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

[berg80]

Perhaps the source of Trumpette's confusion is that the prez needs to notify Congress if appropriated funds are withheld.

 

[bodecea]

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

For personal advantage, Comrade?

 

[The Original Tree]

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.

So this alleged deadline is not a deadline unless you say it is?

LMAO

He released it within the 45 day period, and the law says nothing about shortening the period funds are to be released just because the end of the year is here.

If that were true......

You could then release funds at the very end of the fiscal year and then claim someone was in violation of this "so called" deadline even though the deadline was shortened to just 24 hours.

Like I said, the reason you folks who hate Trump are tripping all over yourselves is because you are splitting hairs, trying to turn over every rock, trying to find areas where The President has misspoken, made a mistake, or did something you did not agree with.

Who made you God, and since when did PC Puritianism, and Witch Hunts & Your Feelings become the law of the land?

Why don't you go outside and scream at the sky? It'd be more productive.

 

[BlindBoo]

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...

It was released because the gig was up. They were caught red handed conspiring to use the pre-approved bipartisan foreign aid to the Ukraine to coerce them into participating in his corrupt political attack on half of the country.

I think the Trumpublicans are corrupt enough to let the Trumpybear slide. They march in lockstep behind their great authoritarian Trumpybear.

 

[berg80]

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.

"DoD acknowledged this fact when it “alerted Congress that it would not be able to spend all of the money by September 30.” Congress was forced to reappropriate the remaining funding so it could be spent the next year. While this allowed the Pentagon to spend all of the money, it did not eliminate the legal violation that occurred when the Trump administration illegally deferred the spending in the first place.

Even defenders of Trump’s actions have not provided a legally viable reason for withholding the funding. They have argued that Trump withheld the funding because of broad concerns about corruption in Ukraine or that the EU was not providing sufficient support to Ukraine. Neither of these claims holds up under examination. But even if they were the actual reasons for the hold, Trump’s actions would still be illegal."

 

[my2¢]

And apparently the House has the power to impeach for any reason.

 

[The Original Tree]

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

For personal advantage, Comrade?

What advantage would that be?
Did some money change hands?

Please explain this advantage The President received.

 

[easyt65]

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

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

Please don't confuse the snowflakes or attempt to derail their latest Coup attempt by spouting reality and facts.


.

 

[berg80]

And apparently the House has the power to impeach for any reason.

Nope. Did you get that idea from the lying sack of shyte known as Sean Hannity?

 

[berg80]

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

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

Please don't confuse the snowflakes or attempt to derail their latest Coup attempt by spouting reality and facts.


.

Your post has already been shown to be factually inaccurate.

 

[easyt65]

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

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

Please don't confuse the snowflakes or attempt to derail their latest Coup attempt by spouting reality and facts.


.

Your post has already been shown to be factually inaccurate.

Thank you - we are all DUMBER for reading your extremely opinionated response.

 

[The Original Tree]

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

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

Please don't confuse the snowflakes or attempt to derail their latest Coup attempt by spouting reality and facts.


.

Your post has already been shown to be factually inaccurate.

Sure whatever you say. Anything to avoid talking about the actual articles I posted, right?

 

[The Original Tree]

And apparently the House has the power to impeach for any reason.

Nope. Did you get that idea from the lying sack of shyte known as Sean Hannity?

Adolph Schittler told us.

 

[The Original Tree]

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

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

Please don't confuse the snowflakes or attempt to derail their latest Coup attempt by spouting reality and facts.


.

Your post has already been shown to be factually inaccurate.

Thank you - we are all DUMBER for reading your extremely opinionated response.

This is just more proof that 90% of these leftists America-Trump Haters here are not here for debate. They are here to disrupt debate and to spread misinformation and propaganda.

 

[The Original Tree]

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.

So which was The Nefarious One? Can you give us Evidence? It can't just be your feelings and opinions.

 

[The Original Tree]

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.

So you cannot cite case law, provide a precedent or even name a crime, back that up with US Code, nor can you actually cite an impeachable offense?

Neither could any of Adolph Schiffler's star witnesses do that in his Kangaroo Court.

Congratulations, you just exonerated The President.