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.
I doubt that many Americans give a rat’s behind about Ukraine. I seriously doubt that many Dems cared about the Ukraine... until they could try and use it as a bludgeon against Trump.
I even bet it would take you a while to locate it on a map.
The question of whether it is acceptable for the President to leverage US tax dollars in the form of Congressionally allocated strategic military aid to try to get a foreign government to conjure up an announcement of criminal allegations against the President's political rival should not hinge on which foreign government he or she is trying to strongarm.
The question of whether it is acceptable for the President to leverage US tax dollars in the form of Congressionally allocated strategic military aid to try to get a foreign government to conjure up an announcement of criminal allegations against the President's political rival should not hinge on which foreign government he or she is trying to strongarm.
That doesn't even remotely described the facts. Biden isn't even Trump's political rival. He is just a schuck running an ever-failing race for the DemocRAT nomination, as his mind slowly melts on the hot pavement. Bon Riddance, Quid Pro Quo Joe, bon riddance.
I wonder if McConnell, GOP, Trump supporters will even care that Trump's withholding Ukraine was illegal? Seems illegality is in the eye of the beholder these days. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tru...ffice-n1117031
Had it been held past the deadline, you might have a point.
The question of whether it is acceptable for the President to leverage US tax dollars in the form of Congressionally allocated strategic military aid to try to get a foreign government to conjure up an announcement of criminal allegations against the President's political rival should not hinge on which foreign government he or she is trying to strongarm.
Quid Pro Quo, Nancy. Leveraging impeachment to nullify an election.
"Does anyone remember Democrats or Republicans calling for President Obama’s impeachment after a federal court reproached his Administration for lawlessly spending money? We didn’t think so, but now Democrats are flogging a new report by the Government Accountability Office claiming that President Trump broke the law by briefly delaying military aid to Ukraine last summer. The agency’s legal conclusion is wrong, but the double standard is worse.
“This important ruling further strengthens the House’s case for impeachment and removal, and reinforces the need for a fair trial in the Senate that includes documents and witnesses,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared following Thursday’s release of the report. The impeachment press is citing the report as if it were a revelation from the Oracle of Delphi.
The GAO is a nonpartisan agency that works for Congress, and its legal opinions aren’t binding on the executive branch. While the agency usually tries to avoid appearing partisan, its analysis that the Trump Administration violated the law reads like a brief from the Center for American Progress.
“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” GAO General Counsel Thomas Armstrong declares, adding that the Administration’s “reluctance to provide a fulsome response” to the GAO has “constitutional significance.”
To rewind the tape, the Office of Management and Budget last summer put a hold on $250 million in Pentagon funds that Congress had appropriated in 2018 for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. Congress made the money available through the end of the fiscal year on September 30, but OMB enjoys discretion over when to let funds flow.
OMB in July and August put a hold on the money putatively “to allow for an interagency process to determine the best use of such funds.” As we know, the President wanted to withhold the aid as leverage on Ukraine. But his advisers and GOP Senators such as Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson and Ohio’s Rob Portman objected, the flap became a national news story, and OMB released the funds on September 12.
GAO now marches onto the political battlefield to shoot the wounded. It claims the White House violated the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which prohibits the President from unilaterally deferring or rescinding money that has been appropriated by Congress. But no spending was deferred. The money was spent in the fiscal year of the Congressional appropriation, and OMB says the Pentagon didn’t intend to obligate most of it until September anyway.
There was thus no derogation of Congress’s power of the purse. By contrast, consider the Obama Administration’s decision to pay subsidies to health insurers in 2014 that weren’t appropriated by Congress. The GOP House sued to vindicate its spending power, and a federal judge ruled against the Obama Administration. But the money couldn’t be clawed back.
In a separate case, GAO concluded the Obama Health and Human Services Department in 2016 illegally paid money to insurers that the Affordable Care Act required to be sent to Treasury. The issue was politically charged at the time, but the GAO opinion made no mention of the Constitution: “We conclude that HHS lacks authority to ignore the statute’s directive.” The Obama Administration said it disagreed, and the press yawned.
GAO has enjoyed respect from both sides of the aisle, but it will undermine its credibility if it joins the anti-Trump resistance."
Using the same logic Dems are using today regarding Trump, Obama should have been impeached too!
The only difference I see with the Trump-Ukraine discussions was Biden announced he was running for President at about the same time as Trumps 1st call to Zelensky, and the Biden's being involved in Ukranian affairs prior to the Trump-Zelensky discussions. Follow along with me on this....
Ukranian President Zelensky was elected 4-21-19. He got 73% of the vote, so it was a foregone concluson that he was going to win in the days leading up to the election.
The Atlantic published a story 4-19-19 saying Biden would officially announces his candidacy on April 24th, 2019 (it turned out to be the 25th).
Is the timing of these Two events totally coincidental?
Zelensky winning the election was a pre-determined Ukranian election date, but the timing of Biden's announcing his candidacy was totally discretionary, and open-ended.
I find Biden's selection of the time frame to announce his candidacy to be curious.
It's common for American Presidents to call newly elected foreign leaders to congratulate them on winning.
Trumps call to congratulate Zelensky took place April 21st, 2019.
Former Vice President Biden would have known that this call would take place, and thereafter there'd be an open dialogue between Trump and Zelensky.
This timeline will arise at the upcoming trial. It will be interesting if Biden's timing was random, or purposeful. I think this will become a key point in the trial.
And now, thanks to the ultra partisan Democrats in the House, "Impeachment" means NOTHING!
NO CRIMES cited in their PATHETIC Articles, NONE!
An ugly and dangerous precedent is all this temper tantrum from the left has given us.
Nice going, LOSERS!
Trump abused is power. He got impeached. The end.
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.
