Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, and there are no appeals of any rulings he makes. I trust Roberts; he has tried to keep SCOTUS out of partisan frays so he will likely lean on the precedent set in Nixon v. United States, which debunked the idea of executive privilege in an impeachment.
Trump should plea bargain while he has the chance. What a stigma to be the first US President to be booted out of office.
I think Mr. Trump is pushing his luck with Chief Justice Roberts:
Quote:
After Chief Justice John Roberts rebutted President Donald Trump's recent criticism that a ruling against the administration's asylum policy on migrants was issued by an "Obama judge", the president fired back on Twitter.
"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges," according to Roberts, who originally responded to the Associated Press, via a statement issued from the Supreme Court's press office. "What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”
After rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, Trump fires back on Twitter
Its actually a large part of it, he's talked about that forever. Why do we give money to countries that don't even like us!? In this case it happened to be him, because we know for fact Ukraine and the DNC colluded to hurt his election. The other part is corruption and the fact they had a new President elected, the request for investigations was completely necessary.
National security chief Michael Duffey spurned subpoenas seeking documents & testimony.
Quote:
The summary shows that OMB first inquired with the Pentagon about a $250 million pot of military assistance, known as the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, on June 19. That date is also confirmed by Sandy, who told House impeachment investigators that Trump sought a “description of the program“ from the Defense Department.
On July 12, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney’s office informed OMB that Trump planned to halt Ukraine’s military aid without providing an explanation for the freeze, Sandy said.
Sandy said he later raised concerns to Duffey, a political appointee, that the hold could potentially violate the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which spells out the steps that the president must take in order to pull back funds appropriated by Congress.
White House budget officials resigned amid frustration with Ukraine aid freeze
An OMB official testified behind closed doors that one lawyer resigned over concerns that Trump's hold on Ukraine aid violated the law.
Its actually a large part of it, he's talked about that forever. Why do we give money to countries that don't even like us!? In this case it happened to be him, because we know for fact Ukraine and the DNC colluded to hurt his election. The other part is corruption and the fact they had a new President elected, the request for investigations was completely necessary.
If that was his rationale, why was it necessary for him to break the law & violate the Constitution in order to do so?
Its actually a large part of it, he's talked about that forever. Why do we give money to countries that don't even like us!? In this case it happened to be him, because we know for fact Ukraine and the DNC colluded to hurt his election. The other part is corruption and the fact they had a new President elected, the request for investigations was completely necessary.
It wasn’t a large part of nothing. The White House just made this crap up. It’s fictitious. No one is buying it.
Terrible analogy...we aren't stealing their money and giving it back. We are giving them a gift.
Aw, c'mon. The point isn't whose money it is. The point is did he do it? Yes, he did- just like the kid took $100 from his dad's wallet. But, because kid eventually put it back, he asserts he didn't really take it. Same w/Trump. He WITHHELD the money for months in an attempt to gain a personal political advantage. When he was CAUGHT, then he said, "see, I'm paying it now, so I didn't try to withhold it." BS - he did withhold it all right. Until OMB dug in its heels and WB alert.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woody01
Not that it matters, this whole Ukraine thing is dumb anyway....
What's dumb? Using US taxpayer money to extort a personal political benefit? Substitute another country for Ukraine. The basic issue is the abuse of power and extortion - not the country.
Prior to Zelensky, Ukraine govt was corrupt. Zelensky ran - and won - on reform. Earlier, while VP under Obama, Biden and OTHER COUNTRIES were pressuring Ukraine to clean up corruption - as national and international policy. Nothing whatsoever to do with any upcoming election or political smear on an opponent.
Cometh the new and eager Zelensky - a 'reformer' - who needed the money to fight the Russians and Trump uses the vulnerability of the new government as an opportunity to extort a 'favor' - a personal political favor designed to smear Biden - even though there was NOTHING to investigate. All Trump wanted was a "announcement" on CNN for Trump to use as a rallying cry to smear Biden. Not the investigation, itself. Sondland so testified.
Trump is a very small, petty man.
Last edited by Ariadne22; 11-27-2019 at 09:58 PM..
There was no law broken and no violation of the constitution. If there were you’d be able to name and cite those violations, but you cannot.
He broke the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, it's an abuse of the power of the office:
Quote:
Impoundment is an act by a President of the United States of not spending money that has been appropriated by the U.S. Congress. Thomas Jefferson was the first president to exercise the power of impoundment in 1801. The power was available to all presidents up to and including Richard Nixon, and was regarded as a power inherent to the office. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed in response to perceived abuse of the power under President Nixon. Title X of the Act removed that power, and Train v. City of New York (whose facts predate the 1974 Act, but which was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court after its passage), closed potential loopholes in the 1974 Act. The president's ability to indefinitely reject congressionally approved spending was thus removed.[1]
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provides that the president may propose rescission of specific funds, but that rescission must be approved by both the House of Representatives and Senate within 45 days. In effect, the requirement removed the impoundment power, since Congress is not required to vote on the rescission and, in fact, has ignored the vast majority of presidential requests.[2]
He violated the Constitution, & his oath of office (to preserve, protect & defend the Constitution of the United States). It's an abuse of trust.
Quote:
The U.S. Constitution designates the “power of the purse” — the authority to create, collect taxes and borrow money — to Congress. The Constitution does not define a federal budget process, nor does it address the role the President plays in developing them. The process and President’s responsibilities are now defined and refined by two laws:
* The Budget & Accounting Act of 1921
* The 1974 Congressional Budget & Impoundment Control Act
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
