1. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2019
    Messages:
    255
    Country:
    United States
    I found this from buisness insider but there wasn't much info that I was satisfied with so I pushed further to the primary source quoted to find more info.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/35-million-pentagon-aid-ukraine-not-released-2019-11

    https://www.latimes.com/politics/st...ne-aid-delayed-despite-white-house-assurances

    ---
    More than $35 million of the roughly $400 million in aid to Ukraine that President Trump delayed, sparking the impeachment inquiry, has not been released to the country, according to a Pentagon spending document obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

    Instead, the defense funding for Ukraine remains in U.S. accounts, according to the document. It’s not clear why the money hasn’t been released, and members of Congress are demanding answers.

    Congress had approved the one-year funds — $250 million in military aid from the Pentagon and an additional $141 million in assistance from the State Department — with bipartisan support last fall. Because of a congressionally mandated 15-day waiting period, the administration’s delay left lawmakers less than a week to secure the money before the legal authority to spend it expired at the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.

    Knowing that the hundreds of millions couldn’t all be allocated in such a short time, Congress gave the Pentagon an additional year to spend its share.

    Pentagon officials said then that the spending would be disbursed within weeks. But $35.2 million — earmarked for grenade launchers, secure communications and naval combat craft — has not left the U.S. Treasury, according to lawmakers and the Pentagon document tracking spending.

    Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. Carla Gleason confirmed that $36 million had yet to be provided to Ukraine but declined to say why, instead reiterating that the aid would be obligated “over the next several weeks.”

    The continued holdup of a portion of the assistance could undermine a key Republican argument throughout the impeachment inquiry. The president’s defenders have downplayed the effects of the delay in aid by noting that the funds were ultimately released without Ukraine committing to the investigations Trump wanted. A strategy memo circulated Monday night by Republican committee staff urged them to make that case in public hearings Tuesday.

    Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) said Tuesday during a hearing that two key facts had not changed throughout the inquiry: “Ukraine in fact received the aid and there was no investigation into the Bidens.”

    White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham made the same point in dismissing the inquiry in a Fox News interview Nov. 1. “The president did absolutely nothing wrong,” she said. “We released the transcript weeks ago for everybody to see. There was no quid pro quo. The Ukrainian government said they felt absolutely no pressure. Aid was eventually released to the Ukraine.”

    Democratic lawmakers are demanding answers from the Pentagon as to why the aid for Ukraine has not yet been spent, nearly two months after the fiscal year ended Sept. 30.

    California Rep. John Garamendi (D-Walnut Grove), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s readiness subcommittee, said the Pentagon had not been responsive about the reason.

    “We’ve raised the question and we have not received an answer,” Garamendi said. “We’re going to have to find out why.”

    Senate Democrats on defense committees wrote to Defense Secretary Mark Esper on Monday, emphasizing the importance of the aid reaching Ukraine in the aftermath of the controversy over the assistance.

    “Speeding the delivery of this critical aid, which Congress specifically appropriated to improve the security of Ukraine, is important to affirm our commitment to Ukraine in the wake of the chaotic, undisciplined, and deeply concerning approach the administration has taken toward our important partner,” the letter said.
    ---

    A few important facts to consider:
    More than $35 million of the roughly $400 million in aid to Ukraine that President Trump delayed, sparking the impeachment inquiry, has not been released to the country, according to a Pentagon spending document obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

    Knowing that the hundreds of millions couldn’t all be allocated in such a short time, Congress gave the Pentagon an additional year to spend its share.

    Democratic lawmakers are demanding answers from the Pentagon as to why the aid for Ukraine has not yet been spent, nearly two months after the fiscal year ended Sept. 30.
    California Rep. John Garamendi (D-Walnut Grove), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s readiness subcommittee, said the Pentagon had not been responsive about the reason.

    “We’ve raised the question and we have not received an answer,” Garamendi said. “We’re going to have to find out why.”

    Senate Democrats on defense committees wrote to Defense Secretary Mark Esper on Monday, emphasizing the importance of the aid reaching Ukraine in the aftermath of the controversy over the assistance.

    With all this taken into account, if there lies any evidence that this portion of funds is being held once again by the order from Trump, how do you all think this will play in his defense as articles of impeachment are supposedly being drawn as we speak? Trump has gone on public record multiple times stating ALL of the aid was released, is this another example of him misleading the public for personal political gain? Just as I shown could have been the case when he stated that he used the word corruption in both calls w/ Zelensky?

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

     
    monkeyman4412 and Ev1l0rd like this.
  2. cots

    cots Banned
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,533
    Country:
    United States
    This all amounts to nothing more than additional smoke and mirrors. The withholding of the small amount of aid from the total that was sent will probably turn out to be just another normal thing that happens to aid - just like setting terms and holding up aid to renegotiating the terms turned out to be normal business (what the Democrats are calling quid pro quo now - as opposed to the original quid pro joe they can't prove). So this is just more filler to keep their user base foaming at the mouth. Before you reply "What proof do you have that this is normal?" ask yourself "What proof do you have that it isn't normal?". If your proof is the fact that the Democrats in Congress are "demanding answers" then that's not proof. At this point in the circus they perpetrated Democrats in Congress "demanding" anything is akin to a 3 year old child that is still feeding from a nipple that's demanding a second bottle at lunch. So again, nothing to see here folks.

    It's also a pity that their entire last week of "expert testimony" from self proclaimed constitutions experts fell flat on its face. I mean; we're talking about people that probably couldn't even tell you the type of paper the Constitution was written on. Hey - at least it makes for a lot of ROFL during dinner dates.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2019
  3. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    3,113
    Country:
    United States
    Not untrue. Withholding military aid is not impeachable.

    Currently there are two things the impeachment actions footing is based upon. One is - was its done for personal instead of 'state gains'? Answer yes. Second is, has Trump 'illegitimately profited' (or tried to) from it?

    And the second one is also a yes, but less clear. (Because he didn't profit financially, f.e..)

    Weve heard most legal interpretations coming out on the side of - direct financial motive isnt needed, but its hard to proove 'tried to run out political opponent' as a profit motive 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

    So still enough ambiguity for republicans to not move, which is what we are currently seeing.

    Everything else should be circumstantial, because there is no dispute on what happened (not much at least), but more so on interpretation. Looking at what conspired here, I'd say they are poppycock, but still enough to politically argue, that there is ambiguity. Remember, this is not a legal case.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2019
  4. cots

    cots Banned
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,533
    Country:
    United States
    The original charge was he did it to dig up dirt on Joe Biden who is said to be his political opponent. Regardless of the fact he's only Trump's potential political opponent the only thing the Democrats have that they say can prove this is Sonland's "assumptions". Seeings as assumptions are not valid evidence they can no longer prove there was "quid pro joe" (which is the joke going around stating that there was quid pro quo over Joe Biden). As this happens to be the fact they took the focus off of that initial charge and are now trying to charge Trump with other crimes. Seeings as withholding aid for a short time to renegotiate terms on the aid is a common practice quid pro quo is shouldn't be an impeachable offense. However, the Democrats in Congress can impeach Trump for whatever they like and seeings as this is not the first time they've tried and the fact they planned to impeach Trump before he even took office regardless of no wrong doing anyone who puts stock into anything "the Democrats in Congress are demanding" is not in touch with what's going on.

    I mean, the impeachment evidence so far is a bunch of witnesses saying they have no evidence of any illegal activity and then one witness with "assumptions". In a court of law evidence like "I heard my best friend say he was going to kill his wife" is very admissible, but saying "I overheard Trump ask about the aid, but never heard him mention Joe Biden, I just assumed that's what he meant" is not admissible. Assumptions aren't valid evidence. If there was something concrete to tie Trump to actually investigating Biden directly for quid pro joe then then Sonland's "assumption" would help, but seeings as all of the previous witnesses claimed they have no evidence and Sonland only "assumes" something the Democrats really don't have much of a case (when it comes to their original charge of quid pro joe).

    Anyway, I'm pretty sure there's some normal reason why 100% of the aid hasn't been delivered. I could be wrong, but "the Democrats in Congress are demanding something" doesn't mean anything illegal happened.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2019
  5. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2019
    Messages:
    255
    Country:
    United States
    So lets take what I actually stated and compare to your response shall we.

    I haven't stated that this normal or abnormal, however, I believe in time as more information is released we will be able to make that determination. I noted the public statement of our president to the American Public was that ALL of the aid has been released (If I need to provide the video evidence let me know. I can supply it.). I noted that this statement misleads the American public to believe something that isn't accurate. I went on to INQUIRE how will Trump's defense play out if evidence is shown that this portion of funds is being held once again by the order of the President.

    https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with...ukraine-still-missing-key-funding-74673733887 timestamp 0.37sec-0.41sec - Trump says funds fully paid.

    I see how you conveniently ignored to address that point and question that I raised, as you have the habit of doing. You also never addressed the question I posed on post #238 on this thread. I believe this is the fourth time I'll ask but if you think withholding congressional approved aid like Trump has done with Ukraine isn't abnormal then you will have to start at post #238 and answer the question that I posed. I can provide evidence that it is abnormal, and that Trump committed a constitutional definition of bribery. I am able to assert that thanks to the, as you said 'pitiful' "expert testimony" of constitutional experts. Before you attempt to discredit the constitutional scholars that were providing testimony, I'm curious, where is your doctorate in constitutional law? I don't have any so I can defer to their expertise, all four of them.

    To be clear, I also defer to Turley's expertise that was given in the Clinton impeachment (yes precedence matters, so former testimony is valid when appropriate) as he had interesting points that were raised that seemed to conflict with his recent statements. You probably were too disingenuous to even look those up but if you want to have discourse all will come with time, for now if you start back at post #238 we will have a proper discussion on the topic.

    Specifically, did Trump say the word corruption in either of his phone calls with Zelensky? YES OR NO?

    *bonus* Did Trump say, "As far as withholding funds, those funds were paid. They were fully paid?" YES OR NO?
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2019
    Ev1l0rd and monkeyman4412 like this.
  6. cots

    cots Banned
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,533
    Country:
    United States
    To your second question "yes". So what? Maybe Trump wasn't aware that $35 million of the aid got held up in some probably normal process. Can you prove he knew a little bit got held up at the time he made those comments? He said "yes". Let's throw him out of office because he could have made a simple mistake! The irony! You really keep thinking you have "something" when you're holding onto thin air. It's rather ammusing.

    To your first question I answer "yes". Seeings as Trump was looking for corruption who cares what he said. He was in his right to hold up aid and set new conditions on it. If one of those conditions was to look for corruption good. That's great. If there was any hopefully they find out punish whomever was involved. Again, you think you have some smoking gun because Trump was withholding aid, a normal thing to do, because he was wanting something in return for the aid, which is also normal. Seeings as there was no "quid pro joe" - the original charge, whatever else he held it up for is perfectly fine. As per what Trump said. Maybe he messed up with a one word statement; seeings as how your Sonland guy "couldn't recall" over 50 different things he was asked maybe whatever you're claiming Trump said was a simple lapse in memory or mistake. The Liberals are failing miserably to convince anyone with an objective brain that there was any wrong doing and your tactic you're taking with me now clearly shows how desperate you guys are. Trump says stupid shit all of the time. So what? Are are the impeachment charges now going to include "stupid shit Trump said once"? I also stand by my original post you quoted - Trump never demanded Quid Pro Joe in the phone transcript.

    You happy now that I answered your questions, which are completely oblivious to the facts nor matter in the end? Got what you wanted?

    He's also not stating he got elected due to the help from corruption that he used for his personal gain. He got elected when he was faced with corruption coming from the opposing party that was used against him. Hillary colluded with foreign agents to run a smear campaign on Trump. Hillary was a sure fire bet. Trump wasn't even supposed to win the Republican Primary. There was no possible way Trump could have beat her. Jokes you on you. Trump beat all the odds and the whiny Liberal losers can't admit they lost.

    Hell, the corruption he's looking for is about who started the Mueller investigation crap. Our President is a Russian agent. What a pathetic grasp at shit that's not even in the realm of being possible. You people can't take your loss and work for the common good. Clearly a pathetic existence - spend your days plotting revenge for losing in a contest you tried to cheat in. So maybe Ukraine was a dead end? So what. Doesn't mean he shouldn't have tried to look at get to the bottom of who started such nonsense that wasted millions of dollars and helped divide the country. Was he looking for corruption? Yes he was! As he should be! Whomever started the Mueller hoax should be tried for treason! Treason has a certain and very specific consequence. Isn't Trump the leader of the greatest military force in the world? Maybe he could earn some points with the Liberals by finally serving the armed forces in an official capacity by carrying out the punishment by himself.

    Trump will never win the primary.
    Trump will never beat Hillary.
    The Electoral College will never certify Trump.
    The House will never certify Trump.
    Trump will never get inaugurated.
    The world economy will collapse if Trump is elected.
    Trump will never last through 2017.
    Trump will never get Gorsuch confirmed.
    Trump will never last through 2018.
    Trump will never get Kavanaugh confirmed.
    Trump will never survive the Mueller investigation.
    Trump will never last through 2019.
    Trump will never beat the impeachment.

    When it comes to quid pro joe Democrats are clearly implementing Marx’s tactic in dealing with one’s opponent: Turn and accuse your opponent of EXACTLY what you are doing to cause confusion.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
  7. monkeyman4412

    monkeyman4412 Gbatemp's moronic trash
    Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2016
    Messages:
    1,655
    Country:
    United States
    @cots
    still ignoring post#238
     
  8. cots

    cots Banned
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,533
    Country:
    United States
    @monkeyman4412 keeps thinking those questions have any sort of relevance. I played you guys by avoiding them to see how you'd react. The actual questions have no bearing on anything. Now that you got all fired up because you thought you had some sort of smoking gun because I was "refusing to answer as it would prove me wrong" (this is what I wanted you to think) so you've lost again I've got an even larger smile on my face. I think I could start Tweeting for Trump using his account (if he would let me). Playing Tetris is more complicated then playing Liberals. By the way, I guess you missed the fact that I answered his questions. I even went back to satisfy MrLiberalRationality's deliberate and bound to fail controlling tactics of demanding a "yes" or "no" like either would have any bearing on the circumstances involved.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
  9. monkeyman4412

    monkeyman4412 Gbatemp's moronic trash
    Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2016
    Messages:
    1,655
    Country:
    United States
    Well you just proved everyone that you don't care about facts. All you care is about being right.
    You played yourself.
    You just proved to everyone, that you don't care. The only thing you care is "destroying" liberals.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
    Ev1l0rd, IncredulousP and Xzi like this.
  10. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2019
    Messages:
    255
    Country:
    United States
    You might think you addressed it sufficiently, however, you completely misunderstood the context of the quote which came from Donald Trump's interview on Fox and Friends. I'll try again with more context since I think you deserve another shot.

    https://www.rev.com/blog/donald-tru...-trump-interviewed-after-impeachment-hearings

    ----
    Brian Kilmeade: (06:07)
    Who has the server?

    Donald Trump: (06:09)
    The FBI went in and they told them, “Get out of here. We’re not giving it to you.” They gave the server to CrowdStrike or whatever it’s called, which is a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian. And I still want to see that server. The FBI has never gotten that server. That’s a big part of this whole thing. Why did they give it to a Ukrainian company? Why-

    Steve Doocy: (06:31)
    Are you sure they did that? Are you sure they gave it to Ukraine?

    Donald Trump: (06:35)
    Well, that’s what the word is. That’s what I asked, actually, in my phone call if you know. I mean, I asked it very point blank because we’re looking for corruption. There’s tremendous corruption we’re looking for. Why should we be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to countries when there’s this kind of corruption? When you look at my call, I said corruption … I think he said it to me. He’s looking. He got elected on the basis of corruption.
    ---
    You might have misread the last part (I underlined this last portion for clarity). You are thinking Trump is talking about himself being elected on the basis of corruption in this underlined portion. That person is actually Zelinsky which Trump is referring to, not himself. If my snarky, sarcastic nature took over I'd quote you about 'Reading comprehension required' but I'll take this as an honest mistake and do no such thing.

    People are afforded honest mistakes, but when something is repeated to the public its no longer a mistake but a false narrative. Trump has claimed multiple times in front of the press his calls with Zelensky are only about corruption and 'READ THE TRANSCRIPT'. This was a significant example where he embellished beyond reality and claimed he in fact said the word corruption in the call itself.. I can't count how many times on fox, cnn, msnbc, any media outlet really where it is observed and noted over the past few months that the word corruption did not appear in the call, once the first call memorandum was released, it was then noted again that it was not in either call.

    (For someone who asks the american public to 'read the transcript' he sure would benefit to read it himself as he invents words to exist in it that in fact do not.)

    Why this matters - I'll tell you, once you look up and believe the word corruption is not in the transcript - The purpose will be to provide evidence of his state of mind and intent. This is paramount in making the case that this is not for the interest of the nation but for a personal political benefit. I'm using primary source of information, his own words. If you are going to continue to dispute primary source information as 'Trump says stupid shit' let me know now. If you actually care about the reality of the situation then I'll continue. I'm not biased on this. I've made a logical deduction with all the facts provided that he has committed the constitutional definition of bribery which is a reason for impeachment of a president. This is something that is stated directly in our constitution not something that has to be deduced like high crimes or high misdemeanors. Were you paying enough attention during the last hearing? Maybe you should take some time to watch it like I did, take note of the definitions provided by the witnesses. It is critical to understanding the articles of impeachment that are being drawn, one of which will be constitutionally backed 100%.

    I would find it utterly irresponsible to speak to the american public without knowing something for sure, especially when what I would speak ("As far as withholding funds, those funds were paid. They were fully paid") is considered one of the cornerstone defenses against my own impeachment from public office. But hey, maybe we shouldn't hold the President to the same standard of people with sound ethics in public relations. After all 'owning the libs' appears to matter more to @cots. Do the ends justify the means? Should our President ensure he is speaking the truth to the American public?

    (If he said I presume all the aid is in the process of being released or even 'to my knowledge all the aid has been released') That would be at least acceptable because the public would not be asked to take his word as fact. He holds much power and authority but doesn't seem to wield it with much responsibility. Words matter whether you agree or not. It lowers my confidence in our nation's leader when he addresses our public without knowing the correct information. If it is shown that he is behind this subsequent hold then it makes it even worse and would show he is openly misleading the public.

    ---
    Donald Trump: (06:09)
    The FBI went in and they told them, “Get out of here. We’re not giving it to you.” They gave the server to CrowdStrike or whatever it’s called, which is a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian. And I still want to see that server. The FBI has never gotten that server. That’s a big part of this whole thing. Why did they give it to a Ukrainian company? Why-
    ---

    By the way, there are many other instances of him grossly misleading the public (he might be misleading himself as well, that part is hard to discern). Just in the quote above (I bolded the relevant parts), I could point out that Crowdstrike, a company I'm quite familiar with, is a California-based company that since this summer is now a publicly traded company. But even before it went public - George Kurtz and Dmitri Alperovitch, both ex-McAfee executives, founded the company in 2011. Alperovitch, a Russian expatriot, is CrowdStrike’s chief technology officer. Dmitri born/lived in Moscow in the USSR until the age of 14 when he relocated to Canada and a year later moved to America with his family.

    Before you state, well he just didn't know about it at that time, this 'mistake' is repeated in the actual transcript of the July 25th call w/ Zelensky. This is because this is part of a debunked conspiracy theory. A theory he continues to push to this day, much like his obsession over Obama birther conspiracy.

    TLDR: If you are going to continue to dispute primary source information as 'Trump says stupid shit' let me know now. If you actually care about the reality of the situation then I'll continue.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
    Ev1l0rd likes this.
  11. cots

    cots Banned
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,533
    Country:
    United States
    Yawn .... Trump was looking for corruption in Ukraine. He held up aid asking Zelensky to look into matters (renegotiated the terms, which is normal). Do you think repeating yourself over and over again is going to make any difference? I know that's a tactic Liberals use especially in the media, but you can tell me all day long that fire isn't hot and I'm never going to believe you. I'm not your normal party member (sheep) that you're used to dealing with. So in the end nothing has changed ... Still no quid pro joe.

    As per the $35 million. You can't prove that Trump lied to the public. Until you can prove he knew $35 million was withheld by the Pentagon you've only got lame stream media speculation. Lt. Col. Carla Gleason from the agency said it's going to be paid within a few weeks. There's no given reason why it hasn't been delivered, which could have been some normal thing or something abnormal, but there's also no proof that Trump knew about it at the time he said all of the aid had been delivered. Seeings as Trump isn't the person who was reposibile for sending the money. Whatever turns up it's probably going to be some error or routine holdup and the agency who was responsible will be held so, that's if anything is abnormal to begin with. Good luck nailing Trump, which is what you're after anyway. You're looking for guilt - you're not being objective, but that's understandable considering impeachment was planned before guilt was established.

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    What facts? The false narrative the Liberals are pushing? Yawn x2 ... I enjoy watching the Liberals "destroy" themselves. I want what's best for the country and Liberalism / socialism isn't it. It's just a bonus that's what good for the country is bad for Liberals. You know, the group of people telling me what I can or cannot say or do, what I can or cannot believe in, who I can or cannot vote for or telling me I need the Government to control every aspect of my life. Why would I not enjoy watching such cowardly beings destroy themselves? Maybe if they would leave well enough alone, but it's in their nature to try to control and thus ruin everything they touch. The facts of the case are simple - so far all of their witnesses except one openly admit they have no evidence of any crimes, be it bribery or quid pro joe and then there's Sonland, who "assumes" there's "quid pro joe". The only thing the Democrats have that is solid is the White Houses refusal to honor the Democrats in Congress subpoenas, which I'm sure the Senate will overlook because the entire basis for the subpoenas was cooked up in a scheme to oust the President before he even took office regardless of any wrong doing. Seeings as these are the actual facts not complying with an entity hell bent on destroying you for any reason they can find shouldn't be considered impeachable. Sorry bud - your lack of evidence and facts thus justify my responses.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
  12. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2019
    Messages:
    255
    Country:
    United States
    Just curious, did you find that the IG report into the FBI, the one lead by Durham was another bust. In the course of Horowitz’s investigation, Durham declined to endorse one key Republican talking point: that one witness, Joseph Mifsud, was actually a CIA or FBI agent deployed to undermine and defeat Trump’s presidential bid.

    Durham, according to the Post, has “said he could not offer evidence to the Justice Department’s inspector general to support the suspicions of some conservatives that the case was a setup by American intelligence.”

    There was genuine concern within the intelligence agencies that Trump's campaign was working w/ Russians or at least being exploited by them. I don't think you even have a solid grasp on what started the Special counsel investigation. Just parroting what you've heard in your bias bubble.

    He didn't renegotiate the terms, something he doesn't have the power to do by the way in this instance, because that would require him to have the power to impound funds. Congress already approved the aid under the conditions. He intervened outside of his power to block that aid by forcing the OMB to perform a hold based on 'corruption' despite every other branch, pentagon included, having already cleared Ukraine for passing the requirements set to receive the aid. Maybe I need to make my posts shorter as your attention span has begun to shrink now once you began to detach further from reality. Also, we already discussed this on this thread but incase your 'lack of sleep' has 'impaired your memory' once again:
    ---
    Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which created the House and Senate budget committees, established the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and limited the president’s ability to control federal spending.

    Now, whenever presidents want to rescind or freeze congressionally appropriated funds, they must first notify Congress by sending a "special message" that details the amount of money involved and the reasons to rescind or withhold it.

    If the president is asking to permanently rescind money, Congress must give its approval. But if Congress does not pass a bill approving the retraction within 45 days, the money must be made available for spending, according to the law.

    If the president is only asking to temporarily delay spending, then congressional approval is not required. But the president still has to send Congress a "special message" to let it know. There are other requirements, too.
    ---
    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...05/did-trump-violate-impoundment-control-act/

    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-RIDDICK-1992/pdf/GPO-RIDDICK-1992-34.pdf
     
  13. wartutor

    wartutor GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2012
    Messages:
    153
    Country:
    United States
    Thats whats wrong with this country. There is people getting paid big money sitting in a room arguing about this. Talking about why $400m was held up when the real question is why the fuck are we giving them it in the first place. Theres people homeless and starving in our streats and so many other things that money could go for. To hell with giving it to the Ukrainian government
     
    cots likes this.
  14. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2019
    Messages:
    255
    Country:
    United States
    Foreign aid is given because it is arguably cheaper to use our tax dollars to give them aid, that they then turn around and buy from our Military industrial complex and fight against what we perceive as our adversary, than us intervene with a formal, direct military response.

    Is it effective? I'm not sure. I've been given scenarios that would say the absence of aid would be detrimental to our stability and national security. Its hard to prove as we often don't let other superpowers annex parts of other nations and perform a hostile invasion. I'm not versed enough to really say much more.
     
    IncredulousP likes this.
  15. cots

    cots Banned
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,533
    Country:
    United States
    I never said nor implied Ukraine was involved. I said Trump was well within his rights to seek out the cause of the failed Muller report. If Ukraine turned out to be a dud then Trump needs to move onto his next lead. If there's still investigation needed into Ukraine then let's keep investigating. Who decides that? The people doing the investigation - not the liberal media. If that ones turns out to be a dud then move on to the next. He can stop once he finds out who was responsible and they are dealt with.

    I'm not going to pretend to be a law expert and use my or your lack of experience interpreting something meant for Ambassadors and Judges to figure out nor will I take the liberal media's interpretation of the law as any sort of valid evidence that Trump wasn't within his rights to renegotiate a trade deal. I already told you - the aid to the ambassador I called stated that renegotiating trade deals was normal and so was withholding aid. If it turns out Trump did indeed break some laws then you're also going to have to realize that the original charge was "quid pro joe" and not Trump mishandling a normal process. So possibly he did overstep his bounds, but seeings as the aid is being delivered not much actual harm was done. This is also something the Senate will have to decide if it's worth impeachment. The Liberals should have really held off until they found something better to nail Trump with in their pre-planned latest impeachment attempt. You do remember the original reason was "quid pro joe"? Right? "March Satan's soldiers - erect the next goal post!"
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
  16. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2019
    Messages:
    255
    Country:
    United States
    Goal posts aren't being moved, you just aren't even attempting to walk on the field. It is again another demostrated act of laziness, cowardice, or just partisanship. I'll let you pick.
     
    IncredulousP likes this.
  17. cots

    cots Banned
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,533
    Country:
    United States
    Sadly, it has nothing to do with the aid or Ukraine. The Democrats could care less about the money or the foreign country. They simply want to oust Trump from office - by any means necessary. This has been their plan before Trump even was sworn into office. The Democrats could also care less about the homeless people starving on our streets. Don't believe me? Go look into how many Food Pantries or Homeless Shelters are run by Liberal organizations.
     
  18. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2019
    Messages:
    255
    Country:
    United States
    Furthermore, chasing down already debunked conspiracy theories about Crowdstrike/Ukraine isn't the most effective use of money or resources yet you bash the Mueller investigation which had multiple indictments as a waste of money? Seems consistent for @cots because it is completely colored on partisan lines instead of rooted in reality.

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    Oh yea, that's the 'my uncle works for nintendo' - don't ask about it because I don't know who i talked to, don't remember the number i called, I can't tell you anything else because my identity would be found, and even if someone else says something different, I was still told X and will believe that over anything else provided - that call. How could we forget about that indisputable evidence!
     
    monkeyman4412 likes this.
  19. cots

    cots Banned
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,533
    Country:
    United States
    There's rampant fraud within the Government wherever you look. The fuckers rip me off on a monthly basis. I would have been surprised if the investigation didn't result in any arrests. However, the Congressional Democrats target was Trump and they couldn't muster up enough evidence to impeach him, which was their goal. We're simply on their next impeachment attempt.

    Feel free to pickup a phone and call one. Maybe since you're a more detailed orientated person why not takes notes and ask for specifics, seeings as when I called my questions didn't deal with specific laws that have been brought to attention after the fact. Simple "Is withholding aid normal", "Do we give out money without terms" or "Do we ever renegotiate those terms before sending the aid" type questions were enough to satisfy me. if you're forgotten already all of that stuff is completely normal. So sorry if I don't trust the Liberal media's interpretation of the law and as opposed to the people who do this sort of stuff for a living (seeings as the Liberals dishonest agenda is to oust the President at all costs - with assistance from the main stream media, who are mostly owned by old rich Democrats).
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
  20. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2019
    Messages:
    255
    Country:
    United States
    This matters actually, as you didn't pose that if aid is already approved to be dispersed by congress, it is likely that there is a misunderstanding to believe that you were provided answers that only reinforced a preconceived notion. We are also at the mercy that this aid even is knowledgeable enough to provide these responses accurately.

    "Is withholding aid normal"
    Withholding aid by whom matters. Under what circumstances matter. I imagine aid is held for a variety of reasons as conditions are met, but given witness testimony of multiple witnesses, this hold defied normalcy.

    "Do we give out money without terms" or
    Who is we? United states, congress, executive branch? Also, I presume this is probably a no? It looks like a loaded question that would prompt job justification answers from someone who is asked, but I guess it depends who is asked.

    "Do we ever renegotiate those terms before sending the aid"
    Again, Who is we? An ambassador, the President, Congress? This can happen by the President, with notification to congress and congress will have to approve, without approval (even if a vote is never held) the aid is supposed to be dispensed.

    Just to re-clarify, this isn't a trade agreement, but foreign aid with bipartisan approval by congress with pre-defined conditions (the anti-corruption efforts) that were approved by the pentagon. Yet the President attempted to subvert his restriction on aid impoundment that would require congressional notification and subsequent congressional approval and forced OMB to perform a hold under the guise of 'corruption' in-spite of the pentagon's findings. This isn't an impeachable offense, or at least I wouldn't dare think anyone in congress would assert that, but when taken in context with the requests made to Zelensky, and if one believes that dealing with 'corruption' in fact isn't the purpose of Trump's request (this provides context to prove state of mind and intent) then you have a case of solicitation of a foreign power to investigate into a political opponent (or merely even just announce investigations via cnn interview) which would influence an upcoming US election, you also have the constitutional definition of bribery. A definition provided by the most recent hearing, that definition (not the criminal definition) is derived by what is known as bribery during the time that article II was written in our constitution.

    Criminal bribery - The federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b), criminalizes the corrupt promise or transfer of any thing of value to influence an official act of a federal official, a fraud on the United States, or the commission or omission of any act in violation of the official's duty.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201

    Constitutional bribery - "the idea that when you took private benefits or when you asked for private benefits… in return for an official act, or someone gave them to you to influence an official act, that was bribery.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=219&v=ba-PJ6CYbKs&feature=emb_logo
    https://www.rev.com/blog/house-judiciary-committee-impeachment-hearing-transcript-day-1
    ---
    What they were thinking about was bribery, as it was understood in the 18th century, based on the common law up until that point. That understanding was an understanding that someone, and generally even then, it was mostly talking about a judge. It wasn’t talking about a President because there was no President before that, and wasn’t talking about the King, because the King could do no wrong. What they were understanding then was the idea that when you took private benefits, or when you asked for private benefits in return for an official act, or somebody gave them to you to influence an official act, that was bribery.
    ---
    the 1792 version of Johnson’s dictionary. I don’t have the initial one and there he defines bribery as the crime of giving or taking rewards for bad practices.
    ---
    This seems to be an immensely broad definition of bribery in relation to the more narrowed criminal definition of bribery and the reason is likely again that impeachment was never designed to be a criminal trial but a political one. The framers of the constitution decided if congress who represent the people believed that the President has committed bribery then he is able to be subject to impeachment. That is not to say that Criminal bribery wouldn't also apply, but this is to show the threshold for constitutional bribery (what bribery was understood by common law at the time of the constitution) is able to be reached.

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    ----
    Ted Lieu: (01:57:57)
    I’m also a former prosecutor. I believe the record and that evidence would also meet the standards for criminal bribery. The Supreme Court’s decision in McDonnell was primarily about what constitutes an official act. Their key finding was an official act must involve a formal exercise of governmental power on something specific pending before a public official. Pretty clearly got that here. We have hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid that Congress specifically appropriated. The freezing and unfreezing of that aid is a formal exercise of governmental power.

    Ted Lieu: (01:58:33)
    But we don’t even have to talk about the crime of bribery. There’s another crime here, which is the solicitation of assistance of a foreign government in a federal election campaign. That straight up violates the Federal Election Campaign Act at 52 USC 30101. And oh, by the way, that act is also one reason Michael Cohen is sitting in prison right now. I yield back.
    ----
     
Draft saved Draft deleted
Loading...

Hide similar threads Similar threads with keywords - Impeachment, Hearings, Public