╌>

GAO says Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  tessylo  •  4 years 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
[]
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Tessylo    4 years 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
Professor Participates
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @1    4 years 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
Professor Expert
1.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    4 years 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
Professor Quiet
1.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Dulay @1.1.1    4 years 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
Professor Expert
1.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @1.1.1    4 years 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
Professor Expert
1.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.3    4 years 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
Professor Expert
1.1.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @1.1.4    4 years 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
Professor Expert
1.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.5    4 years 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
Professor Expert
1.1.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @1.1.6    4 years ago
Relevance? 

It means you would be busy.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.8  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.4    4 years ago
when someone disseminates bullshit here on NT, it should be called out. 

Is that why you get called out so frequently?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.9  XXJefferson51  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    4 years ago

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.10  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.1.8    4 years ago
Is that why you get called out so frequently?

Do I? 

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

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.7    4 years ago
It means you would be busy.

How so and how would that make it relevant? 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.12  XXJefferson51  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.3    4 years ago

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

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
1.1.13  SteevieGee  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    4 years ago

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

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
2  Paula Bartholomew    4 years ago

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

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2    4 years 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
Professor Expert
2.2.1  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.2    4 years 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
Professor Expert
2.2.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @2.2.1    4 years 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
Professor Expert
2.2.3  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.2.2    4 years 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
Professor Principal
2.2.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @2.2.3    4 years ago
[removed]

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2.5  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @2.2.1    4 years ago

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4  seeder  Tessylo    4 years ago

I'm heading out soon for a dental appointment.

Be good!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
4.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tessylo @4    4 years ago

Rinse and spit.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4.2.1  Dulay  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.2    4 years ago

I usually scream and writhe. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @4.2.1    4 years ago

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

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
6  It Is ME    4 years ago

The GAO "Opinion" reputation:

Bush = 3 no,no's.

Obama = 7 no,no's.

Trump = 1 no,no.

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
6.1  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  It Is ME @6    4 years ago

facts are a burden to others...  LOL

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @6.1    4 years 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
Professor Quiet
7  lady in black    4 years ago

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

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
7.1  Dulay  replied to  lady in black @7    4 years 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
Professor Participates
7.2  Greg Jones  replied to  lady in black @7    4 years 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
Professor Quiet
7.2.1  lady in black  replied to  Greg Jones @7.2    4 years ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
7.2.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Greg Jones @7.2    4 years 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." -

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
7.2.3  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @7.2    4 years 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 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
7.2.4  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  Dulay @7.2.3    4 years ago

ya sure about that?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
7.2.5  Greg Jones  replied to  Dulay @7.2.3    4 years ago

Why were you not concerned when Obama broke the law?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
7.2.6  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @7.2.5    4 years 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. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.2.7  XXJefferson51  replied to  lady in black @7.2.1    4 years ago

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.3  XXJefferson51  replied to  lady in black @7    4 years ago

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

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
7.3.1  lady in black  replied to  XXJefferson51 @7.3    4 years ago

But, but, but Obama...nice deflection

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
7.3.2  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  lady in black @7.3.1    4 years ago

pointing out hypocrisy is not a deflection.

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

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
7.3.3  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @7.3    4 years 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!
Professor Guide
7.3.4  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @7.3.3    4 years ago
Unless you can post some evidence for that proclamation

[deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.3.5  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @7.3.4    4 years ago

Exactly whole statement well said and right on.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8  Sean Treacy    4 years ago

The GAO said Obama broke the law.

Remember the Democratic rush to impeach him?

Neither do I.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
8.1  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    4 years 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
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @8.1    4 years 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
Professor Expert
8.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.1    4 years 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
Professor Principal
8.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @8.1.2    4 years 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
Professor Expert
8.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.3    4 years 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
Professor Expert
8.1.5  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.3    4 years 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
Professor Principal
8.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    4 years ago

This is not about President Obama ferchrissakes 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
8.2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @8.2    4 years ago

Yeah, but......

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

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
8.2.2  Cerenkov  replied to  Greg Jones @8.2.1    4 years ago

The deflection is strong with the left.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
8.2.3  XXJefferson51  replied to  Cerenkov @8.2.2    4 years ago

it’s all they got! 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
8.2.4  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @8.2.1    4 years 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. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
8.3  XXJefferson51  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    4 years 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!
Professor Guide
9  Tacos!    4 years 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
Professor Expert
9.1  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @9    4 years 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!
Professor Guide
9.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @9.1    4 years 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
Professor Expert
9.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.1    4 years 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!
Professor Guide
9.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @9.1.2    4 years 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
Professor Expert
9.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.3    4 years 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. 

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

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
9.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @9.1.4    4 years 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
Professor Expert
9.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.5    4 years ago

You obviously don't understand the term sealioning. 

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

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
9.1.7  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @9.1.6    4 years 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
Professor Expert
9.1.8  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.7    4 years ago

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

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
9.1.9  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @9.1.8    4 years ago

Uh huh. Are you looking for fish?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
9.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.9    4 years ago

No. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
10  bbl-1    4 years 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
Professor Participates
10.1  pat wilson  replied to  bbl-1 @10    4 years 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
Professor Quiet
10.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  pat wilson @10.1    4 years 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
Professor Participates
10.1.2  pat wilson  replied to  bbl-1 @10.1.1    4 years 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
Professor Expert
10.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  pat wilson @10.1    4 years 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
Professor Expert
10.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  bbl-1 @10.1.1    4 years 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
Professor Expert
10.1.5  MrFrost  replied to  bbl-1 @10.1.1    4 years ago
lysergic acid diethylamide

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

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
10.1.6  pat wilson  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.3    4 years ago

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

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
10.1.7  bbl-1  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.4    4 years 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
Professor Quiet
10.1.8  bbl-1  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.5    4 years ago

Yowzers!  lol

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
10.1.9  bbl-1  replied to  pat wilson @10.1.6    4 years 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
Professor Participates
10.1.10  Greg Jones  replied to  pat wilson @10.1    4 years 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
Professor Silent
10.1.11  Cerenkov  replied to  Greg Jones @10.1.10    4 years ago

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

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
10.1.12  XXJefferson51  replied to  bbl-1 @10.1.9    4 years 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?  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
10.1.13  XXJefferson51  replied to  Cerenkov @10.1.11    4 years 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.
Professor Principal
10.1.14  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XXJefferson51 @10.1.12    4 years 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
Professor Participates
10.2  Greg Jones  replied to  bbl-1 @10    4 years 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
Professor Quiet
10.2.1  bbl-1  replied to  Greg Jones @10.2    4 years 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.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
10.2.2  XXJefferson51  replied to  bbl-1 @10.2.1    4 years 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
Professor Participates
10.3  Greg Jones  replied to  bbl-1 @10    4 years ago
Something very un-American.  The Constitution be damned.

So tell us what is unconstitutional about these proceedings?

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
10.3.1  bbl-1  replied to  Greg Jones @10.3    4 years ago

Nothing is unconstitutional with these proceedings.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
11  Nerm_L    4 years ago

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

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
11.1  bbl-1  replied to  Nerm_L @11    4 years ago

That is a question Giuliani should clarify.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
11.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  bbl-1 @11.1    4 years 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
Professor Quiet
11.1.2  bbl-1  replied to  Nerm_L @11.1.1    4 years 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
Professor Principal
11.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  bbl-1 @11.1.2    4 years 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
Professor Expert
11.1.4  Nerm_L  replied to  bbl-1 @11.1.2    4 years 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
Professor Quiet
11.1.5  bbl-1  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.3    4 years ago

Except it isn't.  [Deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
11.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  bbl-1 @11.1.5    4 years 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
Professor Quiet
11.1.7  bbl-1  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.6    4 years ago

Ask you again----person.  What lies?

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
11.1.8  bbl-1  replied to  Nerm_L @11.1.4    4 years 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
Professor Principal
11.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  bbl-1 @11.1.7    4 years 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
Professor Expert
11.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @11.1.4    4 years 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
Professor Quiet
11.1.11  bbl-1  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.9    4 years ago

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

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
11.1.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  bbl-1 @11.1.11    4 years ago

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

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
11.1.13  bbl-1  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.12    4 years 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
Professor Principal
12  Sean Treacy    4 years 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
Professor Principal
13  Sean Treacy    4 years 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. 

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
Professor Quiet
13.1  bbl-1  replied to  Sean Treacy @13    4 years ago

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

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
13.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  bbl-1 @13.1    4 years 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.

 
 

Who is online

Ed-NavDoc
JBB
George
Igknorantzruls


75 visitors