Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
For personal advantage, Comrade?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
So this alleged deadline is not a deadline unless you say it is?You are being your usual dumbass self.Says the Resident Liar, and Putin Puppet who spends 24-7 trashing the United States and our President.Actually, this is a lie. You have built your topic on an entirely false premise.Presidents have THE RIGHT to With Hold Foreign Aide for ANY REASON
By law, Trump had to release the foreign aid to Ukraine by September 30. He had no choice.
Next topic!
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.
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.
The aide was RELEASED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE... you GOB SMACKED MORON. There was NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT IT.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.
For the love of GOD, you people are absolutely OUT TO FUCKING LUNCH...
"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.No it wasn't. You did not bother reading the technical paper on Foreign Aide did you.Nope.
Trump’s Hold on Ukrainian Military Aid was Illegal
Trump’s Hold on Ukrainian Military Aid was Illegal
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.
What advantage would that be?For personal advantage, Comrade?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
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
Nope. Did you get that idea from the lying sack of shyte known as Sean Hannity?And apparently the House has the power to impeach for any reason.
Your post has already been shown to be factually inaccurate.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.
.
Thank you - we are all DUMBER for reading your extremely opinionated response.Your post has already been shown to be factually inaccurate.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.
.
Sure whatever you say. Anything to avoid talking about the actual articles I posted, right?Your post has already been shown to be factually inaccurate.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.
.
Adolph Schittler told us.Nope. Did you get that idea from the lying sack of shyte known as Sean Hannity?And apparently the House has the power to impeach for any reason.
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.Thank you - we are all DUMBER for reading your extremely opinionated response.Your post has already been shown to be factually inaccurate.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.
.
So which was The Nefarious One? Can you give us Evidence? It can't just be your feelings and opinions.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 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?I'm sure there are some remedial reading courses available in your area. You need to improve your comprehension skills.No it wasn't. You did not bother reading the technical paper on Foreign Aide did you.Nope.
Trump’s Hold on Ukrainian Military Aid was Illegal
Trump’s Hold on Ukrainian Military Aid was Illegal
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.