GAO says Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid

  
Via:  tessylo  •  one month ago  •  142 comments

By:   Tyler Olsen, Fox News

GAO says Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


GAO says Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid










Nancy Pelosi says Trump will be ‘impeached forever’


Fox News’ Kevin Corke reports on the latest news on the Trump impeachment battle.





The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a legal opinion on Thursday saying that   President Trump's  administration broke the law by withholding defense aid to   Ukraine   — the issue at the heart of the president's   impeachment trial .

That money, $214 million which had been allocated to the   Department of Defense   for security assistance, was appropriated by Congress and therefore the administration did not have the right to hold it back just because it disagreed with its allocation, the opinion from the nonpartisan government watchdog said.

"Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law," the opinion said. "[The Office of Management and Budget] OMB withheld funds for a policy reason ... not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that the OMB violated the ICA [Impoundment Control Act]."

The OMB made clear Thursday, however, that it disagreed with the GAO report.

“We disagree with GAO's opinion," OMB spokesperson Rachel Semmel said. "OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President's priorities and with the law."

Further, a senior administration official said to Fox News that they believed the GAO was trying to insert itself into impeachment at a time when media attention on the matter is high.

"GAO’s findings are a pretty clear overreach as they attempt to insert themselves into the media’s controversy of the day. Further, GAO has a history of the flip-flops, reversing 40-years of precedent this year on their pocket rescission decision, they were also forced to reverse a legally faulty opinion when they opposed the reimbursement of federal employee travel costs. In their rush to insert themselves in the impeachment narrative, maybe they’ll have to reverse their opinion again.”


The aid was later released to Ukraine after a now-famous whistleblower complaint was filed and after the fact it was being withheld was made public.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., responded to the GAO's report Thursday morning with a statement re-upping his demand that the Senate consider additional documents as evidence in the upcoming impeachment trial.

“The GAO opinion makes clear that the documents we requested in our  letter  last month are even more needed now because GAO confirmed the president broke the law," Schumer said. “All senators will get a chance to vote to obtain these documents next week.”




Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., chairwoman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, said in a statement that she was concerned the Trump administration usurped Congress' constitutional authority.

“Today’s report is extremely troubling because it documents in great detail President Trump’s belief that he is above the law and his utter contempt for Congress as a co-equal branch of government," she wrote.

The Trump administration, through the OMB, withheld a total of about $400 million of security assistance from Ukraine last summer. This came after Trump asked Ukrainian President Voldomyr Zelensky to investigate the family of his 2020 rival, Joe Biden, and while the White House allegedly was withholding an Oval Office visit from Zelensky in exchange for that investigation.

These actions are what fueled the impeachment effort against Trump, whose trial technically gets underway Thursday and moves into full swing next week.

The $214 million the GAO says was illegally withheld was allocated to the Department of Defense, while the rest was allocated to the State Department. The legal opinion said the GAO also had questions about the money from State, and that it was looking into whether that, "withholding was proper."

"The Constitution grants the President no unilateral authority to withhold funds from obligation," the opinion said. "Instead, Congress has vested the President with strictly circumscribed authority to impound, or withhold, budget authority only in limited circumstances as expressly provided in the ICA."

The opinion raised further constitutional concerns about the lack of cooperation from the Trump and his executive branch officials with the GAO's investigation. The opinion's conclusion panned "a reluctance to provide a fulsome response," on the part of the OMB and the State Department, which the opinion's author, GAO General Counsel Thomas H. Armstrong, said interfered with the GAO's oversight role on behalf of Congress.

"GAO's role under the ICA  – to provide information and legal analysis to Congress as it performs its oversight of executive activity – is essential to ensuring respect for and allegiance to Congress' constitutional power of the purse," he wrote.

"The President has narrow, limited authority to withhold appropriations under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974," Armstrong continued in a separate press statement. "OMB told GAO that it withheld the funds to ensure that they were not spent 'in a manner that could conflict with the President’s foreign policy.' The law does not permit OMB to withhold funds for policy reasons."




Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Tessylo
1  seeder  Tessylo    one month ago

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a legal opinion on Thursday saying that      President Trump's    administration broke the law by withholding defense aid to      Ukraine       — the issue at the heart of the president's      impeachment trial   .

That money, $214 million which had been allocated to the      Department of Defense       for security assistance, was appropriated by Congress and therefore the administration did not have the right to hold it back just because it disagreed with its allocation, the opinion from the nonpartisan government watchdog said.

"Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law," the opinion said. "[The Office of Management and Budget] OMB withheld funds for a policy reason ... not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that the OMB violated the ICA [Impoundment Control Act]."

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @1    one month ago

Further, a senior administration official said to Fox News that they believed the GAO was trying to insert itself into impeachment at a time when media attention on the matter is high.

"GAO’s findings are a pretty clear overreach as they attempt to insert themselves into the media’s controversy of the day. Further, GAO has a history of the flip-flops, reversing 40-years of precedent this year on their pocket rescission decision, they were also forced to reverse a legally faulty opinion when they opposed the reimbursement of federal employee travel costs. In their rush to insert themselves in the impeachment narrative, maybe they’ll have to reverse their opinion again.”

You've got another nothing burger here....their opinion doesn't count, and they are not a party to the impeachment process.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    one month ago
You've got another nothing burger here....their opinion doesn't count, and they are not a party to the impeachment process.

So you are basing your opinion on the opinion of an anonymous 'senior administration official'. That's a sad example of gaslighting by Trump minions.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Dulay @1.1.1    one month ago
So you are basing your opinion on the opinion of an anonymous 'senior administration official'.

No. He's basing his opinion on the opinion of an anonymous 'senior administration official's "maybe".

"maybe they’ll have to reverse their opinion again".

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @1.1.1    one month ago
That's a sad example of gaslighting by Trump minions.

No different than what many of the [Deleted] do.  Guess you're all for the double standard.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.3    one month ago
No different than what many of the libtards do. 

Your whataboutism is noted. 

Guess you're all for the double standard.

What double standard is that Jeremy? 

I for one believe that we are all individually responsible for what we beleive and disseminate. I also believe when someone disseminates bullshit here on NT, it should be called out. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.1.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @1.1.4    one month ago
I also believe when someone disseminates bullshit here on NT, it should be called out. 

That would require being down the middle.  That doesn't exist on NT.  I'd venture a guess that about 60% of the people here are laying on their left.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.5    one month ago
That would require being down the middle. That doesn't exist on NT.

Neither disseminating bullshit or calling it out requires being down the middle.  

I'd venture a guess that about 60% of the people here are laying on their left.

Relevance? 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.1.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @1.1.6    one month ago
Relevance? 

It means you would be busy.

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.8  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.4    one month ago
when someone disseminates bullshit here on NT, it should be called out. 

Is that why you get called out so frequently?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.10  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.1.8    one month ago
Is that why you get called out so frequently?

Do I? 

I don't keep count. That must keep you busy...

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.7    one month ago
It means you would be busy.

How so and how would that make it relevant? 

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
1.1.12  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.3    one month ago

Without a doubt!  So very well said and right on.  That’s the way it is here.  

 
 
 
SteevieGee
1.1.13  SteevieGee  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    one month ago

The time for a President to withhold foreign aid that is appropriated by Congress is BEFORE HE SIGNS THE BUDGET.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2  Paula Bartholomew    one month ago

I have given up on the Senate doing the right thing.  The republicans will ignore all of the proof and find Trump innocent.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1  MUVA  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2    one month ago

First there has to be proof and as of yet there is no reason for him to be impeached hating Trump isn’t proof.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.1.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  MUVA @2.1    one month ago

I am talking about proof in the forms of testimony and documents.  He has been impeached.  That won't be changed, but as far as removed, it won't happen as his party will vote with blinders on.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.2  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.1    one month ago
First there has to be proof and as of yet there is no reason for him to be impeached hating Trump isn’t proof.

Yes MUVA, I know that you and your fellow travelers don't think that the evidence of Trump's abuse of power, obstruction of Congress and violation of the ICA aren't proof of impeachable conduct. You are all wrong. 

But hey, I won't pretend that I expect GOP Senators to find their gonads or their honor any time soon so I've just about accepted that Trump will get away with it. 

I also won't pretend that I won't gloat when a Democratic President does what Trump has. I'll be pissed and disappointed but I'll also be hard put to cite any real world basis to hold him/her accountable. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2.1.1    one month ago

I disagree on one point Paula. 

They don't have the excuse of having 'blinders on'. Their eyes are wide open and they are making a conscience choice to dismiss the evidence right in front of their faces. I would challenge any one of them to look in their heart of hearts and ask themselves if they would so dismissive if Trump was a Democrat. 

Not that they have any compunction of acting hypocritically. They've made that abundantly clear. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.1.4  Ronin2  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2.1.1    one month ago

Hatred, feelings, and conjecture are not evidence. Not one of the Democrats witnesses would state Trump broke any laws. These were hand picked witnesses by the Democratic Party. Not one Republican witness was granted.

The only time the Republicans had a say was when they were allowed a Constitutional lawyer, that had to be approved by the Democrats first, to state why impeachment should not go forward. He was a Democrat; and his testimony refuted the Democrats' faux investigation.  Of course the Democrats ignored him.

The only thing the Democrats have proven is that they are not fit to hold any office anywhere. For the first time ever I may be voting a straight Republican ticket.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.5  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @2.1.2    one month ago

I would like to know when I went to Iraq and spent 15 years in the military was I a traveler? 

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1.6  WallyW  replied to  Dulay @2.1.3    one month ago

You want the truth?

Our desire to retain Trump is purely political....

the desire by the left to remove him is also purely political.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.7  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.1.5    one month ago
I would like to know when I went to Iraq and spent 15 years in the military was I a traveler? 

Were you a Trump sycophant then too? 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.8  Dulay  replied to  WallyW @2.1.6    one month ago
You want the truth?

Our desire to retain Trump is purely political....

the desire by the left to remove him is also purely political.

Yes Wally but if you READ MORE CAREFULLY you would recognize that my question is to the Senate. You know, the ones that took an oath to do impartial justice...

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.4    one month ago
Hatred, feelings, and conjecture are not evidence. Not one of the Democrats witnesses would state Trump broke any laws. 

ALL of the witnesses were called as 'fact witnesses', not political or legal pundits. It wasn't their place to make legal judgements. 

These were hand picked witnesses by the Democratic Party.

What an utter load of bullshit. ALL of these people were employed by the Trump Executive Branch. Trump 'hand picked' them. 

Not one Republican witness was granted. The only time the Republicans had a say was when they were allowed a Constitutional lawyer, that had to be approved by the Democrats first, to state why impeachment should not go forward. 

False. Volker and Morrison were on the GOP's list. I guess you want to ignore that since they didn't do Trump one bit of good. 

He was a Democrat; and his testimony refuted the Democrats' faux investigation.  

Actually, Turley didn't refute one word documented by the investigation. His whole argument was that they should spend more time litigating subpoenas and begging for more witnesses to come forward. 

Of course the Democrats ignored him.

Yet they didn't ignore the facts in front of them like the GOP did. 

The only thing the Democrats have proven is that they are not fit to hold any office anywhere.

Obtuse. 

For the first time ever I may be voting a straight Republican ticket.

You be you...

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
2.1.10  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @2.1.3    one month ago
I would challenge any one of them to look in their heart of hearts and ask themselves if they would so dismissive if Trump was a Democrat. 

The same could be said of the House.  If Trump were a Democrat, do you think this would have happened in the first place?  I don't. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.10    one month ago
The same could be said of the House.  If Trump were a Democrat, do you think this would have happened in the first place?  I don't. 

Glad that you acknowledge that a Democrat wouldn't have so blatantly abused presidential power, obstructed justice or ordered minions to violate the ICA. I agree. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
2.1.12  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @2.1.11    one month ago
Glad that you acknowledge that a Democrat wouldn't have so blatantly abused presidential power, obstructed justice or ordered minions to violate the ICA. I agree. 

Yeah.  Never said that.  We've already seen Democrats abusing power (as they do everything they can to get the President's taxes), obstructing justice (i.e. the "Mueller Investigation") and so on and so on.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.13  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.12    one month ago
Yeah.  Never said that. 

Sure looked like it to me. 

We've already seen Democrats abusing power (as they do everything they can to get the President's taxes),

The Democrats are using the LAW. That is in no way abusing their power, it's actually USING their power. 

Oh and BTFW, Trump's lawyers have NOT claimed that the Committee's are abusing their power, they've claimed that they don't need the information. Try to keep up. 

obstructing justice (i.e. the "Mueller Investigation") and so on and so on.

How the hell did the Mueller investigation obstruct justice Jeremy? Be specific.

Oh and so on and so on couldn't be more vauge. Well done. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.14  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @2.1.7    one month ago

I was a American sycophant like now when I volunteered twice actually 3 I was injured in training that force me out of the military.I have a 20 x 9 piece of mess in my stomach and 3 back operations worth of traveling.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.15  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.1.14    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
2.1.16  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2.1.1    one month ago

No that’s what the impeaching party in the house of scoundrels did

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
2.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2    one month ago
The republicans will ignore all of the proof and find Trump innocent.

Lets see, 1st there was "proof" of collusion with Russia.  Then there was "proof" of Quid Pro Quo.  And thanks to democrat "investigations" those both fell through.  And now we have "proof" of obstruction of congress and abuse of power amounting to nothing more than "Trump beat us and we can't handle it".

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.1  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.2    one month ago
Lets see, 1st there was "proof" of collusion with Russia. 

There still is. 

Then there was "proof" of Quid Pro Quo.

One need only listen and read Trump's own words.   

And thanks to democrat "investigations" those both fell through. 

Neither 'fell though'. 

And now we have "proof" of obstruction of congress and abuse of power amounting to nothing more than "Trump beat us and we can't handle it".

Only someone who hasn't read the Impeachment Inquiry report could make such a ridiculous comment. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
2.2.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @2.2.1    one month ago
There still is. 

Yeah, no there isn't. 

Only someone who hasn't read the Impeachment Inquiry report could make such a ridiculous comment. 

No.  When you look at everything else the Democrats have thrown at the President and the results, that is exactly how these "charges" are.  

And I did forget about the instance in the seeded article.  The Ukraine did get their aid.  And it didn't equate to firing somebody investigating a politicians son.  (you know, quid pro quo)

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.3  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.2.2    one month ago
Yeah, no there isn't. 

The Mueller report documents collusion between his campaign and Russians. You should read it. 

No.  When you look at everything else the Democrats have thrown at the President and the results, that is exactly how these "charges" are.

You're obviously speaking from a position of ignorance of the content of the report and you have no intention of correcting that shortfall. 

And I did forget about the instance in the seeded article.  The Ukraine did get their aid.  

Actually they didn't Jeremy. Another uninformed comment that could be have been avoided by pursuing the facts rather than accepting the gaslighting from Trump. 

It actually took an act of Congress for the full amount of the 2019 appropriation to be obligated to Ukraine Military aid. The evidence for this FACT is documented and available for anyone curious enough to understand the issue with cogency rather than regurgitating Trump propaganda. 

And it didn't equate to firing somebody investigating a politicians son.  (you know, quid pro quo)

That didn't happen Jeremy. Get educated. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @2.2.3    one month ago
[removed]

 
 
 
MUVA
3  MUVA    one month ago

No they didn’t break any laws it’s just more some liberals wet dream.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1  Ozzwald  replied to  MUVA @3    one month ago
No they didn’t break any laws it’s just more some liberals wet dream.

In their own opinions.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @3    one month ago
No they didn’t break any laws it’s just more some liberals wet dream.

I presume that you have some form of rebuttal for the evidence put forth by the GAO report. Please post your cogent rebuttal. Sycophancy for Trump isn't rebuttal 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.2.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Dulay @3.2    one month ago
Please post your cogent rebuttal.

Now that's funny. Perhaps a dolphin is smart enough to expand upon the theory of relativity, but I'm not going to wait around listening to it's squeaks and whistles for a better understanding of it.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.2  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @3.2    one month ago

I can read opinions like everyone else so I looked at what some lawyers said on both sides of the argument and came to the Opinion some are not going to need that tissue after all.   

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.3  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @3.2.2    one month ago

Really? Which lawyers? 

Post a lawyers statement that you relied on to reach your opinion. I haven't read ONE that states that what Trump did was kosher or legal other than Cipollone and Giuliani. Enlighten me. 

BTFW, I note that your didn't post one fucking word that rebutted the GAO report. Do you have a lawyer statement for that too? 

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.4  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @3.2.3    one month ago

You will get nothing and like it.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.5  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @3.2.4    one month ago
You will get nothing and like it.

So you've got nothing. No credibility. No surprise.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  MUVA @3    one month ago
No they didn’t break any laws

"The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a legal opinion on Thursday saying that   President Trump's administration broke the law"

So we're just supposed to take your personal uninformed, non-expert opinion over that of the GAO? What do you base your opinion on? A strong desire to warm dishonest Donald's feet at night?

"The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. Often called the "congressional watchdog," GAO examines how taxpayer dollars are spent and provides Congress and federal agencies with objective, reliable information to help the government save money and work more efficiently. "

https://www.gao.gov/about/

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.3.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.3    one month ago

Gee, sounds like they are trying to influence the impeachment process.

So you think it is OK for the taxpayers money should be dished out willy-nilly to a known corrupt government.

Trump simply wanted to those corrupt officials investigated...the Bidens were just caught up in the corruption.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.3.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Greg Jones @3.3.1    one month ago
Trump simply wanted to those corrupt officials investigated...the Bidens were just caught up in the corruption.

That bullshit narrative is even less likely now as more and more comes out. Let's hear from John Bolton on the matter if you're so sure of Trumps innocence and that this is all just a silly mistake.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.3.3  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @3.3.1    one month ago
Gee, sounds like they are trying to influence the impeachment process.

Actually, it sounds like you don't have a clue about the GAO's mandate. No surprise. 

So you think it is OK for the taxpayers money should be dished out willy-nilly to a known corrupt government.

No. Taxpayers money should be dished out through appropriation legislation passed by Congress and signed into law. 

Trump SPECIFICALLY proposed $250 million for Ukraine in his 2019 budget. The Congress passed and Trump signed an appropriation bill to fund $250 million for Ukraine, exactly what Trump asked for. 

There is a mandated process for withholding Congressionally appropriated funds. It seems that since Trump thinks he can do whatever the fuck he wants, he thinks he don't need to follow no stinkin' laws. Of course, there is always the FACT that Trump and his sycophants knew from the get go that their justification for withholding the funds was corrupt. 

Trump simply wanted to those corrupt officials investigated...

Again, there's a Treaty agreement between the US and Ukraine that allows that to happen out in the open and LEGALLY. Perhaps you'd like to explain WHY Trump failed to use that process rather than keep his 'favor' clandestine? 

the Bidens were just caught up in the corruption.

Please post evidence to support your proclamation. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.3.4  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @3.3.1    one month ago

Trump simply wanted to those corrupt officials investigated...the Bidens were just caught up in the corruption.

By being corrupt himself. SMFH.. Greg, trump didn't want an investigation regarding the Biden's, he wanted an ANNOUNCEMENT of an investigation. All...all of this was ever about was getting some bad press about the Biden's in the public view. That's all it was. Trump and his minions did the EXACT same thing in 2016 with wikileaks. The difference this time is that trump got caught. Why? Because people recognized what he did in 2016 and were looking for it. Sadly, many trump supporters will fall for the same effing scam....twice.  

 
 
 
Dulay
3.3.5  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @3.3.1    one month ago

Greg, do you care about the facts? Will you alter your position if actual facts are presented to you? Or will you do what I've come to expect: you'll gloss over the facts I posted and later today, tomorrow, or the next, you will just rinse and repeat the same false information? 

Never mind. It doesn't matter to me since it's on you to whether you adult or not. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
4  seeder  Tessylo    one month ago

I'm heading out soon for a dental appointment.

Be good!

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @4    one month ago

Good luck.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tessylo @4    one month ago

Rinse and spit.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.1  Dulay  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.2    one month ago

I usually scream and writhe. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @4.2.1    one month ago

I was writhing much of the time, you got that right!

 
 
 
MUVA
5  MUVA    one month ago

Good luck.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6  It Is ME    one month ago

The GAO "Opinion" reputation:

Bush = 3 no,no's.

Obama = 7 no,no's.

Trump = 1 no,no.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  It Is ME @6    one month ago

facts are a burden to others...  LOL

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
6.1.1  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.1    one month ago

But one is an impeachable offense if an R does it but seven is not too much of a D does it.  The progressive way.  

 
 
 
lady in black
7  lady in black    one month ago

Of course he broke the law and his supporters will still defend him...sad, really sad

 
 
 
Dulay
7.1  Dulay  replied to  lady in black @7    one month ago

What's really telling about the report is that OMB lawyers gave up trying to figure out a cogent argument to defend Trump's actions. They KNOW that their 'justification' was a non-started yet it's all they could come up with. 

The emails that were released between OMB and the DOD PROVE that the DOD informed the OMB that they couldn't legally withhold the funding without documenting a reason that qualifies under the ICA. Trump removed Sandy's sign off authority and placed Duffy, a political appointee in his place. The DOJ redacted emails to cover up what Trump was doing. The unredacted emails prove that too. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
7.2  Greg Jones  replied to  lady in black @7    one month ago

But it is not a high crime or misdemeanor in the legal sense, and certainly not grounds for removal from office.

 
 
 
lady in black
7.2.1  lady in black  replied to  Greg Jones @7.2    one month ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.2.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Greg Jones @7.2    one month ago
But it is not a high crime or misdemeanor in the legal sense

The "high crime" in a legal sense was his abuse of power. The GAO just confirmed Trump broke the letter of law in addition to his abuse of power.

"High," in the legal and common parlance of the 17th and 18th centuries of "high crimes," is activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons. A high crime is one that can be done only by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," used together, was a common phrase when the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt but meant the opposite." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.3  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @7.2    one month ago
But it is not a high crime or misdemeanor in the legal sense, and certainly not grounds for removal from office.

You've just proven that you have no clue the term 'high crime or misdemeanor' means. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
7.2.4  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Dulay @7.2.3    one month ago

ya sure about that?

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.6  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @7.2.5    one month ago
Why were you not concerned when Obama broke the law?

How do you know I wasn't? 

I wonder why Krauthammer didn't send his list over to Trump so he could repeal all of those 'unconstitutional' EO's on day one. Three years later and they are still in effect. 

The Trump DOJ has also had three years to empanel a Grand Jury and indict Obama for any and all of the alleged crimes in your links. NADA, nothing. One would think that you would be decrying the incompetence of Trump's 'law and order' DOJ but you aren't. 

It seems that it's become a GOP MO to 'announce' allegations rather than to actually address them. 

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
7.3  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  lady in black @7    one month ago

And you all thought nothing of it when the same GAO called out Obama seven times for the same thing.  

 
 
 
lady in black
7.3.1  lady in black  replied to  Donald J. Trump fan 1 @7.3    one month ago

But, but, but Obama...nice deflection

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
7.3.2  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  lady in black @7.3.1    one month ago

pointing out hypocrisy is not a deflection.

using "but obama" to ignore that hypocrisy?  that is the deflection.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.3.3  Dulay  replied to  Donald J. Trump fan 1 @7.3    one month ago
And you all thought nothing of it when the same GAO called out Obama seven times for the same thing.  

Unless you can post some evidence for that proclamation, it's just another load you've dumped here on NT. 

You should go back and review the breitbart article you got that bullshit from. Not one word about Obama violating the Impoundment Act. 

FAIL.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.3.4  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @7.3.3    one month ago
Unless you can post some evidence for that proclamation

[deleted]

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
7.3.5  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  Tacos! @7.3.4    one month ago

Exactly whole statement well said and right on.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8  Sean Treacy    one month ago

The GAO said Obama broke the law.

Remember the Democratic rush to impeach him?

Neither do I.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    one month ago
The GAO said Obama broke the law.
Remember the Democratic rush to impeach him?
Neither do I.

That is false. 

The GAO said the DOD 'broke the law'. 

Try harder. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @8.1    one month ago

That's right. 

The DOD wasn't part of the Obama administration. The commander in chief isn't responsible for the DoD. I'm sure Obama had no idea the Bergdahl exchange even  took place. 

He was just an innocent bystander, surprised by the whole thing. 

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.1    one month ago
That's right.  The DOD wasn't part of the Obama administration.

You didn't say the 'Obama administration' broke the law though, did you Sean?

The commander in chief isn't responsible for the DoD. I'm sure Obama had no idea the Bergdahl exchange even  took place.  He was just an innocent bystander, surprised by the whole thing.

By YOUR standard, Trump is unequivocally guilty of violating the ICA. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @8.1.2    one month ago
You didn't say the 'Obama administration' broke the law though, did you Sean?

Obama was responsible for the Bergdahl swap. If you want to embarrass yourself by claiming otherwise, I can't stop you. 

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.3    one month ago
Obama was responsible for the Bergdahl swap. If you want to embarrass yourself by claiming otherwise, I can't stop you. 

Since I'm not the one making unfounded and unsubstantiated proclamations, I have no reason to be embarrassed. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
8.1.5  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.3    one month ago
Obama was responsible for the Bergdahl swap.

True, and it was a good swap because then we could prosecute his traitorous ass. But since ya went down that road. Bush released over 500 terrorists and what did we get in return? Nothing. At least with Obama, we got SOMETHING for the 5 low level terrorists we exchanged. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    one month ago

This is not about President Obama ferchrissakes 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
8.2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @8.2    one month ago

Yeah, but......

He apparently broke the law as president, so discussing his failures is relevant.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
8.2.2  Cerenkov  replied to  Greg Jones @8.2.1    one month ago

The deflection is strong with the left.

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
8.2.3  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  Cerenkov @8.2.2    one month ago

it’s all they got! 

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2.4  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @8.2.1    one month ago
He apparently broke the law as president, so discussing his failures is relevant.

If you are basing your assertion on Sean's comment, you should recognize that it's false. 

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
8.3  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    one month ago

I didn’t see a Republican attempt to do so either.  More evidence that impeachment was  automatic the day the Dems regained control of the House.  It’s been Their only objective since that day. This is nothing more than a political impeachment due to nothing more than raw majority power based on no real high crime or misdemeanor 

 
 
 
Tacos!
9  Tacos!    one month ago
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a legal opinion on Thursday

Yeah. They have a long and embarrassing record of doing that. No one ever thought their opinion was grounds for impeachment until Trump.

 
 
 
Dulay
9.1  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @9    one month ago
Yeah. They have a long and embarrassing record of doing that. No one ever thought their opinion was grounds for impeachment until Trump.

What other GAO legal opinion documented that a president ordered an executive branch agency to intentionally violate a law that was specifically written to preclude the president from giving those orders? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
9.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @9.1    one month ago

Hey if you think there’s a case to be made, go for it. List the historical opinions and show how they are different from the current one and provide a legal analysis as to why those differences are pertinent. I look forward to the results of your research.

 
 
 
Dulay
9.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.1    one month ago
Hey if you think there’s a case to be made, go for it. List the historical opinions and show how they are different from the current one and provide a legal analysis as to why those differences are pertinent. I look forward to the results of your research.

Can't support your claims. Got ya. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
9.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @9.1.2    one month ago
Can't support your claims. Got ya. 

Dip into your bag of clichés for a different one. I didn’t make a claim. 

Meanwhile, you want me to differentiate this event from previous ones, making the implicit claim that there is an important difference or differences we should all consider. You have been invited to prove it and deflected. 

 
 
 
Dulay
9.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.3    one month ago
I didn’t make a claim. 

You sure as hell DID make the claim that the GAO has an 'embarrassing record'. 

Meanwhile, you want me to differentiate this event from previous ones, making the implicit claim that there is an important difference or differences we should all consider.

Actually NO Tacos!. I differentiated the GAO's decision on the Ukraine funding with this:

What other GAO legal opinion documented that a president ordered an executive branch agency to intentionally violate a law that was specifically written to preclude the president from giving those orders? 

First of all, I am talking to YOU. There is no 'we' making a claim, there is only YOU. 

I invited you to cite any other decision, in the GAO's 'embarrassing record', that rules that a specific president so overtly violating such a law. 

You have been invited to prove it and deflected. 

I am relying on the GAO report on Trump withholding the Ukraine funding. Rather than posting an unfounded kneejerk response, I did do my due diligence and review some other decisions about the Impoundment act.

The recent decisions about the question put to the GAO all follow the same line of argument. The Congress specifically precluded the President from impounding funds without notice and authorization of Congress. 

Interestingly, one of those recent decisions was requested by Rep. Steve Womack, who can't claim that he didn't know what Trump did was illegal, yet he voted against impeachment. 

https://www.gao.gov/products/D19742#mt=e-report

Since YOU made the allegation that they have an 'embarrassing record', it is your burden to prove it, not mine. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
9.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @9.1.4    one month ago
Since YOU made the allegation that they have an 'embarrassing record', it is your burden to prove it, not mine. 

That’s an opinion, not a claim. So, it doesn’t require “proof.” Go sea lion someone else.

 
 
 
Dulay
9.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.5    one month ago

You obviously don't understand the term sealioning. 

YOU are the one demanding proof for which you have no sincere desire. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
9.1.7  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @9.1.6    one month ago
YOU are the one demanding proof for which you have no sincere desire. 

Nope. Haven't demanded anything from you. Could not care less. Just invited you to flesh out your own point. If you don't want you, I'm sure we'll all be happier for one less post of nonsense.

 
 
 
Dulay
9.1.8  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.7    one month ago

Well at least you didn't try to pretend that you were sincere. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
9.1.9  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @9.1.8    one month ago

Uh huh. Are you looking for fish?

 
 
 
Dulay
9.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.9    one month ago

No. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
10  bbl-1    one month ago

The fix or the skate is in.  Trump has Dershowitz and Starr on his defense team.  Seeing as how Trump will never go under oath and the impeachment proceedings are not about sex the Trump is free and clear.

Besides, the republicans don't give a whit about law when it comes to Trump.  Something is happening.  Something very un-American.  The Constitution be damned.

 
 
 
pat wilson
10.1  pat wilson  replied to  bbl-1 @10    one month ago

Ya, Starr was fired when he was president of Baylor University for protecting football players accused of sexual assault, (numerous cases).

Dershowitz is a pedophile who defended pedophile Epstein. He also defended OJ Simpson and was an adviser to Harvey Weinstein.

Pam Bondi, as Attorney General in Florida declined to act against trump when litigants sued his "university". This was after trump foundation donated $25,000 to her campaign (she's a cheap date, for a little more she'd probably toss his salad.)

What a team !!!

 
 
 
bbl-1
10.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  pat wilson @10.1    one month ago

I heard Dershowitz say he was, "A liberal democrat," twice on the TV today.  What ever that has to do with anything.  Has Dershowitz taken one to may rides on the lysergic acid diethylamide train? 

 
 
 
pat wilson
10.1.2  pat wilson  replied to  bbl-1 @10.1.1    one month ago

Has Dershowitz taken one to may rides on the lysergic acid diethylamide train? 

Who knows ?

Whatever his politics are he's a scum bag.

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  pat wilson @10.1    one month ago
This was after trump foundation donated $25,000 to her campaign (she's a cheap date, for a little more she'd probably toss his salad.)

Yep, all true. And all the while trump was screaming that the Clinton Foundation was corrupt. Trump has a habit of accusing others of what he is guilty of. During the campaign and through his election, it became a running joke that if trump accused someone of something, you could be DAMN sure he had done the same thing. 

Like you pointed out above. Trump kept saying, "Pay for Play Hillary!!!". About a month later it was found that trump used his, "charity" to pay off Bondi and...the AG of texas, (pay for play), forget who it was, all to drop their respective Trump U cases. Undoubtedly because trump knew he was going to have to settle and wanted to mitigate the damage by excluding a couple of states. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  bbl-1 @10.1.1    one month ago
I heard Dershowitz say he was, "A liberal democrat," twice on the TV today.

Yea, as soon as the accusations start to fly, they suddenly turn into democrats. Had there been no accusations, fox would be screaming that he is the greatest conservative ever. He used to be on CNN from time to time, but to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't been on there in a couple of years. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.1.5  MrFrost  replied to  bbl-1 @10.1.1    one month ago
lysergic acid diethylamide

Showing my age, I had to look that one up. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
10.1.6  pat wilson  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.3    one month ago

The swamp is deep in this administration, very, very deep.

 
 
 
bbl-1
10.1.7  bbl-1  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.4    one month ago

Actually, concerning Trump, there are few accusations----but there are mounds of evidence.  Which in itself is amazing since Trump blocks witnesses, documents and for his own part will not/can not testify under oath to prove his innocence.

 
 
 
bbl-1
10.1.8  bbl-1  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.5    one month ago

Yowzers!  lol

 
 
 
bbl-1
10.1.9  bbl-1  replied to  pat wilson @10.1.6    one month ago

Yep.  Former GOP rep Chris Collins just got 26 months for fraud and other things. 

When the Trump says he wants to, "Drain the Swamp," he is referring to truth and justice under the law.  And the Trumpers, they're just lost in the flotsam created by the cult of oligarch billionaires.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
10.1.10  Greg Jones  replied to  pat wilson @10.1    one month ago
Ya, Starr was fired when he was president of Baylor University for protecting football players accused of sexual assault, (numerous cases).

Dershowitz is a pedophile who defended pedophile Epstein. He also defended OJ Simpson and was an adviser to Harvey Weinstein.

Can you verify any and all of these allegations, particularly the one about Dershowitz? The Dems frequently accuse their political opponents

of things that are not true, the Kavanaugh hearings being a recent and disgraceful example

 
 
 
Cerenkov
10.1.11  Cerenkov  replied to  Greg Jones @10.1.10    one month ago

They have no evidence. It's just another smear [Deleted]

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
10.1.12  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  bbl-1 @10.1.9    one month ago

You mean like Steyer, Bloomberg, Soros, Bezos, and the rest of tech world.  And the Oracle of Omaha and the wall st banksters who sold out the working class , the middle class and the Heartland?  

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
10.1.13  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  Cerenkov @10.1.11    one month ago

The political and media left have smearing Christians, conservatives, and newer media down to a so called SPLC based fact checking science.  It’s what they do and who they are as people

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.1.14  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Donald J. Trump fan 1 @10.1.12    one month ago

I am not sure how you can say all those names together and say that they sold out anyone. Most of them came from humble beginnings and are a testimony to the American Dream. You can't just list rich people and say they are all the same. It just isn't the truth.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
10.2  Greg Jones  replied to  bbl-1 @10    one month ago

Don't you think the president should be given the very best of legal advice, given the fake nature of the charges, and forgetting that a sitting president has special powers and privileges.

 
 
 
bbl-1
10.2.1  bbl-1  replied to  Greg Jones @10.2    one month ago

Okay.  Given 'the fake nature' of the charges, Trump has every right to testify under oath and to provide evidence through documents, witnesses or other legal instruments to prove his case.

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
10.2.2  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  bbl-1 @10.2.1    one month ago

Trump has no obligation to prove anything to anyone. He holds the presumption of innocence and it is up to Nancy’s gang of thug persecutors to prove any Trump guilt if any is to be proved to the Chief Justice judge and 2/3 of the US Senate jury jurors.  Without 67 votes you have nothing. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
10.3  Greg Jones  replied to  bbl-1 @10    one month ago
Something very un-American.  The Constitution be damned.

So tell us what is unconstitutional about these proceedings?

 
 
 
bbl-1
10.3.1  bbl-1  replied to  Greg Jones @10.3    one month ago

Nothing is unconstitutional with these proceedings.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
11  Nerm_L    one month ago

When did Lev Parnas become an official of the United States government?  

 
 
 
bbl-1
11.1  bbl-1  replied to  Nerm_L @11    one month ago

That is a question Giuliani should clarify.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
11.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  bbl-1 @11.1    one month ago
That is a question Giuliani should clarify.

Lev Parnas should be capable of clarifying when he became a government official, too.  I don't recall Parnas making any such claim.

Parnas appears to have been doing what Christopher Steele did.  

 
 
 
bbl-1
11.1.2  bbl-1  replied to  Nerm_L @11.1.1    one month ago

No.  Parnas said he was working under the direction and the authority of Giuliani---who allegedly was working under the direction and authority of the president.

Personally, I think Giuliani is------------over stating himself and detrimental to the president's defense.

Christopher Steel merely gleaned information from other foreign services including MI6.  Little of it has been investigated and most of it has not been disproven or proven.  The most concerning allegations in The Steel Dossier were connections between certain Americans and individuals connected with Trump, the Trump campaign and Russians.  Documents to prove or disprove the allegations are still being withheld.  Besides, Steel was contracted first by republican operatives against Trump.  When their efforts did not make a difference other picked up the ball.  To this day nothing in the Steel Dossier has been investigated to either prove or disprove the findings.  It is in limbo and it is also still out there.   

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
11.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  bbl-1 @11.1.2    one month ago

Americans and individuals connected with Trump, the Trump campaign and Russians.  Documents to prove or disprove the allegations are still being withheld.  Besides, Steel was contracted first by republican operatives against Trump. 


Wow!

so much misinformation in so few sentences.  everything you wrote it simply wrong, and given the mueller and IG reports you have no excuse for it.

its not even worth the effort of correcting at this point. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
11.1.4  Nerm_L  replied to  bbl-1 @11.1.2    one month ago
Christopher Steel merely gleaned information from other foreign services including MI6.  Little of it has been investigated and most of it has not been disproven or proven.

Christopher Steele also actively attempted to coax the FBI, State Dept., and intelligence agencies to investigate members of the Trump campaign and Donald Trump.  Steele engaged in the same sorts of activities as Parnas.  Steele directed his attention toward the US government; Parnas directed his attention toward the Ukrainian government.  And there were other Democratic Party operatives working in Ukraine as well.  Circumstantially it appears some of those Democratic operatives were receiving assistance from the US embassy.  

Christopher Steele was successful in his efforts to obtain an investigation of a Democratic political opponent.  Parnas was not successful with the Ukrainian government.  It appears that the Ukrainian government is smarter than the average FBI director.

 
 
 
bbl-1
11.1.5  bbl-1  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.3    one month ago

Except it isn't.  [Deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
11.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  bbl-1 @11.1.5    one month ago

[DeletedI] guess spreading false information intentionally is a better look for you than if you actually believe what you wrote. That would be embarrassing!

Your post is living proof that fake news persists even after it's been thoroughly debunked.  

 
 
 
bbl-1
11.1.7  bbl-1  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.6    one month ago

Ask you again----person.  What lies?

 
 
 
bbl-1
11.1.8  bbl-1  replied to  Nerm_L @11.1.4    one month ago

Absolutely true.  Because there were------odd things----inconsistencies-----that should be examined, especially concerning a person running for a high office.

And no.  Steel and MI6 did not operate in the same manner as Parnas or Giuliani.  What are you protecting? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
11.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  bbl-1 @11.1.7    one month ago

Since you can't actually provide any evidence to support your imaginary claims, I'll try and make this as simple as possible. I'll start with an easy one.

Steele was not first hired by Republicans.

That's false. Once you admit that, I'll point out the next falsehood.

I'm not going to waste my time if you will persist in ignorance.

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @11.1.4    one month ago
Christopher Steele also actively attempted to coax the FBI, State Dept., and intelligence agencies to investigate members of the Trump campaign and Donald Trump. 

Steele gave his findings to the FBI. Your allegations are unfounded. 

Steele engaged in the same sorts of activities as Parnas. 

That is utterly false. Parnas gained access to Ukrainian officials through Giuliani via Trumps. Steel garnered his information independently.  

Steele directed his attention toward the US government

Steele's attention was on Trump who was NOT in the government at the time. Get your facts straight Nerm. 

; Parnas directed his attention toward the Ukrainian government. 

It wasn't 'his attention' Nerm, it was Trump's attention via Giuliani. 

And there were other Democratic Party operatives working in Ukraine as well. Circumstantially it appears some of those Democratic operatives were receiving assistance from the US embassy.

Ohh, tell me all about that conspiracy theory...

 Christopher Steele was successful in his efforts to obtain an investigation of a Democratic political opponent. 

Steele did a solid for the US by reporting a national security threat to the FBI Nerm. 

Parnas was not successful with the Ukrainian government. 

Neither was Trump. 

It appears that the Ukrainian government is smarter than the average FBI director.

Well since this all happened while Wray, Trump's hand picked FBI Director, was in charge, it's Trump's fault right? 

BTW, since Ukraine asked the US to make a FORMAL request for an investigation to be instituted in their country, yes, Ukraine's government WAS smarter than Trump. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
11.1.11  bbl-1  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.9    one month ago

Everything you said is false.  Everything.  You are forever ubiquitous.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
11.1.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  bbl-1 @11.1.11    one month ago

Sad  you didn’t even bother to try and support your made up stories.  That would have been funny to see.

 
 
 
bbl-1
11.1.13  bbl-1  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.12    one month ago

Forever ubiquitous.

Besides, its way past time for you to prove something.  But you can't.  If you could you would have already.

You are wrong.  GOP operatives were the ones that contacted and contracted Steel to glean foreign intel on Trump.  Prove that wrong.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
12  Sean Treacy    one month ago

Americans and individuals connected with Trump, the Trump campaign and Russians.  Documents to prove or disprove the allegations are still being withheld.  Besides, Steel was contracted first by republican operatives against Trump. 


Wow!

so much misinformation in so few sentences.  everything you wrote it simply wrong, and given the mueller and IG reports you have no excuse for it.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
13  Sean Treacy    one month ago

, its way past time for you to prove something.  

You are the one who can't support your arguments, not me. Not any proof to support anyone of your falsehoods (granted you can't support what you made up, but I'm hoping you's try).

  ones that contacted and contracted Steel to glean foreign intel on Trump.  Prove that wrong.

You are the one who is supposed to actually prove your claim. But I know you can't, and you know you can't.  Because it's very easy to look this up.

The Free Beacon project compiling publicly available data on Trump and other candidates ended in April 2016.  The DNC/Clinton hired Steele in June 2016.  The Washington Post even spelled it out in picture form for to help the easily confused. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/politics/steele-timeline/

The sad part is, some  progressives will continue with their falsehoods no matter how many times they are exposed to the truth. Two weeks from now, the same argument will take place. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
13.1  bbl-1  replied to  Sean Treacy @13    one month ago

No.  Everything falls on you.  The Free Beacon report is false with intent.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
13.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  bbl-1 @13.1    one month ago

Is that supposed to be English? 

I've provided proof from the Washington Post, a liberal source. At this point, sticking with gibberish might be your best option, because reality is against you.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online