" Berger said.
 

007

Charter Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
46,748
Reaction score
17,059
Points
2,250
Location
Podunk, WI
The illegal hold happened in August when Duffey was told by DOD that they wouldn't be able to spend funding by the end of the year if the hold continued and they ignored that. That's when the illegal action was," former Senior OMB lawyer Sam Berger told CNN.

Berger added that the Trump administration also failed to explain to Congress in a formal rescission notice why it wanted to withhold funds that Congress had approved. "It's a formal document that explains the money you want to withhold and why. It's a formal process and there's no question they did not do this" Berger said.
The aide was RELEASED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE... you GOB SMACKED MORON. There was NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT IT.

For the love of GOD, you people are absolutely OUT TO FUCKING LUNCH... :cuckoo:
 
OP
The Original Tree

The Original Tree

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
30,980
Reaction score
9,303
Points
1,410
Location
OHIO
The illegal hold happened in August when Duffey was told by DOD that they wouldn't be able to spend funding by the end of the year if the hold continued and they ignored that. That's when the illegal action was," former Senior OMB lawyer Sam Berger told CNN.

Berger added that the Trump administration also failed to explain to Congress in a formal rescission notice why it wanted to withhold funds that Congress had approved. "It's a formal document that explains the money you want to withhold and why. It's a formal process and there's no question they did not do this" Berger said.
The aide was RELEASED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE... you GOB SMACKED MORON. There was NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT IT.

For the love of GOD, you people are absolutely OUT TO FUCKING LUNCH... :cuckoo:
If these people would just debate FACTS instead of being on a mission to OUST THE PRESIDENT BEFORE THE ELECTION, this place would be a lot more interesting and everyone would learn a lot more.
 
OP
The Original Tree

The Original Tree

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
30,980
Reaction score
9,303
Points
1,410
Location
OHIO
The Left wants you to believe that because The President, according to THEM, did not send some kind of memo....that he should be removed from Office before he can be re-elected. This is just the same scam as RUSSIAN COLLUSION with even less Evidence, and there was NO EVIDENCE in the RUSSIAN COLLUSION HOAX. Mueller confirmed that. Yet they spent 3 years and $100s of millions trying to turn over every rock they can.
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
95,207
Reaction score
16,759
Points
2,180
Presidents have THE RIGHT to With Hold Foreign Aide for ANY REASON
Actually, this is a lie. You have built your topic on an entirely false premise.

By law, Trump had to release the foreign aid to Ukraine by September 30. He had no choice.

Next topic!
Says the Resident Liar, and Putin Puppet who spends 24-7 trashing the United States and our President.

The President has The Right to delay Foreign Aide. All Presidents have done this. It's only an issue now, because you and your friends are afraid of Democratic Elections, and you are trying to stop the 2020 election just like you tried to rig the 2016 election and have been trying to overturn our 2016 election since the day The President was sworn in to office.

It's just another fishing expedition, that has lasted 3 long tortuous years and it shows that The Democrat Party really doesn't care about The American People. They care about keeping the old pay to play system of graft and bribery and self enrichment in place.

They don't want the swamp cleaned up because they are the swamp.
You are being your usual dumbass self.

The money had to be disbursed by the end of the fiscal year, by law.

Idiot.

Yes, presidents can hold up military aid. But not like Trump did with Ukraine.
 

berg80

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Messages
6,196
Reaction score
3,505
Points
970
Trump’s Funding Hold was Illegal

OMB’s hold on military aid was an abuse of its apportionment authority and constituted an illegal deferral. While the Trump administration was well aware of the legal issues with its actions, it ignored them and held up the funding anyway.

During the House Intelligence Committee hearings, a number of witnesses testified that their understanding was that the military aid was withheld in order to pressure Ukraine to open investigations into Trump’s political rivals, including former Vice President Joe Biden. The witnesses who testified to this include Ambassador Bill Taylor, National Security Council (NSC) official Tim Morrison, Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, State Department official David Holmes, Department of Defense (DoD) official Laura Cooper, and NSC official Lt. Col. Alex Vindman (see the Appendix below for specific statements made by each of these witnesses).

White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney confirmed the reason for the hold when he publicly stated that the money was withheld in part to force an investigation into Trump’s political rivals:

Mulvaney: Did he also mention to me in pass [sic] the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money.

Now, there was a report —

Q : So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?

Mulvaney: The look back to what happened in 2016 —

Q : The investigation into Democrats.

Mulvaney: — certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate.

Q : And withholding the funding?

Mulvaney: Yeah. Which ultimately, then, flowed.

This is a clear abuse of power. The apportionment authority is supposed to be used to ensure the effective expenditure of congressionally appropriated funding, not to extort a foreign power to advance the personal interests of the president..

This withholding was also an illegal deferral, because it prevented the Defense Department from spending the funding before it expired. By the middle of September, when Trump finally released the aid, it was too late and the Pentagon was unable to spend all the funding by the end of the fiscal year.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top