From a purely strategic standpoint, it would be wise for Republicans to have hearings to tie up Sanders and Warren as they move into the primary voting. Bernie is doing really well in the polls, and I think it would be better for the nation if Biden wins. I think Trump can beat either of them, but I really don't like Bernie's platform.
(01-29-2020, 07:26 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020, 01:10 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Was anyone in congress notified in July?
It wasn't quite the last day before FY 2019 was it? It was kind of a random day a couple of weeks before, right? Was there anything else going on the day it was released?
1st question, I don't know, does the OMB count? I'm not the expert on government bureaucracy that you appear to be.
2nd, it was released September 11th, so I imagine there were many things going on that day.
1) OMB is the executive branch. Congress was not notified. They are supposed to be notified as soon as the original day for the money to be spent passes. When Congress is notified, the news finds out too. I believe the aid was supposed to be spent in May. Trump didn't want the hold to be in the news.
2) the whistleblower story hit the news September 9 or 10. Classic "hand caught in the cookie jar" move.
(01-29-2020, 09:41 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020, 07:26 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]1st question, I don't know, does the OMB count? I'm not the expert on government bureaucracy that you appear to be.
2nd, it was released September 11th, so I imagine there were many things going on that day.
1) OMB is the executive branch. Congress was not notified. They are supposed to be notified as soon as the original day for the money to be spent passes. When Congress is notified, the news finds out too. I believe the aid was supposed to be spent in May. Trump didn't want the hold to be in the news.
2) the whistleblower story hit the news September 9 or 10. Classic "hand caught in the cookie jar" move.
1. Have you cited the law that requires the President to notify Congress? You may have but I haven’t seen it. Also, you can’t speak to Trump’s motives so that last sentence shouldn’t be treated as fact.
(01-29-2020, 09:51 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020, 09:41 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]1) OMB is the executive branch. Congress was not notified. They are supposed to be notified as soon as the original day for the money to be spent passes. When Congress is notified, the news finds out too. I believe the aid was supposed to be spent in May. Trump didn't want the hold to be in the news.
2) the whistleblower story hit the news September 9 or 10. Classic "hand caught in the cookie jar" move.
1. Have you cited the law that requires the President to notify Congress? You may have but I haven’t seen it. Also, you can’t speak to Trump’s motives so that last sentence shouldn’t be treated as fact.
Yes, it is the impoundment control act, section X. This is what the emails back and forth between NSA and OMB were worried about. The ordinary employees in those two agencies deal with this law all the time. Their manager told them not to disburse the funds, but they were worried because ordinarily there's a public notification for that. They were worried that the manager was making a mistake and someone might lose their job.
(01-29-2020, 09:41 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020, 07:26 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]1st question, I don't know, does the OMB count? I'm not the expert on government bureaucracy that you appear to be.
2nd, it was released September 11th, so I imagine there were many things going on that day.
1) OMB is the executive branch. Congress was not notified. They are supposed to be notified as soon as the original day for the money to be spent passes. When Congress is notified, the news finds out too. I believe the aid was supposed to be spent in May. Trump didn't want the hold to be in the news.
2) the whistleblower story hit the news September 9 or 10. Classic "hand caught in the cookie jar" move.
Not true. Under the Obama administration's interpretation of the ICA the funds aren't officially on hold until end of fiscal year. So 10 01 19 would be the date that congressional notification would be required and designation of "temporary" or request for "recission"
The ICA is for funding in general. When it comes to foreign aid, as a subset of foreign policy the executive should have more latitude as part of foreign policy, so u could theoretically challenge the ICA on constitutional grounds.
Most importantly, administrations run afoul of deadlines and statutes all the time. Congress goes to court and seeks remedy. Congress sometimes passes laws that are unconstitutional. We go to court and seek remedy. The idea that we jump to removal from office for clerical disputes is childish.
The politico article hit on 8 29 19. The funds were released on 9 11-12 19. Republican Senators lobbied for release after the politico article and the president was convinced of Zellenskies sincerity to fight corruption.
(01-29-2020, 09:16 PM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]From a purely strategic standpoint, it would be wise for Republicans to have hearings to tie up Sanders and Warren as they move into the primary voting. Bernie is doing really well in the polls, and I think it would be better for the nation if Biden wins. I think Trump can beat either of them, but I really don't like Bernie's platform.
Thus the blood soaked calculus of primary politics. Biden would be far better for the country but Sanders far better for republican chances of holding the senate and reelecting Trump.
Sowell always talks about life being a series of trade offs. Sanders is more dangerous but less "electible."
(01-29-2020, 06:51 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]In very simple terms. "Abuse of Power" can not be proven. All of the "evidence" presented in The House was second-hand information and opinion. The "Abuse of Power" so-called charge is not a crime. Remember, this charge was based on a "whistle blower" with second-hand information regarding a phone call. The transcript of the phone call was declassified and released. While digging more the democrats brought up the withholding of funds. This was a precaution taken because Ukraine had a newly elected president and it was necessary to see how thy would address the clear corruption in their country (including former Vice-President Joe Biden doing a quid-pro-quo).
On the charge of "Obstructing Congress". Again, this is not a crime and advising members of the current Administration not to testify unless it went to the Supreme Court is not a crime. Supposedly, the democrats couldn't wait for the court process and had to push it through because The President presented a "danger to The Constitution". Never mind due process.
Abuse of power and obstructing Congress are not crimes. If he is removed on these counts, Trump wouldn't face any potential of prosecution for them.
The President and the Congress are supposed to be checking each other. They are supposed to be in tension. Congress is supposed to have the power of the purse, and the power to override vetoes. The President is not supposed to abuse his power. The President is supposed to make himself and his advisors available to answer, not necessarily all questions, but enough questions for Congress to understand what they are up to. If the President won't respect these, the last remaining check is removal from office.
Impeachment and removal are not about crimes. They are about maintaining a balance of power between the two branches of government.
(01-30-2020, 10:28 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020, 06:51 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]In very simple terms. "Abuse of Power" can not be proven. All of the "evidence" presented in The House was second-hand information and opinion. The "Abuse of Power" so-called charge is not a crime. Remember, this charge was based on a "whistle blower" with second-hand information regarding a phone call. The transcript of the phone call was declassified and released. While digging more the democrats brought up the withholding of funds. This was a precaution taken because Ukraine had a newly elected president and it was necessary to see how thy would address the clear corruption in their country (including former Vice-President Joe Biden doing a quid-pro-quo).
On the charge of "Obstructing Congress". Again, this is not a crime and advising members of the current Administration not to testify unless it went to the Supreme Court is not a crime. Supposedly, the democrats couldn't wait for the court process and had to push it through because The President presented a "danger to The Constitution". Never mind due process.
Abuse of power and obstructing Congress are not crimes. If he is removed on these counts, Trump wouldn't face any potential of prosecution for them.
The President and the Congress are supposed to be checking each other. They are supposed to be in tension. Congress is supposed to have the power of the purse, and the power to override vetoes. The President is not supposed to abuse his power. The President is supposed to make himself and his advisors available to answer, not necessarily all questions, but enough questions for Congress to understand what they are up to. If the President won't respect these, the last remaining check is removal from office.
Impeachment and removal are not about crimes. They are about maintaining a balance of power between the two branches of government.
This impeachment is solely about sore losers acting out in a temper tantrum over nothing of substance. And you know it too.
(01-29-2020, 06:46 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020, 05:06 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Dershowitz is basically correct, but each senator should make up his own mind about whether what Trump did was in the public interest or not.
If it was only about corruption in general, and didn't affect things on Ukraine's front lines, maybe it was in the US public interest.
But if it was just specific to the Bidens and crowdstrike, that's not in the US public interest at all. That's partisan.
I didn't take it to mean that at all.
If the claim is that the president's re-election is in the national interest, therefore doing whatever necessary to achieve said re-election (inferring that includes the solicitation of foreign assistance in doing so) isn't impeachable...that's a hell of a slippery slope.
Am I not hearing the Dershword Salad with ranch correctly?
I read more of what Dershowitz said, and it sounds like you understood him correctly.
He's wrong.
The US Constitution can never work this way.
What if Obama had sent some FBI spooks to provoke riots in Republican heavy parts of swing atates, and then cracked down on those riots right before election day?
He would be allowed to do that, right? If he thinks his party winning the election is in the national interest?
Any Senator voting to acquit must publicly reject Dershowitz' argument or else forfeit their claim to be supporting and defending the Constitution.
I think Pelosi held the Articles waiting for Bolton's book to be approved. When it was rejected by the NSC, "somebody" leaked parts of it to the NYT.
(01-30-2020, 02:40 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]I think Pelosi held the Articles waiting for Bolton's book to be approved. When it was rejected by the NSC, "somebody" leaked parts of it to the NYT.
This crossed my mind, as well.
(01-30-2020, 02:40 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]I think Pelosi held the Articles waiting for Bolton's book to be approved. When it was rejected by the NSC, "somebody" leaked parts of it to the NYT.
I think that very well could be part of it. I also think the other part of it is all about timing. Sanders and Warren (along with a couple of others) are not able to be in Iowa for the democrat caucus. The DNC wing of the establishment has chosen either Biden (most likely) or Bloomberg.
Also remember that the articles and this whole impeachment sham is not about The Constitution or any laws being broken. It's all about trying to hurt Trump's chances at re-election. It's a purely partisan political process and I think that most of the country is starting to see that. At a recent Trump rally in Jew Jersey it was reported that somewhere around 25% of those in attendance were registered democrats... in a blue state. There were well over 100,000 people unable to get into the rally for capacity reasons. Democrats should really think about that.
It has also been reported that many senate democrats are leaning towards acquittal.
Why does the Senate start so late? This whole “trial” they started really late. I’m sure there is a good reason. I’m just not aware of why.
(01-30-2020, 10:43 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2020, 10:28 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Abuse of power and obstructing Congress are not crimes. If he is removed on these counts, Trump wouldn't face any potential of prosecution for them.
The President and the Congress are supposed to be checking each other. They are supposed to be in tension. Congress is supposed to have the power of the purse, and the power to override vetoes. The President is not supposed to abuse his power. The President is supposed to make himself and his advisors available to answer, not necessarily all questions, but enough questions for Congress to understand what they are up to. If the President won't respect these, the last remaining check is removal from office.
Impeachment and removal are not about crimes. They are about maintaining a balance of power between the two branches of government.
This impeachment is solely about sore losers acting out in a temper tantrum over nothing of substance. And you know it too.
This was the "insurance policy" in case he won.
Everyone has known from the beginning this was going to end in acquittal if it was going to get this far. There should be absolutely no surprise or outrage at this inevitable outcome.
Now, no matter who wins and loses, the 2020 election is forever tainted by the Democrats and the sham impeachment effort.
The facts matter absolutely nothing to those looking for a removal outcome, which the facts have never supported. The facts didn't support the impeachment from the start, proven by the 100% partisan vote. This is what was warned against in the Federalist papers.
History will not be kind to those rejecting the truth here.
(01-30-2020, 06:39 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2020, 10:43 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]This impeachment is solely about sore losers acting out in a temper tantrum over nothing of substance. And you know it too.
This was the "insurance policy" in case he won.
Everyone has known from the beginning this was going to end in acquittal if it was going to get this far. There should be absolutely no surprise or outrage at this inevitable outcome.
Now, no matter who wins and loses, the 2020 election is forever tainted by the Democrats and the sham impeachment effort.
The facts matter absolutely nothing to those looking for a removal outcome, which the facts have never supported. The facts didn't support the impeachment from the start, proven by the 100% partisan vote. This is what was warned against in the Federalist papers.
History will not be kind to those rejecting the truth here.
Oh really? Specifically where in the federalist papers? Which one? Is there a remedy to make us more like what the founders intended, going forward?
Abolish the two party system.
Abolish political party lines.. make it about the issues instead of that stupid letter everyone fights over.
(01-30-2020, 07:18 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2020, 07:10 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Abolish the two party system.
Abolish political party lines.. make it about the issues instead of that stupid letter everyone fights over.
How can we do that?
Revolution.
It's supposed to happen every 20 or 30 years anyway... the tree of liberty looks a little parched to me.
(01-30-2020, 07:29 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2020, 07:18 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]How can we do that?
Revolution.
It's supposed to happen every 20 or 30 years anyway... the tree of liberty looks a little parched to me.
Okay.
So stay with me, tell me if I missed something.
Last time there was widespread armed conflict in the US was the civil war. That conflict was kicked off by individual state legislatures voting to secede from the Union. You could wish for something like that again, but as of now the state legislatures are completely dominated by the same two-party system. The national parties use the state parties as their pawns, more or less.
The time before that, was the time that caused Jefferson to remark about the tree of liberty. That was Shay's rebellion. Shay's rebellion earned enough sympathy that Shay himself got an amnesty and the candidate favored by most of the rebels won the next governor's election. The Shay's rebellion gave us the constitutional convention. Jefferson was actually writing to argue against convening a constitutional convention, saying that rebellions like Shay's should happen from time to time.
So look around today.
Which group of people is most like Daniel Shays?
(01-30-2020, 07:53 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2020, 07:29 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Revolution.
It's supposed to happen every 20 or 30 years anyway... the tree of liberty looks a little parched to me.
Okay.
So stay with me, tell me if I missed something.
Last time there was widespread armed conflict in the US was the civil war. That conflict was kicked off by individual state legislatures voting to secede from the Union. You could wish for something like that again, but as of now the state legislatures are completely dominated by the same two-party system. The national parties use the state parties as their pawns, more or less.
The time before that, was the time that caused Jefferson to remark about the tree of liberty. That was Shay's rebellion. Shay's rebellion earned enough sympathy that Shay himself got an amnesty and the candidate favored by most of the rebels won the next governor's election. The Shay's rebellion gave us the constitutional convention. Jefferson was actually writing to argue against convening a constitutional convention, saying that rebellions like Shay's should happen from time to time.
So look around today.
Which group of people is most like Daniel Shays?
In simple terms, people that wear MAGA hats have already started the revolution. Your party is being left behind since it's been taken over by socialists.