He's part of the hung jury.Ivytalk wrote:Is Jeffrey Epstein still on the witness list?
The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
-
- 4th&29
- Posts: 38526
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:01 pm
- I am a fan of: Old Dominion
- A.K.A.: He/His/Him/Himself
- Location: Pizza Hell
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
- Winterborn
- Supporter
- Posts: 8812
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 2:33 pm
- I am a fan of: Beer and Diesel Pickups
- Location: Wherever I hang my hat
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
CAA Flagship wrote:He's part of the hung jury.Ivytalk wrote:Is Jeffrey Epstein still on the witness list?
“The best of all things is to learn. Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.” – Louis L’Amour
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.” - G. Michael Hopf
"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious.” – Albert Einstein
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.” - G. Michael Hopf
"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious.” – Albert Einstein
- AZGrizFan
- Supporter
- Posts: 59959
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
- I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
- Location: Just to the right of center
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
The smart move for the Dems would have been to fucking GOVERN. But that went out the window on election night.Skjellyfetti wrote:I don't think there is anything Bolton could say that would sway 20 R Senators. We'd be in the same place with or without Bolton's testimony: Speedy trial and aquital.Ibanez wrote:The Dems should've either waited to get Bolton and others to testify OR censured Trump. They screwed themselves in this process.
Im not seeing how censuring would have been the smart move, but perhaps I'm just missing it.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
That's the status quo. I'd be interested in seeing how many bills of importance were sent to either house and stalled.AZGrizFan wrote:The smart move for the Dems would have been to fucking GOVERN. But that went out the window on election night.Skjellyfetti wrote:
I don't think there is anything Bolton could say that would sway 20 R Senators. We'd be in the same place with or without Bolton's testimony: Speedy trial and aquital.
Im not seeing how censuring would have been the smart move, but perhaps I'm just missing it.
I don't really care about the bill to rename some post office or a resolution to honor the memory of Luke Perry.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
Did you watch this week's 60 Minutes?Ivytalk wrote:Is Jeffrey Epstein still on the witness list?
That nigga didn't kill himself!!!
Delaware Football: 1889-2012; 2022-
- Winterborn
- Supporter
- Posts: 8812
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 2:33 pm
- I am a fan of: Beer and Diesel Pickups
- Location: Wherever I hang my hat
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
FYPAZGrizFan wrote:The smart move for the Dems would have been to fucking GOVERN. But that went out the window years ago.Skjellyfetti wrote:
I don't think there is anything Bolton could say that would sway 20 R Senators. We'd be in the same place with or without Bolton's testimony: Speedy trial and aquital.
Im not seeing how censuring would have been the smart move, but perhaps I'm just missing it.
“The best of all things is to learn. Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.” – Louis L’Amour
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.” - G. Michael Hopf
"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious.” – Albert Einstein
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.” - G. Michael Hopf
"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious.” – Albert Einstein
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
I'm not moving anything. I'm just reciting the rule the Democrats created in '92.mainejeff2 wrote:Keep moving the goalposts.93henfan wrote:
The Biden Rule only applies when the President and Senate differ in party.
Delaware Football: 1889-2012; 2022-
- GannonFan
- Level5
- Posts: 18120
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
Agreed, it was pretty simple. If the opposite party controls the Senate and if they don't want to give the President of a different party a chance to fill an opening in an election year (either by voting down anyone nominated or by not voting on any nominees at all) then that's their prerogative. People then can vote on the President and on the Senators up for election and we can go from there. Heck, it's very likely that Hillary would've pulled the Garland nomination anyway, had she won, for a better jurist, and one that tilted to the left. Garland was never going to be on the SCOTUS and, considering he was a vanilla nominee meant to try to squeeze through without offending anyone, I think that's a good thing.93henfan wrote:I'm not moving anything. I'm just reciting the rule the Democrats created in '92.mainejeff2 wrote:
Keep moving the goalposts.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
That was '92 in a nutshell. That's when Biden set the precedent.mainejeff2 wrote:So you are OK with this rule if Trump is elected again and the Senate goes Dem?GannonFan wrote:
Agreed, it was pretty simple. If the opposite party controls the Senate and if they don't want to give the President of a different party a chance to fill an opening in an election year (either by voting down anyone nominated or by not voting on any nominees at all) then that's their prerogative. People then can vote on the President and on the Senators up for election and we can go from there. Heck, it's very likely that Hillary would've pulled the Garland nomination anyway, had she won, for a better jurist, and one that tilted to the left. Garland was never going to be on the SCOTUS and, considering he was a vanilla nominee meant to try to squeeze through without offending anyone, I think that's a good thing.
And who cares who is good with it? They can't do a damn thing about it.
Delaware Football: 1889-2012; 2022-
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
Do they teach reading comprehension in Maine?mainejeff2 wrote:So this will also be the case if Trump is elected and the Senate turns D?93henfan wrote:
That was '92. That's when Biden set the precedent.
And who cares who is good with it? They can't do a damn thing about it.
Delaware Football: 1889-2012; 2022-
- GannonFan
- Level5
- Posts: 18120
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
Absolutely. The Senate has to decide to approve a nominee no matter what anyway, so if they don't want to give an opposing President an approval on his/her nominee in a Presidential election year then have at it. The voters can decide if they don't like that and vote accordingly. If we avoid getting a marshmellow onto the bench who would've been seated just because him/her was the only one who could pass an opposing Senate then I'm all for it.mainejeff2 wrote:So you are OK with this rule if Trump is elected again and the Senate goes Dem?GannonFan wrote:
Agreed, it was pretty simple. If the opposite party controls the Senate and if they don't want to give the President of a different party a chance to fill an opening in an election year (either by voting down anyone nominated or by not voting on any nominees at all) then that's their prerogative. People then can vote on the President and on the Senators up for election and we can go from there. Heck, it's very likely that Hillary would've pulled the Garland nomination anyway, had she won, for a better jurist, and one that tilted to the left. Garland was never going to be on the SCOTUS and, considering he was a vanilla nominee meant to try to squeeze through without offending anyone, I think that's a good thing.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
- Chizzang
- Level5
- Posts: 19273
- Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
- I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
- A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
- Location: Soon to be Eden Prairie...
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
- CID1990
- Level5
- Posts: 25460
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
- I am a fan of: Pie
- A.K.A.: CID 1990
- Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
Chizzang wrote:https://twitter.com/i/status/1214394027845414912
Just a few years ago I was at my preferred tailgate at El Cid and Lindsey came through, pressing the flesh
About 75% of the people there had had it with Lindsey. He was getting primaried by several people including Nancy Mace. Lindsey’s star was setting
Fast forward to today... Lindsey can go out like ol Strom... his seat is guaranteed as long as he wants it
He saw that Trump train whooshing by and he was like:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 26827
- Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
- I am a fan of: Salisbury University
- Location: Republic of Western Sussex
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
Buster Keaton?CID1990 wrote:Chizzang wrote:https://twitter.com/i/status/1214394027845414912
Just a few years ago I was at my preferred tailgate at El Cid and Lindsey came through, pressing the flesh
About 75% of the people there had had it with Lindsey. He was getting primaried by several people including Nancy Mace. Lindsey’s star was setting
Fast forward to today... Lindsey can go out like ol Strom... his seat is guaranteed as long as he wants it
He saw that Trump train whooshing by and he was like:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
“I’m tired and done.” — 89Hen 3/27/22.
- Skjellyfetti
- Anal
- Posts: 14424
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:56 pm
- I am a fan of: Appalachian
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
He's not wrong... Probably goes for most of the board as well.
"The unmasking thing was all created by Devin Nunes"
- Richard Burr, (R-NC)
- Richard Burr, (R-NC)
- AZGrizFan
- Supporter
- Posts: 59959
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
- I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
- Location: Just to the right of center
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
If it was OK for Obama/Biden, it’s ok for Trump/Pence.Skjellyfetti wrote:He's not wrong... Probably goes for most of the board as well.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
- SDHornet
- Supporter
- Posts: 19443
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:50 pm
- I am a fan of: Sacramento State Hornets
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
Like Obama said, elections have consequences.AZGrizFan wrote:If it was OK for Obama/Biden, it’s ok for Trump/Pence.Skjellyfetti wrote:He's not wrong... Probably goes for most of the board as well.
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 26827
- Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
- I am a fan of: Salisbury University
- Location: Republic of Western Sussex
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
Well, all seven Impeachment managers are Donks, led by Schitt and Nadless. I’m surprised that Nancy didn’t go “bipartisan” and pick Amash.
“I’m tired and done.” — 89Hen 3/27/22.
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 26827
- Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
- I am a fan of: Salisbury University
- Location: Republic of Western Sussex
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
Pelosi up there babbling away about the Constitution before she signs the articles of impeachment.
“I’m tired and done.” — 89Hen 3/27/22.
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59650
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
In the words of the immortal Lily Von Schtupp...”what a nice guy”
https://theintercept.com/2020/01/15/tru ... th-issues/
https://theintercept.com/2020/01/15/tru ... th-issues/
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59650
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
Looks like Trump is going to get his Ukrainian corruption investigation after all...
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/ukra ... y-n1116881
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/ukra ... y-n1116881
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/politics ... index.html
[img]The Government Accountability Office says the Trump administration broke the law when it withheld US security aid to Ukraine last year that had been appropriated by Congress -- an issue at the center of the impeachment of President Donald Trump.
The GAO, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog, said in a decision issued Thursday that the White House budget office violated the Impoundment Control Act, a 1974 law that limits the White House from withholding funds that Congress has appropriated.[/img]
[img]The Government Accountability Office says the Trump administration broke the law when it withheld US security aid to Ukraine last year that had been appropriated by Congress -- an issue at the center of the impeachment of President Donald Trump.
The GAO, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog, said in a decision issued Thursday that the White House budget office violated the Impoundment Control Act, a 1974 law that limits the White House from withholding funds that Congress has appropriated.[/img]
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
- GannonFan
- Level5
- Posts: 18120
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
Impoundment Control Act is now going to be the new trivia answer along with the Tenure of Office Act.
I thought the original storyline is that one reason why the money was eventually paid to Ukraine was that they couldn't legally withhold the money across the new federal fiscal year, so while it got held up in mid July, they couldn't legally hold it past the end of September. So they could hold it up for those almost 2 months, but no longer than that.
Don't know if the law has ever been challenged in a case like this. Only case I saw was the Train v. City of New York but that was regarding domestic spending, and in that case the SCOTUS specifically excluded any consideration of separation of powers. Bank funds to foreign entities, government and private, get frozen all the time at the discretion of the President and foreign policy. Would be interesting if this ever gets taken further.
I thought the original storyline is that one reason why the money was eventually paid to Ukraine was that they couldn't legally withhold the money across the new federal fiscal year, so while it got held up in mid July, they couldn't legally hold it past the end of September. So they could hold it up for those almost 2 months, but no longer than that.
Don't know if the law has ever been challenged in a case like this. Only case I saw was the Train v. City of New York but that was regarding domestic spending, and in that case the SCOTUS specifically excluded any consideration of separation of powers. Bank funds to foreign entities, government and private, get frozen all the time at the discretion of the President and foreign policy. Would be interesting if this ever gets taken further.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
There's all sorts of reasons. One of the reasons the money was withheld is because the administration wanted to make sure Ukraine was doing enough to reduce corruption...regardless of the fact that the DoD did just that when they gave their approval of the aid.GannonFan wrote:Impoundment Control Act is now going to be the new trivia answer along with the Tenure of Office Act.
I thought the original storyline is that one reason why the money was eventually paid to Ukraine was that they couldn't legally withhold the money across the new federal fiscal year, so while it got held up in mid July, they couldn't legally hold it past the end of September. So they could hold it up for those almost 2 months, but no longer than that.
Don't know if the law has ever been challenged in a case like this. Only case I saw was the Train v. City of New York but that was regarding domestic spending, and in that case the SCOTUS specifically excluded any consideration of separation of powers. Bank funds to foreign entities, government and private, get frozen all the time at the discretion of the President and foreign policy. Would be interesting if this ever gets taken further.
https://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/ra ... benchmarksThe Claims: President Trump and senior administration officials have claimed that security assistance to Ukraine was held up because they were concerned the assistance would be diverted. For example:
But DOD Had Twice Certified Ukraine’s Progress on Corruption: Long before President Trump ordered a halt to security assistance, the Secretary of Defense—in coordination with Secretary Pompeo—twice certified that Ukraine had made sufficient reforms to decrease corruption and increase accountability, and that the country could ensure accountability for U.S. provided military equipment. Further, after OMB held the assistance to Ukraine in July, the Department of Defense (DOD) conducted an additional analysis and concluded that the assistance was effective and should be resumed. [Amb. Taylor testimony, 10/22/19]. Finally, before the July 2019 hold, the Trump administration had approved sending foreign assistance to Ukraine nearly 50 separate times without ever holding it because of concerns that it would be diverted due to corruption.
Please note the source of this...the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Also, look at the dates when the House begins to investigate the funds and when they're finally released..it's something like 2-3 days. Coincidence?
Last edited by Ibanez on Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
-
- 4th&29
- Posts: 38526
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:01 pm
- I am a fan of: Old Dominion
- A.K.A.: He/His/Him/Himself
- Location: Pizza Hell
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
So the question is......why is any POTUS involved in this sort of thing in the first place? If the POTUS can only release the aid immediately, it's nothing but a rubber stamp. Let's streamline this and let it fly once it is approved on Capitol Hill.