The Impeachment Thread

#29,057
#29,057
McDad said:
Are lines of distinction between lawful and unlawful conditional foreign aid set as a matter of law or precedent (since presidents do have broad authority in such matters)?
Click to expand...
This seems to define the lines of distinction. (from the article I linked)
If the president delayed aid to extract a favor from Ukraine’s government, that not only would have undermined our policy, but it also would have fallen outside of his legal authority as chief executive and violated federal election laws. He could have delayed the aid to further policy objectives. He could have, pursuant to the Impoundment Act, asked for the funds to be redirected. He could not, however, legally, direct congressionally appropriated funds to achieve personal political ends.
 
#29,058
#29,058
Boston Vol said:
Oh it’s NPR, that’s even worse news for liberals
Click to expand...

Is that how it works?

I love watching you guys bob and weave through polls... Tomorrow Trump will be extolling how NPR poll is his salvation, next week he'll be crying like a lil' lady boi about how the polls aren't fair.

Cracks me up to see the right trot out a rando poll every three months because it gives them a glimmer of hope for whatever narrative they're trying to spin that day.
 
#29,059
#29,059
luthervol said:
Lots of good info. I just copied a few different pieces. Worth reading.
Donny & the Whistleblower: Impeachment Inquiry Opened
What has been obscured in the back and forth is that presidents do, in fact, have broad authority to condition aid to a foreign nation, even to delay it if there are concerns that it will not be used for its intended purposes. That is Trump’s power as president. But he doesn’t appear to have exercised it lawfully in this case.
Under ordinary circumstances, deciding to withhold urgently needed assistance to an important ally would engage the national security establishment at the highest level.
Pentagon official Laura Cooper suggested in a July 31 meeting that if the administration was going to hold up aid, it was obliged to either rescind the appropriation or ask the Defense Department to reprogram the resources. This would have been in accordance with the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which prevents the president from unilaterally substituting his own funding decisions for those of Congress.
Click to expand...
Funny how you guys didn’t give a **** for eight ****ing years under Obama, he sent pillows and MRE’s and let Putin annex Crimea to boot. You guys are going to get a severe beatdown come November..
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanjustin
#29,060
#29,060
FLVOL69 said:
Funny how you guys didn’t give a **** for eight ****ing years under Obama, he sent pillows and MRE’s and let Putin annex Crimea to boot. You guys are going to get a severe beatdown come November..
Click to expand...
That's because Obama was great and Trump is horrendously despicable.
Bring on the beatdown.
 
#29,061
#29,061
luthervol said:
This seems to define the lines of distinction. (from the article I linked)
If the president delayed aid to extract a favor from Ukraine’s government, that not only would have undermined our policy, but it also would have fallen outside of his legal authority as chief executive and violated federal election laws. He could have delayed the aid to further policy objectives. He could have, pursuant to the Impoundment Act, asked for the funds to be redirected. He could not, however, legally, direct congressionally appropriated funds to achieve personal political ends.
Click to expand...

I've read different accounts of the QPQ. Who testified under oath there was a QPQ in place?

I have another Q about the Impoundment Act in a bit.
 
#29,062
#29,062
Septic said:
Is that how it works?

I love watching you guys bob and weave through polls... Tomorrow Trump will be extolling how NPR poll is his salvation, next week he'll be crying like a lil' lady boi about how the polls aren't fair.

Cracks me up to see the right trot out a rando poll every three months because it gives them a glimmer of hope for whatever narrative they're trying to spin that day.
Click to expand...
Who is you guys? Trump can die in his sleep tonight for all I care. Funny how you trotted out the Fox poll. So I guess it’s cool for you to cherry pick a poll that fits your narrative. But don’t worry this will all be decided at the polls next November. I’ll play spoiler for you, you’re not going to like the outcome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, 0nelilreb and McDad
#29,063
#29,063
Boston Vol said:
Who is you guys? Trump can die in his sleep tonight for all I care. Funny how you trotted out the Fox poll. So I guess it’s cool for you to cherry pick a poll that fits your narrative. But don’t worry this will all be decided at the polls next November. I’ll play spoiler for you, you’re not going to like the outcome.
Click to expand...
You're my kind of scum, BV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hUTch2002, AirVol, 0nelilreb and 2 others
#29,066
#29,066
McDad said:
I've read different accounts of the QPQ. Who testified under oath there was a QPQ in place?

I have another Q about the Impoundment Act in a bit.
Click to expand...
“I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a “quid pro quo?” As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes,” Sondland said.
 
#29,068
#29,068
Boston Vol said:
Who is you guys? Trump can die in his sleep tonight for all I care. Funny how you trotted out the Fox poll. So I guess it’s cool for you to cherry pick a poll that fits your narrative. But don’t worry this will all be decided at the polls next November. I’ll play spoiler for you, you’re not going to like the outcome.
Click to expand...

You’re partially correct
 
#29,069
#29,069
luthervol said:
“I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a “quid pro quo?” As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes,” Sondland said.
Click to expand...
Perceived
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL69
#29,070
#29,070
luthervol said:
“I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a “quid pro quo?” As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes,” Sondland said.
Click to expand...

And then what did he say towards the end of the questioning? He told the congressman Trump said no quid pro quo I want nothing do the right thing to the president , you’re so fos
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanjustin
#29,071
#29,071
luthervol said:
“I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a “quid pro quo?” As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes,” Sondland said.
Click to expand...
You find Sondland credible, then. He was under oath during his testimony, correct? Has anyone testified under oath there was no QPQ?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top