WHY wasn't Obama Impeached for Refusing to Provide Ukraine Military Aid ?!?!?!?!?!?

[g5000]

Dude, putting allllll the laws and alllll the truths and falsehoods aside...


SURELY...


SURELY you can understand the difference between the two cases.

wtfff

No, he can't. You have no idea of the depth of willful stupidity here.

 

[jknowgood]

Defying Obama, Many in Congress Press to Arm Ukraine

WASHINGTON — With the peace process stalled and violence escalating in Ukraine, a bipartisan coalition in Congress is defying President Obama and European allies by pressing the administration to provide weapons to the embattled nation.

The Senate has included provisions in its military policy bill to arm Ukraine with antiarmor systems, mortars, grenade launchers and ammunition to aid in its fight against Russian-backed separatists. It would also prevent the administration from spending more than one half of $300 million in aid for Ukraine unless 20 percent is earmarked for offensive weapons. The House has passed a similar measure.

So far, the Obama administration has refused to provide lethal aid, fearing that it would only escalate the bloodshed and give President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia a pretext for further incursions.

___________________________

WHY the double standard?

The reason he wasn’t impeached was because he did not demand a personal favor in return for military aid

How do you know?

To impeach you need to know

We do know that Trump demanded personal favors in return for military aid

Lol, Biden threatened funding if the guy got fired that was investigating his son. Trump didn't demand shit. The new presidency of Ukraine stated he was going to get rid of corruption. It just happens it's your party doing it. Like crowd strike the company that handled those hacked dnc emails. The ones the fbi requested and the Democrat party refused to turn over.

 

[Crepitus]

Defying Obama, Many in Congress Press to Arm Ukraine

WASHINGTON — With the peace process stalled and violence escalating in Ukraine, a bipartisan coalition in Congress is defying President Obama and European allies by pressing the administration to provide weapons to the embattled nation.

The Senate has included provisions in its military policy bill to arm Ukraine with antiarmor systems, mortars, grenade launchers and ammunition to aid in its fight against Russian-backed separatists. It would also prevent the administration from spending more than one half of $300 million in aid for Ukraine unless 20 percent is earmarked for offensive weapons. The House has passed a similar measure.

So far, the Obama administration has refused to provide lethal aid, fearing that it would only escalate the bloodshed and give President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia a pretext for further incursions.

___________________________

WHY the double standard?

Do you really need this explained to you?

Ok, just once, for the hard of thinking:

President Obama was making a policy decision based on his interpretation of the situation. Nowi didn't agree with his policy decision, and neither did many folks in congress, but it was a policy decision. It's entirely legal and Constitutional to have policy disagreements.

dOnald tRump did not withhold the aid for policy reasons. He was trying to extort favors from the Ukrainian government. Nothing to do with policy. It is entirely illegal and unconstitutional to use the power of the office for personal gain.

Got it now?

So you do admit that Foreign Aid is subject to Presidential Discretion !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


.

You cannot really be this stupid.

This has to be an act.

You can not really be this stupid.

No evidence that


The administrative judge relied on Fiorillo v. Department of Justice, 795 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1986), wherein this court held that in order to be protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act the employee's primary motivation for making the disclosure must be a desire to inform the public, and not for vindictiveness or personal advantage.

.

Well I'll.try to address this confused mess of a post;

Where is your evidence the whistleblower is out for vengeance or personal advantage?

 

[Crepitus]

Did he wi

Defying Obama, Many in Congress Press to Arm Ukraine

WASHINGTON — With the peace process stalled and violence escalating in Ukraine, a bipartisan coalition in Congress is defying President Obama and European allies by pressing the administration to provide weapons to the embattled nation.

The Senate has included provisions in its military policy bill to arm Ukraine with antiarmor systems, mortars, grenade launchers and ammunition to aid in its fight against Russian-backed separatists. It would also prevent the administration from spending more than one half of $300 million in aid for Ukraine unless 20 percent is earmarked for offensive weapons. The House has passed a similar measure.

So far, the Obama administration has refused to provide lethal aid, fearing that it would only escalate the bloodshed and give President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia a pretext for further incursions.

___________________________

WHY the double standard?

Do you really need this explained to you?

Ok, just once, for the hard of thinking:

President Obama was making a policy decision based on his interpretation of the situation. Nowi didn't agree with his policy decision, and neither did many folks in congress, but it was a policy decision. It's entirely legal and Constitutional to have policy disagreements.

dOnald tRump did not withhold the aid for policy reasons. He was trying to extort favors from the Ukrainian government. Nothing to do with policy. It is entirely illegal and unconstitutional to use the power of the office for personal gain.

Got it now?

Did he withhold money for a favor? Hmmm again the Joker is jealous

English dude, we speak English here.

 

[Contumacious]

Defying Obama, Many in Congress Press to Arm Ukraine

WASHINGTON — With the peace process stalled and violence escalating in Ukraine, a bipartisan coalition in Congress is defying President Obama and European allies by pressing the administration to provide weapons to the embattled nation.

The Senate has included provisions in its military policy bill to arm Ukraine with antiarmor systems, mortars, grenade launchers and ammunition to aid in its fight against Russian-backed separatists. It would also prevent the administration from spending more than one half of $300 million in aid for Ukraine unless 20 percent is earmarked for offensive weapons. The House has passed a similar measure.

So far, the Obama administration has refused to provide lethal aid, fearing that it would only escalate the bloodshed and give President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia a pretext for further incursions.

___________________________

WHY the double standard?

Where is the quid pro quo?

My question precisely,

.

 

[Contumacious]

Defying Obama, Many in Congress Press to Arm Ukraine

WASHINGTON — With the peace process stalled and violence escalating in Ukraine, a bipartisan coalition in Congress is defying President Obama and European allies by pressing the administration to provide weapons to the embattled nation.

The Senate has included provisions in its military policy bill to arm Ukraine with antiarmor systems, mortars, grenade launchers and ammunition to aid in its fight against Russian-backed separatists. It would also prevent the administration from spending more than one half of $300 million in aid for Ukraine unless 20 percent is earmarked for offensive weapons. The House has passed a similar measure.

So far, the Obama administration has refused to provide lethal aid, fearing that it would only escalate the bloodshed and give President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia a pretext for further incursions.

___________________________

WHY the double standard?

Do you really need this explained to you?

Ok, just once, for the hard of thinking:

President Obama was making a policy decision based on his interpretation of the situation. Nowi didn't agree with his policy decision, and neither did many folks in congress, but it was a policy decision. It's entirely legal and Constitutional to have policy disagreements.

dOnald tRump did not withhold the aid for policy reasons. He was trying to extort favors from the Ukrainian government. Nothing to do with policy. It is entirely illegal and unconstitutional to use the power of the office for personal gain.

Got it now?

So you do admit that Foreign Aid is subject to Presidential Discretion !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


.

You cannot really be this stupid.

This has to be an act.

You can not really be this stupid.

No evidence that


The administrative judge relied on Fiorillo v. Department of Justice, 795 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1986), wherein this court held that in order to be protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act the employee's primary motivation for making the disclosure must be a desire to inform the public, and not for vindictiveness or personal advantage.

.

Well I'll.try to address this confused mess of a post;

Where is your evidence the whistleblower is out for vengeance or personal advantage?

Reason DJT must confront his accuser.

 

[Lakhota]

Defying Obama, Many in Congress Press to Arm Ukraine

WASHINGTON — With the peace process stalled and violence escalating in Ukraine, a bipartisan coalition in Congress is defying President Obama and European allies by pressing the administration to provide weapons to the embattled nation.

The Senate has included provisions in its military policy bill to arm Ukraine with antiarmor systems, mortars, grenade launchers and ammunition to aid in its fight against Russian-backed separatists. It would also prevent the administration from spending more than one half of $300 million in aid for Ukraine unless 20 percent is earmarked for offensive weapons. The House has passed a similar measure.

So far, the Obama administration has refused to provide lethal aid, fearing that it would only escalate the bloodshed and give President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia a pretext for further incursions.

___________________________

WHY the double standard?

What was President Obama's quid pro quo?

 

[Crepitus]

Do you really need this explained to you?

Ok, just once, for the hard of thinking:

President Obama was making a policy decision based on his interpretation of the situation. Nowi didn't agree with his policy decision, and neither did many folks in congress, but it was a policy decision. It's entirely legal and Constitutional to have policy disagreements.

dOnald tRump did not withhold the aid for policy reasons. He was trying to extort favors from the Ukrainian government. Nothing to do with policy. It is entirely illegal and unconstitutional to use the power of the office for personal gain.

Got it now?

So you do admit that Foreign Aid is subject to Presidential Discretion !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


.

You cannot really be this stupid.

This has to be an act.

You can not really be this stupid.

No evidence that


The administrative judge relied on Fiorillo v. Department of Justice, 795 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1986), wherein this court held that in order to be protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act the employee's primary motivation for making the disclosure must be a desire to inform the public, and not for vindictiveness or personal advantage.

.

Well I'll.try to address this confused mess of a post;

Where is your evidence the whistleblower is out for vengeance or personal advantage?

Reason DJT must confront his accuser.

Non Sequitur.

Try again.