Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A simple lie and where is your link to see just who posted that?...an ANNOMOUS EX. FOREIGN MINISTER???...ROTFLMFAO!!!!Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze in July, Says Ex-Top Official in KyivC4A I'm not going to call you a liar again...that is simply not true and proven not true, but yet you still believe the right wing lies about it... the hearings showed that the Ukraine knew all about the military aid and it being held back in exchange for a public announcement in to investigating the Bidens.... in fact, the Ukrainians contacted the US GOVT diplomats the day of the phone call, inquiring about the aid, according to the testimony by witnesses, and Sondland testified he told them, and there is Giuliani talking to OMB to hold the money, back in April.also - it's known that the Ukraine NEVER KNEW that aid was even coming, much less being withheld.
Besides the fact that it is utterly ridiculous that the Ukraine would not know about the aid when it was passed by congress in February and announced in all the newspapers..everyone knew there was aid allotted to them by our Congress for 7 months and waiting.
But you are a liar!
Doesn't matter to you emails, texts and testimonies where Ukraine had no idea that the aid was tied up, but you go ahead and post whatever your deranged little mind believe . Others of us prefer the truth!
Ukraine’s government learned of the military aid freeze during the Trump administration’s pressure campaign — and tried to keep that knowledge from going public, an ex-deputy foreign minister said.
I did an edit, and put the link in my last post, with the cut n pasteA simple lie and where is your link to see just who posted that?...an ANNOMOUS EX. FOREIGN MINISTER???...ROTFLMFAO!!!!Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze in July, Says Ex-Top Official in KyivC4A I'm not going to call you a liar again...that is simply not true and proven not true, but yet you still believe the right wing lies about it... the hearings showed that the Ukraine knew all about the military aid and it being held back in exchange for a public announcement in to investigating the Bidens.... in fact, the Ukrainians contacted the US GOVT diplomats the day of the phone call, inquiring about the aid, according to the testimony by witnesses, and Sondland testified he told them, and there is Giuliani talking to OMB to hold the money, back in April.also - it's known that the Ukraine NEVER KNEW that aid was even coming, much less being withheld.
Besides the fact that it is utterly ridiculous that the Ukraine would not know about the aid when it was passed by congress in February and announced in all the newspapers..everyone knew there was aid allotted to them by our Congress for 7 months and waiting.
But you are a liar!
Doesn't matter to you emails, texts and testimonies where Ukraine had no idea that the aid was tied up, but you go ahead and post whatever your deranged little mind believe . Others of us prefer the truth!
Ukraine’s government learned of the military aid freeze during the Trump administration’s pressure campaign — and tried to keep that knowledge from going public, an ex-deputy foreign minister said.
TIMELINE WITH LINKS....you are such a putz!
The Ukraine scandal timeline Democrats and their media allies don’t want America to see | John Solomon Reports
I did an edit, and put the link in my last post, with the cut n paste[/QUOTEA simple lie and where is your link to see just who posted that?...an ANNOMOUS EX. FOREIGN MINISTER???...ROTFLMFAO!!!!Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze in July, Says Ex-Top Official in KyivC4A I'm not going to call you a liar again...that is simply not true and proven not true, but yet you still believe the right wing lies about it... the hearings showed that the Ukraine knew all about the military aid and it being held back in exchange for a public announcement in to investigating the Bidens.... in fact, the Ukrainians contacted the US GOVT diplomats the day of the phone call, inquiring about the aid, according to the testimony by witnesses, and Sondland testified he told them, and there is Giuliani talking to OMB to hold the money, back in April.also - it's known that the Ukraine NEVER KNEW that aid was even coming, much less being withheld.
Besides the fact that it is utterly ridiculous that the Ukraine would not know about the aid when it was passed by congress in February and announced in all the newspapers..everyone knew there was aid allotted to them by our Congress for 7 months and waiting.
But you are a liar!
Doesn't matter to you emails, texts and testimonies where Ukraine had no idea that the aid was tied up, but you go ahead and post whatever your deranged little mind believe . Others of us prefer the truth!
Ukraine’s government learned of the military aid freeze during the Trump administration’s pressure campaign — and tried to keep that knowledge from going public, an ex-deputy foreign minister said.
TIMELINE WITH LINKS....you are such a putz!
The Ukraine scandal timeline Democrats and their media allies don’t want America to see | John Solomon Reports
The FAKE NEWS N.Y. TIMES....OH, COME ON!
OMG republicans exonerated Trump?! Shit I didn’t see that coming! Well, I guess that’s it then. Trump has the utmost integrity and sense of morality. Just ask republicans.Top Republican lawmakers finalized a report Monday exonerating President Donald Trump from any wrongdoing regarding Ukraine just as Democrats with the House Judiciary Committee prepare to launch their own impeachment inquiry into the president, according to a report reviewed by SaraACarter.com.
Ranking Chairman Devin Nunes, with the House Intelligence Committee; Rep. Jim Jordan, ranking member and Ranking member of the House Oversight Committee and Rep. Michael McCaul, ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs issued the report. It noted that the impeachment inquiry is nothing more than the Democrats ‘orchestrated campaign to upend our political system.”
President Trump departed Washington D.C. Monday to a NATO gathering in London and before he left he criticized House Democrats for moving forward with impeachment proceedings. The House Judiciary Committee is planning to hold its first hearing on impeachment Wednesday. Trump’s lawyers declined the invitation from Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler to testify.
Nunes, Jordan and McCaul, noted in the report that despite all the legitimate concerns the President had regarding Ukraine corruption and the Bidens, there was absolutely no evidence presented during the hearings suggesting that Trump intended to withhold aid unless the Ukrainians investigated the situation.
“The evidence does not support the accusation that President Trump pressured President Zelensky to initiate investigations for the purpose of benefiting the President in the 2020 election,” the 110 page report states. “The evidence does not support the accusation that President Trump covered up the summary of his phone conversation with President Zelensky. The evidence does not support the accusation that President Trump obstructed the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.”
(Excerpt) Read more at saraacarter.com ...
-----------'
Who said they need evidence? It’s the seriousness of the charge that matters. The dimwits are going to ride this horse until its 4 legs drop off....You go girls!
TY!A Trial, any other stupid questions you need answered?What do they call this "Removal From Office Trial"?ROFLMAO! thanks for proving beyond a shadow of doubt that you don't understand the difference between impeachment and removal from office, not to mention sporting a completely bizarre interpretation of COTUS Article I.Both Houses of Congress have to agree on Impeachment. Having The Sole Power of Impeachment means to begin The IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.It's not an Impeachment Either. That happens in The Senate if THE SENATE agrees holding an Impeachment is Worth their time.
LOL, say what?
... which country are you referring to? because it's certainly not the one where the Constitution of the United States is the law of the land
"The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." -- Article I, Section 2, Clause 5, Constitution of the United States
.. on the bright side, it's always nice when the peanut gallery provides a bit of comic relief.
For your edification....
Impeachment by definition is an accusation or more accurately indictment and is solely invested within the HoR
Removal from office happens when/if the accused is convicted in a trial which is solely the invested within the Senate and presided by the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS.
Bill Clinton was impeached by the HoR however he wasn't convicted in the Senate Trial and thus wasn't removed from office, get it now or do you require diagrams?
Did you listen to his inaugural speech?OMG republicans exonerated Trump?! Shit I didn’t see that coming! Well, I guess that’s it then. Trump has the utmost integrity and sense of morality. Just ask republicans.Top Republican lawmakers finalized a report Monday exonerating President Donald Trump from any wrongdoing regarding Ukraine just as Democrats with the House Judiciary Committee prepare to launch their own impeachment inquiry into the president, according to a report reviewed by SaraACarter.com.
Ranking Chairman Devin Nunes, with the House Intelligence Committee; Rep. Jim Jordan, ranking member and Ranking member of the House Oversight Committee and Rep. Michael McCaul, ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs issued the report. It noted that the impeachment inquiry is nothing more than the Democrats ‘orchestrated campaign to upend our political system.”
President Trump departed Washington D.C. Monday to a NATO gathering in London and before he left he criticized House Democrats for moving forward with impeachment proceedings. The House Judiciary Committee is planning to hold its first hearing on impeachment Wednesday. Trump’s lawyers declined the invitation from Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler to testify.
Nunes, Jordan and McCaul, noted in the report that despite all the legitimate concerns the President had regarding Ukraine corruption and the Bidens, there was absolutely no evidence presented during the hearings suggesting that Trump intended to withhold aid unless the Ukrainians investigated the situation.
“The evidence does not support the accusation that President Trump pressured President Zelensky to initiate investigations for the purpose of benefiting the President in the 2020 election,” the 110 page report states. “The evidence does not support the accusation that President Trump covered up the summary of his phone conversation with President Zelensky. The evidence does not support the accusation that President Trump obstructed the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.”
(Excerpt) Read more at saraacarter.com ...
-----------'
Who said they need evidence? It’s the seriousness of the charge that matters. The dimwits are going to ride this horse until its 4 legs drop off....You go girls!
You say that with a straight face even as the Democrats have called for his impeachment since the day he was elected three years ago before any of this happened! Even as going into this, every democrat on the hearing and every witness has been transparently biased against Trump with the overt public intent to convict Trump before the hearings are even convened! Even as Schiff, Nancy and other leaders have expressed an open contempt and partiality to find against Trump NO MATTER WHAT the outcome of the events!!
ARE YOU FOR REAL????
TY!A Trial, any other stupid questions you need answered?What do they call this "Removal From Office Trial"?ROFLMAO! thanks for proving beyond a shadow of doubt that you don't understand the difference between impeachment and removal from office, not to mention sporting a completely bizarre interpretation of COTUS Article I.Both Houses of Congress have to agree on Impeachment. Having The Sole Power of Impeachment means to begin The IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.LOL, say what?
... which country are you referring to? because it's certainly not the one where the Constitution of the United States is the law of the land
"The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." -- Article I, Section 2, Clause 5, Constitution of the United States
.. on the bright side, it's always nice when the peanut gallery provides a bit of comic relief.
For your edification....
Impeachment by definition is an accusation or more accurately indictment and is solely invested within the HoR
Removal from office happens when/if the accused is convicted in a trial which is solely the invested within the Senate and presided by the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS.
Bill Clinton was impeached by the HoR however he wasn't convicted in the Senate Trial and thus wasn't removed from office, get it now or do you require diagrams?
the one thing I am not certain of...
IF say, there were 8 articles of impeachment brought to the Senate trial, each article is voted on individually.... and the Senators convicted a president for 5 of those Articles and found a President not guilty of 3 of those articles.... or even a 4 convicted/ 4 not guilty scenario...
IS there a separate vote, to remove from office by the Senators???
I'll bet ya that the congress committees and Senate trial doesn't cost congress 1/10 of what has been spent on President Trump's resort Golfing trips!That is why they can present articles of phony impeachment and the majority of DEMONRATS subversives and saboteurs can send those articles to the Senate where Trump doesnt need a majority of Senators to impeach him, all he needs is that the 67 senator threshold is never met, and he would need 20 or so Republicans to vote with you Anti-Americans...and THAT will NEVER HAPPEN....and NOW he has more ammunition to use against the ABNORMALS, come election time to say, look at how many millions the party of INFANTICIDE has wasted trying to impeach me, while they could have been doing the peoples business for at least half a year and didnt do infrastructure the AMC trade bill, and probably still hundreds of other Bill's that lay dormant on Piglousi's desk!....I think THAT will play well with the electorate who sees that unemployment is at an all time low and overv80% of the working man has more money in his pocket than anytime under the Surrender Monkey, And even did away with the onerous obozocare mandate!!!....Counter that!The first sentence left out some things. When referring to the "Top Republican law makers" it is worth noting that they are, in fact, minority member in the House of Representatives, indeed minority members on their committee. The majority does not share the minority opinion. The report is an opinion piece with no more actual weight than what I am writing. It apparently did not exonerate anybody or any action. The majority did not suddenly shout "if we had only known", and can call off the inquiry.Top Republican lawmakers finalized a report Monday exonerating President Donald Trump from any wrongdoing regarding Ukraine just as Democrats with the House Judiciary Committee prepare to launch their own impeachment inquiry into the president, according to a report reviewed by SaraACarter.com.
Ranking Chairman Devin Nunes, with the House Intelligence Committee; Rep. Jim Jordan, ranking member and Ranking member of the House Oversight Committee and Rep. Michael McCaul, ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs issued the report. It noted that the impeachment inquiry is nothing more than the Democrats ‘orchestrated campaign to upend our political system.”
President Trump departed Washington D.C. Monday to a NATO gathering in London and before he left he criticized House Democrats for moving forward with impeachment proceedings. The House Judiciary Committee is planning to hold its first hearing on impeachment Wednesday. Trump’s lawyers declined the invitation from Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler to testify.
Nunes, Jordan and McCaul, noted in the report that despite all the legitimate concerns the President had regarding Ukraine corruption and the Bidens, there was absolutely no evidence presented during the hearings suggesting that Trump intended to withhold aid unless the Ukrainians investigated the situation.
“The evidence does not support the accusation that President Trump pressured President Zelensky to initiate investigations for the purpose of benefiting the President in the 2020 election,” the 110 page report states. “The evidence does not support the accusation that President Trump covered up the summary of his phone conversation with President Zelensky. The evidence does not support the accusation that President Trump obstructed the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.”
(Excerpt) Read more at saraacarter.com ...
-----------'
Who said they need evidence? It’s the seriousness of the charge that matters. The dimwits are going to ride this horse until its 4 legs drop off....You go girls!
Nothing much to note in 2nd paragraph except possibly, if some of these guys mentioned had had any stomach to exercise any over-site as was their job under the Constitution of the United States, we might not be here now.
Third paragraph gave news. Trump going to NATO. I don't know why he didn't send the VP. Trump doesn't like or support NATO. He seems to support Russia more. I can't imagine why. I do not. In case you haven't cared or guessed. I am from the "Black Boot" Army. The cold war Army that backed Ronald Reagan's policies and ploys at a time when Russia and it's Soviet Union stood as an existential to our way of life. We mostly won the cold war, (thank you very much, I like it here too, and was glad to do my minuscule part) yet much of the threat remains. That corrupt totalitarian government and it X-KGB President are little changed in philosophy from the Old Soviet (only sneakier), and only fools such as our President trust them. He should restrain his instinct to vocally support his hero, especially when he is on foreign soil meeting with Allies that our official foreign policy publicly supports.
Fourth paragraph has these "heroes of the right", characterizing Trumps corruption concerns as "legitimate". I guess they were not legitimate 4 years ago when their party was in the majority and could investigate anything they had convictions to stand up and fight for, but did not, until Uncle Joe was running against their boy. Tough stuff! Welcome to Constitutional Democracy 101.
If I were a Trump supporter that did not support the our public foreign policy toward present day Ukraine, or the evaluations, and reports of all our intelligence services, both houses of congress, including every congressional committee that investigated under either parties control, that Russia was the primary guilty foreign government that interfered in our 2016 election and most likely to interfere in the 2020 election, I might characterizes their "evidence" likewise, but I can't stand with those guys. I have read and listened and seen testimony during the inquiry. The only way this will be settled is impeachment and a trial before the Senate. I have, (at least for the moment) lost faith in the Republican Party I often voted with, for so many years. I look forward to listening and hearing witness and evidence presented before the Senate chambers if I am allowed to, and will peacefully abide by the Constitutional finality of that chamber's vote as to whether he stays or goes, over his latest crooked, political scheme. After all, I still support support the oath I took to The Constitution.
Even if just 1 Article, the other 7 not guilty?TY!A Trial, any other stupid questions you need answered?What do they call this "Removal From Office Trial"?ROFLMAO! thanks for proving beyond a shadow of doubt that you don't understand the difference between impeachment and removal from office, not to mention sporting a completely bizarre interpretation of COTUS Article I.Both Houses of Congress have to agree on Impeachment. Having The Sole Power of Impeachment means to begin The IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.
.. on the bright side, it's always nice when the peanut gallery provides a bit of comic relief.
For your edification....
Impeachment by definition is an accusation or more accurately indictment and is solely invested within the HoR
Removal from office happens when/if the accused is convicted in a trial which is solely the invested within the Senate and presided by the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS.
Bill Clinton was impeached by the HoR however he wasn't convicted in the Senate Trial and thus wasn't removed from office, get it now or do you require diagrams?
the one thing I am not certain of...
IF say, there were 8 articles of impeachment brought to the Senate trial, each article is voted on individually.... and the Senators convicted a president for 5 of those Articles and found a President not guilty of 3 of those articles.... or even a 4 convicted/ 4 not guilty scenario...
IS there a separate vote, to remove from office by the Senators???
I ask that very question a few weeks ago, nope, if he is convicted he is removed from office.
All the Democrats (and their Deep State) witnesses proved was that President Trump thought about doing something "irregular," that, at worst, might have been "improper." There is no indication whatsoever that he would have allowed the funding to expire at the end of the fiscal year, and in fact there is no indication that he wanted to harm the Ukrainians or their new President in any way. He merely wanted an investigation, based on what can be easily termed, "the appearance of impropriety" by a former United States Vice President. And lest one forget, TRUMP made the decision to provide military aid which his predecessor DECLINED TO DO. So if withholding military aid for two (2) months was detrimental to the security of the United States (which is a ridiculous statement, but Democrats still make it), then O'Bama was much, much worse.
Trump's apparent irregular intention doesn't even rise to the level of "conspiracy." Conspiracy requires that, if not interrupted, the crime would be committed. For whatever reason, Trump decided not to continue the threat of withholding funds, which he clearly had the power to do. No conspiracy prosecution would get off the ground under circumstances where the would-be perpetrators decided, on their own, not to go forward. They only go to trial when the would-be perps ARE PREVENTED from going forward.
Conceptually, my biggest complaint about the vacuous Democrat case is the ridiculous position that investigating the Biden's was for Trump's personal benefit, and for no other purpose. It is as though Biden's running for office gives him a Free Pass with respect to examining his actions as VP. It is simply nonsense, and they know it.
Even if just 1 Article, the other 7 not guilty?TY!A Trial, any other stupid questions you need answered?What do they call this "Removal From Office Trial"?ROFLMAO! thanks for proving beyond a shadow of doubt that you don't understand the difference between impeachment and removal from office, not to mention sporting a completely bizarre interpretation of COTUS Article I.
.. on the bright side, it's always nice when the peanut gallery provides a bit of comic relief.
For your edification....
Impeachment by definition is an accusation or more accurately indictment and is solely invested within the HoR
Removal from office happens when/if the accused is convicted in a trial which is solely the invested within the Senate and presided by the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS.
Bill Clinton was impeached by the HoR however he wasn't convicted in the Senate Trial and thus wasn't removed from office, get it now or do you require diagrams?
the one thing I am not certain of...
IF say, there were 8 articles of impeachment brought to the Senate trial, each article is voted on individually.... and the Senators convicted a president for 5 of those Articles and found a President not guilty of 3 of those articles.... or even a 4 convicted/ 4 not guilty scenario...
IS there a separate vote, to remove from office by the Senators???
I ask that very question a few weeks ago, nope, if he is convicted he is removed from office.
Interesting question.TY!A Trial, any other stupid questions you need answered?What do they call this "Removal From Office Trial"?ROFLMAO! thanks for proving beyond a shadow of doubt that you don't understand the difference between impeachment and removal from office, not to mention sporting a completely bizarre interpretation of COTUS Article I.Both Houses of Congress have to agree on Impeachment. Having The Sole Power of Impeachment means to begin The IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.LOL, say what?
... which country are you referring to? because it's certainly not the one where the Constitution of the United States is the law of the land
"The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." -- Article I, Section 2, Clause 5, Constitution of the United States
.. on the bright side, it's always nice when the peanut gallery provides a bit of comic relief.
For your edification....
Impeachment by definition is an accusation or more accurately indictment and is solely invested within the HoR
Removal from office happens when/if the accused is convicted in a trial which is solely the invested within the Senate and presided by the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS.
Bill Clinton was impeached by the HoR however he wasn't convicted in the Senate Trial and thus wasn't removed from office, get it now or do you require diagrams?
the one thing I am not certain of...
IF say, there were 8 articles of impeachment brought to the Senate trial, each article is voted on individually.... and the Senators convicted a president for 5 of those Articles and found a President not guilty of 3 of those articles.... or even a 4 convicted/ 4 not guilty scenario...
IS there a separate vote, to remove from office by the Senators???
After all of you quit circle jerking each other off with your lies and misinformation then come back here as adults and get educated. The President has the power to with hold Foreign Aide for any reason.All the Democrats (and their Deep State) witnesses proved was that President Trump thought about doing something "irregular," that, at worst, might have been "improper." There is no indication whatsoever that he would have allowed the funding to expire at the end of the fiscal year, and in fact there is no indication that he wanted to harm the Ukrainians or their new President in any way. He merely wanted an investigation, based on what can be easily termed, "the appearance of impropriety" by a former United States Vice President. And lest one forget, TRUMP made the decision to provide military aid which his predecessor DECLINED TO DO. So if withholding military aid for two (2) months was detrimental to the security of the United States (which is a ridiculous statement, but Democrats still make it), then O'Bama was much, much worse.
Trump's apparent irregular intention doesn't even rise to the level of "conspiracy." Conspiracy requires that, if not interrupted, the crime would be committed. For whatever reason, Trump decided not to continue the threat of withholding funds, which he clearly had the power to do. No conspiracy prosecution would get off the ground under circumstances where the would-be perpetrators decided, on their own, not to go forward. They only go to trial when the would-be perps ARE PREVENTED from going forward.
Conceptually, my biggest complaint about the vacuous Democrat case is the ridiculous position that investigating the Biden's was for Trump's personal benefit, and for no other purpose. It is as though Biden's running for office gives him a Free Pass with respect to examining his actions as VP. It is simply nonsense, and they know it.
Couple of points.
First, Trump did not "clearly" have the power to withhold funds. In fact, the OMB was having a discussion as to whether he could do that at all, deciding eventually that, for some reason, it was okay to delay them only temporarily. The president is obligated to spend money appropriated by Congress, this was settled by the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
Second, Biden is by no means off limits. If the proper, unbiased authorities found reason to investigate Biden's actions in Ukraine. Say, if the IG investigated it or the DOJ launches an investigation, that would be totally different. Those investigators have nothing to gain by such an investigation so their motives are not questioned. Trump, on the other hand, is going with a personal vendetta in attempting to launch an investigation. Not only that, but he is obfuscating his involvement by going through a third party. This is corrupt behavior and Republicans know it.
The President has the power to with hold Foreign Aide for any reason.
Please Dotard. The Executive Branch has the power to with hold funds through The State Department.The President has the power to with hold Foreign Aide for any reason.
Aid money has to be appropriated and defense dollars can be directed by Congress.
"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.
Trump administration officially put hold on Ukraine aid same day as Trump call - CNNPolitics
The man has nothing but contempt for the American system of Government.
The man has nothing but contempt for the American system of Government.
The man has nothing but contempt for the American system of Government.
Honestly I don't really think Donny has "contempt for the American system of Government", I believe he just has no fucking idea as to how it's supposed to work and just plows on ahead with whatever is on his mind, as if he's still the CEO of his own company.
I also don't think he pays much attention to what any of his people tell him because he has always been the type that believes he knows best regardless of what the facts dictate.
One bright side, sometimes a bull in a china shop is exactly what is needed; for example when you have a federal government system that is FUBAR and rife with corruption, inefficiency and disdain for the citizenry.
Please Dotard. The Executive Branch has the power to with hold funds through The State Department.The President has the power to with hold Foreign Aide for any reason.
Aid money has to be appropriated and defense dollars can be directed by Congress.
"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.
Trump administration officially put hold on Ukraine aid same day as Trump call - CNNPolitics
The man has nothing but contempt for the American system of Government.
You and Schittler Don't agree. Then Fuck Off. Was Eisenhower and Johnson Russian Puppets?
OH NOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSS
QUID PRO QUO!
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
FYI, You're not really disagreeing....The man has nothing but contempt for the American system of Government.
Honestly I don't really think Donny has "contempt for the American system of Government", I believe he just has no fucking idea as to how it's supposed to work and just plows on ahead with whatever is on his mind, as if he's still the CEO of his own company.
I also don't think he pays much attention to what any of his people tell him because he has always been the type that believes he knows best regardless of what the facts dictate.
One bright side, sometimes a bull in a china shop is exactly what is needed; for example when you have a federal government system that is FUBAR and rife with corruption, inefficiency and disdain for the citizenry.
I disagree. Trumpybear embodies the "no compromise" position the Rabid Right has pushed, forever. Compromise was the means by which we got the Constitution and has been essential for our two-party system to function.
You're assuming he's guilty of the above and that has yet to be established.By attacking the Democrats using bipartisan approved foreign aid funds to coerce the Ukraine into participating in his politically corrupt scheme, he deepens the divide a great deal. If the former Republicans accept this corrupt use of bipartisan approved foreign aid funds in any way, why should Democrats approve any foreign aid if it can be used by the now disloyal opposition in a politically corrupt way?
Nothing, since the Democrats are just as corrupt and devoid of integrity and ethics as the Republicans, the only reason they're so incensed about the possibility that Donny did do this is because they didn't think of doing it first.What's to stop the next Democrat president from using the same tactic on Republicans?
FYI, You're not really disagreeing....The man has nothing but contempt for the American system of Government.
Honestly I don't really think Donny has "contempt for the American system of Government", I believe he just has no fucking idea as to how it's supposed to work and just plows on ahead with whatever is on his mind, as if he's still the CEO of his own company.
I also don't think he pays much attention to what any of his people tell him because he has always been the type that believes he knows best regardless of what the facts dictate.
One bright side, sometimes a bull in a china shop is exactly what is needed; for example when you have a federal government system that is FUBAR and rife with corruption, inefficiency and disdain for the citizenry.
I disagree. Trumpybear embodies the "no compromise" position the Rabid Right has pushed, forever. Compromise was the means by which we got the Constitution and has been essential for our two-party system to function.
"he has always been the type that believes he knows best regardless of what the facts dictate."
"just plows on ahead with whatever is on his mind"
You're just describing him with using different verbs.
You're assuming he's guilty of the above and that has yet to be established.By attacking the Democrats using bipartisan approved foreign aid funds to coerce the Ukraine into participating in his politically corrupt scheme, he deepens the divide a great deal. If the former Republicans accept this corrupt use of bipartisan approved foreign aid funds in any way, why should Democrats approve any foreign aid if it can be used by the now disloyal opposition in a politically corrupt way?
Nothing, since the Democrats are just as corrupt and devoid of integrity and ethics as the Republicans, the only reason they're so incensed about the possibility that Donny did do this is because they didn't think of doing it first.What's to stop the next Democrat president from using the same tactic on Republicans?
