Jump to content
LOTROCommunity
Sign in to follow this  
Doro

US Elections 2020

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, LasraelLarson said:

what Trump did do is defer those funds:

Thank you for finally admitting Trump broke the law. Here's the bit you clearly didn't read:

"The ICA requires that the President send a special message to Congress identifying the amount of the proposed deferral; the reasons for it; and the period of the proposed deferral. Upon transmission of such special message, the funds may be deferred without further action by Congress; however, the deferral cannot extend beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the special message is sent"

So yeah, he needs to tell congress first, which he didn't do.

Edit: oh yeah, nice to see you also finally found the exact law I told you to look up. Wasn't that hard, was it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Doro said:

Thank you for finally admitting Trump broke the law.

and you need to realize legal opinions are not binding.

especially partisan ones.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

and you need to realize legal opinions are not binding.

especially partisan ones.

Nothing partisan about the wording in that law, which wasn't followed, and you yourself just admitted to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Doro said:

Nothing partisan about the wording in that law

are you sure you looked at the actual law?

or just an opinion peace?

or was it this? https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/ukraine-clearinghouse-2020.01.16-gao-decision.pdf

you seem to think i found the actual law text (i may have) but so far i haven't referenced it specifically.

legalese is rather boring.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

are you sure you looked at the actual law?

or just an opinion peace?

or was it this? https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/ukraine-clearinghouse-2020.01.16-gao-decision.pdf

you seem to think i found the actual law text (i may have) but so far i haven't referenced it specifically.

legalese is rather boring.

Yep, I looked at the actual law. I'm amazed you managed to find it yourself, it was 3rd or 4th on the list on Google. If you bother to take the time to read it, instead of just blindly throwing your opinion on the subject around, you'll find exactly what was required of a deferral, which was not met by the OMB (I assume you also haven't looked up the footnotes from the OMB's apportionment schedules). Also, do read the GAO report at some point, because it also contains an admission from the OMB regarding the deferral being illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the US Government Accountability Office is free to pursue a Civil Suit based off its opinion.

won't change the fact that a deferral requires no action from Congress.  and the reporting requirement does not impede the separate powers of Congress, they still can't act.

but in the matter of Foreign Affairs it could certainly be argued it does infringe on the separate powers of the President.

had the funds been rescinded, that requires an Act from Congress and their separate powers would be infringed.

so go ahead and file the Civil suit.  maybe this legal contest should happen in an official capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's attempt at buying minority votes.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/trump-allies-target-african-american-voters-with-new-tactic-cash-giveaways/ar-BBZqUj9?li=BBnbcA1

I can see this being a problem. The funny part in the article is if a person gets more than $600 they are supposed to claim it on a W-9 form.  I don't know if it is even normal to have to legally claim value as a recipient of a charity. It is a fucked up way to buy votes claiming it is a charity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Splay said:

Trump's attempt at buying minority votes.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/trump-allies-target-african-american-voters-with-new-tactic-cash-giveaways/ar-BBZqUj9?li=BBnbcA1

I can see this being a problem. The funny part in the article is if a person gets more than $600 they are supposed to claim it on a W-9 form.  I don't know if it is even normal to have to legally claim value as a recipient of a charity. It is a fucked up way to buy votes claiming it is a charity.

It's not like race relations are better under Trump than they were under Obama...

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/race-relations-position-of-minorities-better-under-trump-than-obama

Oh wait....

33 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

the US Government Accountability Office is free to pursue a Civil Suit based off its opinion.

won't change the fact that a deferral requires no action from Congress.  and the reporting requirement does not impede the separate powers of Congress, they still can't act.

but in the matter of Foreign Affairs it could certainly be argued it does infringe on the separate powers of the President.

had the funds been rescinded, that requires an Act from Congress and their separate powers would be infringed.

so go ahead and file the Civil suit.  maybe this legal contest should happen in an official capacity.

Careful, the Democrats might lose their spine because they are trying to force someone NOT to run again... because they honestly think they know better than the general populace, and want to have it their way or they'll throw another four year temper tantrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

won't change the fact that a deferral requires no action from Congress.

No, but a deferral does require Congress to be notified with specific information under specific circumstances, which DID NOT OCCUR. You keep forgetting this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Doro said:

No, but a deferral does require Congress to be notified with specific information under specific circumstances, which DID NOT OCCUR. You keep forgetting this point.

yeah but it would still only matter if funds are rescinded, because failure there impedes on congresses powers to act, or not act and force fund release after 45 days.

the one i am rather uncaring about... is like asking the President to tell Congress when he goes to the bathroom, whether it is for number 1, or number 2.

they still don't get to vote on that.

its a pedantic filing procedure.  not really bent out of shape over it getting ignored, to be frank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

yeah but it would still only matter if funds are rescinded...

No, again you're not getting the basics here, so stop pretending to read and start reading. A DEFERRAL requires congress to be notified. Whether you care about its importance or not is irrelevant, it's a law, which Trump broke. The entire point of this discussion has rested on something you still fail to comprehend and then tried to claim you don't care about. Why the fuck post then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The goal posts for the Republican defense keep moving, today it's..."If the president does something he thinks will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment".

MAGA for life amiright ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Papi said:

The goal posts for the Republican defense keep moving, today it's..."If the president does something he thinks will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment".

MAGA for life amiright ?

I mean, that's nothing like a fishing expedition for an impeachment without an actual crime being committed just to cover up the corruption of Joe Biden, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

I mean, that's nothing like a fishing expedition for an impeachment without an actual crime being committed just to cover up the corruption of Joe Biden, right?

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from "the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust". Such offenses were "political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself". According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official's duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense. Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have given the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" a broad reading, finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct.

Does impeachment need a crime to have taken place, it would seem not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply the best:

So that everyone is clear, Trump’s team is simultaneously arguing that the House should enforce its subpoenas in court *and* that it is unconstitutional for a court to enforce the House’s subpoenas.

Two more Trump shell games:

Trump first says his officials will only testify in Senate, not House *and* now says Senate can't call witnesses that didn't testify in House

Trump declines to provide witnesses to House *and* now says House was unfair because he had no witnesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, FundinStrongarm said:

Simply the best:

So that everyone is clear, Trump’s team is simultaneously arguing that the House should enforce its subpoenas in court *and* that it is unconstitutional for a court to enforce the House’s subpoenas.

Two more Trump shell games:

Trump first says his officials will only testify in Senate, not House *and* now says Senate can't call witnesses that didn't testify in House

Trump declines to provide witnesses to House *and* now says House was unfair because he had no witnesses.

Trump wants to play the game where he lives between the numbers 22 and 22 and shout catch me if you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Splay said:

Trump wants to play the game where he lives between the numbers 22 and 22 and shout catch me if you can.

The defense is atrocious. They should stick to "no harm was done to Ukraine". But they get caught up with other stuff that they are super weak on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other good one is if DJT thinks his re-election is in the national interest then he can't be impeached (let alone found guilty) since he was simply acting in the national interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, FundinStrongarm said:

The other good one is if DJT thinks his re-election is in the national interest then he can't be impeached (let alone found guilty) since he was simply acting in the national interest.

Yeah, that was brilliant.

“Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest, and mostly you’re right,” Dershowitz declared. “Your election is in the public interest, and if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”

So now it's not that there wasn't a quid pro quo, it's that it's not the sort of quid pro quo that should be impeached. Ignoring that a quid pro quo of any sort is not a legitimate reason to defer funds, which congress weren't told of in the first place. It's like they've got this stupid onion argument, where they cover the actual point in a bunch of stupid objections to obscure it. The drones busy themselves with the irrelevant outer layer, unable to see the core of the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Episode 8... and apparently this whistle blower was neck deep in the Biden/Ukraine corruption, which is why the Democrats are so desperate to keep their identity secret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Doro said:

No, again you're not getting the basics here...

actually it is you who is not understanding.  so let me help a Brit out.

the US has 3 Branches of Government & key to those 3 branches is the separation of powers.

the US Government Accountability Office (US GAO) is a branch of the Legislative. the same branch as the Congress. The US Government Office of Accounting was created in 1921 & in 2004 changed Accounting to Accountability, (i am sure nothing else changes as a result *snark)

yes the legislative does make laws & if those laws are sound & do not harm the separation of powers, or extend the power of Congress (the legislative) to the detriment of the other 2 branches, the Executive (the President) & the Judiciary (Supreme Court & lesser courts)  they tend to go on year after year unchallenged.

The US GAO ruling is non binding.  they aren't the Judiciary.  to get that ruling to be binding, they need to involve the Judiciary (civil suit.)

so whilst the timing of this ruling, 2 weeks ago, is no surprise.  it means next to nothing without trial.  just ask Barack Obama: Seven Times the GAO Found the Obama Administration Violated Federal Law.  and no i am not saying this excuses anything.  just pointing out these rulings aren't exactly as incriminating as you seem to think.

so if the Judiciary is involved, you need to ask...  how was Congress harmed by the timely Deferrals of Ukrainian Aid by the US Office of Management & Budget (US OMB) & President Trump?

you should also consider the US OMB & the President part of the Executive branch with its own "Separate Powers"

additionally how historically has the Judiciary reacted when reviewing spats between the Legislative and Executive Branches?

perhaps drop that British mental framework and understand this is the US with a whole different rule set.

22 hours ago, Doro said:

so stop pretending to read and start reading. A DEFERRAL requires congress to be notified.

OK so tell me, have you read section:  §686. Reports by Comptroller General of the Impound Control Act?

it is a pretty important provision should a President fail to transmit a special message.

if you have read it do you understand it?

and if yes, can you tell me what went wrong?


the January 16, 2020 GOA decision really isn't all that surprising & i am really looking forward to November 2020!

image.thumb.png.7c392932f3b1412d87d51dc90ad637fb.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire process is wrought with constitutional issues, which Trump will likely have legal recourse to challenge. I operate under the assumption he is guilty as all politicians are corrupt to some degree, and nothing I have seen so far is precedent setting given the many other shennanigans that have gone on in washington. 

The main constitutional issue Trump has as his fall back (thats assuming the senate convicts which is unlikely) is Senators are required to take an oath for the impeachment trial, I believe this is in Clause 6 in the constitution under Article 1. This oath requires all senators to uphold impartial justice, which seems dubious given 3 senators are running for the nomination of the opposing party to replace Trump. Their interests conflict clearly with this mandate and that alone is a basis for Trump to argue the validity of those 3 votes, again assuming that there are enough votes to convict him in this matter. 

I think Trump is a blowhard and a snake oil salesman but based on what he has done so far he's been a better than average president. I think the real issue here is not the narrative that the democrats want to undo 2016, but they are acutely aware that they dont have a good platform or candidate for 2020. Trump went populist in 2016, a very simple message meant to appeal to masses and it worked. 

The question the democrats arent answering is why did it work? They are attacking the pied piper and not understanding why his tune got so many to flock to his banner. Many of the same working class people that voted for Obama voted for Trump for the same reason, they want washington to dial back globalism. This talk of 3d chess being played by Trump is laughable, he's a populist, and populists always succeed when they time the message right. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

can't count the times when disdain has turned to praise...

 

Sure, but they have a commander in chief who has mastered it.  I mean Trump went from alleging that Ted Cruz's father helped with the JFK assassination to calling him "beautiful" Ted once the Senator kissed his ass deep and long enough.  And that is just one example.  Let's not forget the numerous cabinet officials he said were the "best" until they weren't (after they quit or were "fired")...often within a week of each other.

And then there are the member's of the Republican party...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...