Dershowitz Is Insane

[B. Kidd]

The GAO has such a mighty enforcement branch.......

 

[playtime]

The GAO has such a mighty enforcement branch.......

& yet if you did the equivalent thing in civilian terms - you would be charged with stealing by breaking a contract. the money isn't yours to with hold from disbursement without just cause..

 

[OKTexas]

If you remember what Dershowitz was saying during Bill Clinton's impeachment, you would agree that he has been pretty consistent.

.

Dershowitz acknowledges flip-flop on 1998 comments in Clinton impeachment
snip

Dershowitz argued in 1998 during the Clinton impeachment that a president doesn't have to commit a "technical crime," such as abuse of power, in order for it rise to an impeachable offense. However, he has said in Trump's defense that the framers intended for impeachable conduct to mean "criminal-like conduct."

He said in 1998: "It certainly doesn't have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who posses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime."
Dershowitz acknowledges flip-flop on 1998 comments in Clinton impeachment
------------------------------------------------------

One big difference here, Slick Willy committed 13 felonies. As in broke the law. Not only was Clinton impeached, he was disbarred. Honestly, what happened to Bill Clinton had nothing to do with Justice and more to do with a blue haired church lady that had it in for him. Still, Clinton would have been fine had he just not told lies. If Trump lied as much as you pretend he did, he would have been gotten. Face it, 4,more years of trump.

He should of never been under oath, tramp has lied every time he opens his mouth. Everything he says is a lie.

By the way, list Clintons 13 felonies or give a link??

AP Exclusive: Woman who says Trump raped her seeks his DNA
By JENNIFER PELTZJanuary 30, 2020 GMT

NEW YORK (AP) — Lawyers for a woman who accuses President Donald Trump of raping her in the 1990s are asking for a DNA sample, seeking to determine whether his genetic material is on a dress she says she wore during the encounter.

Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll’s lawyers served notice to a Trump attorney Thursday for Trump to submit a sample on March 2 in Washington for “analysis and comparison against unidentified male DNA present on the dress.”

Carroll filed a defamation suit against Trump in November after the president denied her allegation, saying he didn’t know and had never even met her. Her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, then had the black wool coat-style dress tested. A lab report with the legal notice says DNA found in skin cells on the outer surface of the sleeves was a mix of at least four people, at least one of them male.

Several other people were tested and eliminated as possible contributors to the mix, according to the lab report, which was obtained by The Associated Press. Their names are redacted, but the report indicates they were involved in a photo shoot where she wore the dress last year, the only time Carroll says she has donned the dress since the alleged assault.

“Unidentified male DNA on the dress could prove that Donald Trump not only knows who I am, but also that he violently assaulted me in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman and then defamed me by lying about it and impugning my character,” Carroll said in a statement Thursday.

The White House and Trump’s lawyer have not responded to a request for comment.
[...]
AP Exclusive: Woman who says Trump raped her seeks his DNA

You have to be high, SKIN CELLS??????? Walk down any NY sidewalk and you could get skin cells form a thousand contributors. Some would likely be secondary transfer. Hell you can pick up skin cells in a damn taxi. Skin cells prove nothing.

.

 

[OKTexas]

One big difference here, Slick Willy committed 13 felonies. As in broke the law. Not only was Clinton impeached, he was disbarred. Honestly, what happened to Bill Clinton had nothing to do with Justice and more to do with a blue haired church lady that had it in for him. Still, Clinton would have been fine had he just not told lies. If Trump lied as much as you pretend he did, he would have been gotten. Face it, 4,more years of trump.

Trump didn't lie in court, which is what Clinton did. Clinton did no commit 13 felonies. He was charged with one count of perjury in a trial which was dismissed as malicious prosecution.

Lie all you want. Don't change the fact. Clinton broke tha law. He deserved what he got because he was stupid and lied under oath. This is why he got thrown off the Arkansas bar, and the SCOTUS bar, well, he quit the last one before he was booted. This is why he will be remembered as the presidant who got impeached for cheating on his wife, as well as the presidant who diddled little girls on his friends private jet. Trump? He will be remembered as the presidant who killed the DNC and got impeached for it.

trump broke the law per the non partisan GAO. he with held aid without going thru the proper lawful channels.

Oh?

yes.

GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid
By Olivia Beavers and Rebecca Klar - 01/16/20 10:06 AM EST
GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974: What Is It? Why Does It Matter?
Oct 23, 2019
Download PDF

What is the Impoundment Control Act?
The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) reasserted Congress’ power of the purse. Specifically, Title X of the Act – “Impoundment Control” – established procedures to prevent the President and other government officials from unilaterally substituting their own funding decisions for those of the Congress. The Act also created the House and Senate Budget Committees and the Congressional Budget Office.

Why was the ICA necessary?
Congress passed the ICA in response to President Nixon’s executive overreach – his Administration refused to release Congressionally appropriated funds for certain programs he opposed. While the U.S. Constitution broadly grants Congress the power of the purse, the President – through the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and executive agencies – is responsible for the actual spending of funds. The ICA created a process the President must follow if he or she seeks to delay or cancel funding that Congress has provided.

What does it mean to ‘impound’ funds?
An “impoundment” is any action – or inaction – by an officer or employee of the federal government that precludes federal funds from being obligated[1] or spent, either temporarily or permanently.

How does the ICA work?
The ICA lays out procedures the President must follow to reduce, delay, or eliminate funding in an account. The Act divides impoundments into two categories: rescissions and deferrals.
[...]
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974: What Is It? Why Does It Matter?

donny didn't go thru protocol.

CONCLUSION OMB violated the ICA when it withheld DOD’s USAI funds from obligation for policy reasons. This impoundment of budget authority was not a programmatic delay.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf

And??????????? IF he violated the act, it's a civil offense, not criminal. Any more bogus claims you wish to assert?

.

 

[easyt65]

I used to respect Alan Dershowitz. Not any more. He argued that a President can do pretty much ANYTHING to get himself re-elected, as long as he thinks it's for the good of the country.

Way to parrot the fake news media propaganda, which Dershowitz shredded during a live interview on CNN, the ratings bottom-feeders who used one partial sound byte out of context to manipulate weak minded snowflakes like yourself.

Its amazing how snowflakes can rush to defend proven serial lying, seditious, admitted classified leaking traitors like Schiff, parroting the ultra-biased propaganda of the bottom-of-the-barrel fake news media agencies like CNN, while attacking Constitutional experts, whether its Dershowitz or their own Constitutional expert, Jonathon Turley.

 

[Coyote]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/dersh...5dtsSwrPh2e319Dkq14HqkL2gCor5MIPpd_uubmPYtHR0


Dershowitz, already at odds with legal consensus over his view that abuse of power does not fall under the high crimes the U.S. Constitution considers impeachable, earned scorn from both sides of the political spectrum.

"If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment," he told senatorsWednesday in the question and answer portion of the trial.

Those words stunned at least the Democratic side of the Senate chamber and a good portion of the legal scholars watching and resonated well into Thursday evening.

"Where his definition of impeachable offences would proscribe too little, this argument would protect too much in presidential misconduct," said Jonathan Turley, a legal scholar at George Washington University and the sole expert witness the Republicans called in the House impeachment hearings who has criticized the impeachment as "rushed and slipshod."


The president as king

Dershowitz's claim was "a descent into constitutional madness," the Democrats' lead prosecutor, Adam Schiff, told senators.

Cable news pundits talked of "a march to monarchy."

Dershowitz, already at odds with legal consensus over his view that abuse of power does not fall under the high crimes the U.S. Constitution considers impeachable, earned scorn from both sides of the political spectrum.

Even some of those who think Trump may have had a legitimate reason to hold up military aid to Ukraine and solicit co-operation with investigations into his political opponent fear Dershowitz's defence of the president could pave the way for an expansion of executive power that could allow Trump and future presidents to pursue political opponents with impunity.

"That is an end-will-always-justify the-means argument that I find troubling," said John Malcolm, vice-president of the Institute for Constitutional Government at the Heritage Foundation in Washington D.C.

 

[easyt65]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/dersh...5dtsSwrPh2e319Dkq14HqkL2gCor5MIPpd_uubmPYtHR0


Dershowitz, already at odds with legal consensus over his view that abuse of power does not fall under the high crimes the U.S. Constitution considers impeachable, earned scorn from both sides of the political spectrum.

"If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment," he told senatorsWednesday in the question and answer portion of the trial.

Those words stunned at least the Democratic side of the Senate chamber and a good portion of the legal scholars watching and resonated well into Thursday evening.

"Where his definition of impeachable offences would proscribe too little, this argument would protect too much in presidential misconduct," said Jonathan Turley, a legal scholar at George Washington University and the sole expert witness the Republicans called in the House impeachment hearings who has criticized the impeachment as "rushed and slipshod."


The president as king

Dershowitz's claim was "a descent into constitutional madness," the Democrats' lead prosecutor, Adam Schiff, told senators.

Cable news pundits talked of "a march to monarchy."

Dershowitz, already at odds with legal consensus over his view that abuse of power does not fall under the high crimes the U.S. Constitution considers impeachable, earned scorn from both sides of the political spectrum.

Even some of those who think Trump may have had a legitimate reason to hold up military aid to Ukraine and solicit co-operation with investigations into his political opponent fear Dershowitz's defence of the president could pave the way for an expansion of executive power that could allow Trump and future presidents to pursue political opponents with impunity.

"That is an end-will-always-justify the-means argument that I find troubling," said John Malcolm, vice-president of the Institute for Constitutional Government at the Heritage Foundation in Washington D.C.

The problem is with the Democrats' definition of 'Abuse of Power':

Based on their declaring ' The Impeachment of Donald Trump Begins NOW' right after he completed his oath of office, the Democrats believe defeating them / Hillary in an election is an 'ABUSE OF POWER'.

Based on the fact that EVERY DEMOCRAT 'WITNESS' during the House Impeachment hearings testified eliminating Ukraine corruption was Trump's FOREIGN POLICY from the start, that relations between the US and Ukraine are better now than they were under Obama, and that Trump did NOT violate the Constitution, did NOT break the law, and did NOT abuse his power - based on the fact that when asked to name a crime or Impeachable offense committed by the President they could NOT do so....

It is obvious that Democrats / snowflakes believe any opinion on Foreign Policy not their own is an 'ABUSE OF POWER' .

.

 

[Coyote]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/dersh...5dtsSwrPh2e319Dkq14HqkL2gCor5MIPpd_uubmPYtHR0


Dershowitz, already at odds with legal consensus over his view that abuse of power does not fall under the high crimes the U.S. Constitution considers impeachable, earned scorn from both sides of the political spectrum.

"If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment," he told senatorsWednesday in the question and answer portion of the trial.

Those words stunned at least the Democratic side of the Senate chamber and a good portion of the legal scholars watching and resonated well into Thursday evening.

"Where his definition of impeachable offences would proscribe too little, this argument would protect too much in presidential misconduct," said Jonathan Turley, a legal scholar at George Washington University and the sole expert witness the Republicans called in the House impeachment hearings who has criticized the impeachment as "rushed and slipshod."


The president as king

Dershowitz's claim was "a descent into constitutional madness," the Democrats' lead prosecutor, Adam Schiff, told senators.

Cable news pundits talked of "a march to monarchy."

Dershowitz, already at odds with legal consensus over his view that abuse of power does not fall under the high crimes the U.S. Constitution considers impeachable, earned scorn from both sides of the political spectrum.

Even some of those who think Trump may have had a legitimate reason to hold up military aid to Ukraine and solicit co-operation with investigations into his political opponent fear Dershowitz's defence of the president could pave the way for an expansion of executive power that could allow Trump and future presidents to pursue political opponents with impunity.

"That is an end-will-always-justify the-means argument that I find troubling," said John Malcolm, vice-president of the Institute for Constitutional Government at the Heritage Foundation in Washington D.C.

The problem is with the Democrats' definition of 'Abuse of Power':

Based on their declaring ' The Impeachment of Donald Trump Begins NOW' right after he completed his oath of office, the Democrats believe defeating them / Hillary in an election is an 'ABUSE OF POWER'.

Based on the fact that EVERY DEMOCRAT 'WITNESS' during the House Impeachment hearings testified eliminating Ukraine corruption was Trump's FOREIGN POLICY from the start, that relations between the US and Ukraine are better now than they were under Obama, and that Trump did NOT violate the Constitution, did NOT break the law, and did NOT abuse his power - based on the fact that when asked to name a crime or Impeachable offense committed by the President they could NOT do so....

It is obvious that Democrats / snowflakes believe any opinion on Foreign Policy not their own is an 'ABUSE OF POWER' .

.

For once, shut up about Dems this Pubs that.

This isn't about partisan shit.

You are setting a precedent (that has already been rolling along a road paved by lots of other similar but ignored precedents) - that not sit well with you when it's a Dem in power doing the same thing.

How much power should the executive have?

How accountable should he be?

Some people are utterly incapable of thinking of the long term effects of actions they are cheering on or of thinking beyond partisan politics here.

 

[Crixus]

One big difference here, Slick Willy committed 13 felonies. As in broke the law. Not only was Clinton impeached, he was disbarred. Honestly, what happened to Bill Clinton had nothing to do with Justice and more to do with a blue haired church lady that had it in for him. Still, Clinton would have been fine had he just not told lies. If Trump lied as much as you pretend he did, he would have been gotten. Face it, 4,more years of trump.

Trump didn't lie in court, which is what Clinton did. Clinton did no commit 13 felonies. He was charged with one count of perjury in a trial which was dismissed as malicious prosecution.

Lie all you want. Don't change the fact. Clinton broke tha law. He deserved what he got because he was stupid and lied under oath. This is why he got thrown off the Arkansas bar, and the SCOTUS bar, well, he quit the last one before he was booted. This is why he will be remembered as the presidant who got impeached for cheating on his wife, as well as the presidant who diddled little girls on his friends private jet. Trump? He will be remembered as the presidant who killed the DNC and got impeached for it.

trump broke the law per the non partisan GAO. he with held aid without going thru the proper lawful channels.

Oh?

yes.

GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid
By Olivia Beavers and Rebecca Klar - 01/16/20 10:06 AM EST
GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974: What Is It? Why Does It Matter?
Oct 23, 2019
Download PDF

What is the Impoundment Control Act?
The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) reasserted Congress’ power of the purse. Specifically, Title X of the Act – “Impoundment Control” – established procedures to prevent the President and other government officials from unilaterally substituting their own funding decisions for those of the Congress. The Act also created the House and Senate Budget Committees and the Congressional Budget Office.

Why was the ICA necessary?
Congress passed the ICA in response to President Nixon’s executive overreach – his Administration refused to release Congressionally appropriated funds for certain programs he opposed. While the U.S. Constitution broadly grants Congress the power of the purse, the President – through the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and executive agencies – is responsible for the actual spending of funds. The ICA created a process the President must follow if he or she seeks to delay or cancel funding that Congress has provided.

What does it mean to ‘impound’ funds?
An “impoundment” is any action – or inaction – by an officer or employee of the federal government that precludes federal funds from being obligated[1] or spent, either temporarily or permanently.

How does the ICA work?
The ICA lays out procedures the President must follow to reduce, delay, or eliminate funding in an account. The Act divides impoundments into two categories: rescissions and deferrals.
[...]
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974: What Is It? Why Does It Matter?

donny didn't go thru protocol.

CONCLUSION OMB violated the ICA when it withheld DOD’s USAI funds from obligation for policy reasons. This impoundment of budget authority was not a programmatic delay.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf

And? Meh, maybe they will impeach the next time on that. But most likely not. The GAO has zero authority on anything and the only thing they have to offer is opinions. The money was allocated for Ukrain aid. That's where the money was spent. Period. Next?

 

[easyt65]

For once, shut up about Dems this Pubs that.

Yeah, truth hurts like a bitch, lil' snowflake.....



The DEMOCRATS declared this Impeachment was POLITICAL.

PELOSI declared this Impeachment was PARTISAN when she vowed NOT to proceed with Impeachment unless it was BIPARTISAN ... then proceeded WITHOUT any Republican buy-in...even with Democrats not only siding against her but LEAVING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY over the partisan Impeachment.

Bottom Line: The Democrats kept their promise they made as soon as Trump finished taking his oath of office almost 4 years ago - to Impeach the President....

...and they did so without a crime, without evidence, & without witnesses!

Yes, truth stings like a bitch...which is why fragile, soft' safe place-seeking snowflakes refuse to accept it.

.

 

[Dragonlady]

For once, shut up about Dems this Pubs that.

Yeah, truth hurts like a bitch, lil' snowflake.....



The DEMOCRATS declared this Impeachment was POLITICAL.

PELOSI declared this Impeachment was PARTISAN when she vowed NOT to proceed with Impeachment unless it was BIPARTISAN ... then proceeded WITHOUT any Republican buy-in...even with Democrats not only siding against her but LEAVING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY over the partisan Impeachment.

Bottom Line: The Democrats kept their promise they made as soon as Trump finished taking his oath of office almost 4 years ago - to Impeach the President....

...and they did so without a crime, without evidence, & without witnesses!

Yes, truth stings like a bitch...which is why fragile, soft' safe place-seeking snowflakes refuse to accept it.

.

And once again you're lying. But we're used to that.

Republican Senators said that the Democrats proved their case. They didn't need to hear more witnesses, but they will not vote to remove Trump. Period. But we knew that going in.

What fools like you have missed, living in Russian and all, is that the American people are disgusted with the Republican Party, because the people saw the evidence and the witnesses presented by the Democrats and they KNOW Trump is guilty, and they're made as hell.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Dershowitz has been gone for quite a while.

Ya when he helped that thug OJ, that sealed it for me

when he defended hedda nussbaum - that did it for me.

Did you ever see her

 

[easyt65]

And once again you're lying. But we're used to that.

You ARE used to LYING, you shameless, lying snowflake.

You of all snowflakes are the biggest unrepentant liar on this board.

Where is the link to the law you and Schiff claimed exists that affords 'whistle Blower's anonymity and immunity?

Schiff moronically stood before 400+ other lawyers in the House of Representatives and LIED about a NON-EXISTENT LAW.

YOU posted that SAME LIE in defense of the ALREADY PROVEN liar, Adam Schiff, and when called out for that lie, like Schiff, you retreated and have refused to admit it was a lie ever since.

And just like Schiff, Schumer, and the other Democrats, YOU now / still accuse others of what you have done....and what you still do.

Nothing you say ... until you ADMIT you lied - is worth listening to.


.

 

[tyroneweaver]

when he defended hedda nussbaum - that did it for me.

You don't believe everyone has a right to defense? OR just those you have already deemed, 'guilty'.?

the constitution says everyone has a right to a defense. i just think defense lawyers have to have something scummy in them to defend someone just for the cash & forget their own ethics.

The problem with your thought is that you immediately assign guilt when the presumption is innocent.

actually the problem with your thought is that you are conflating my opinion with actual due process. of course i think he's guilty. not because of any hatred i may harbor towards donny - but rather from evaluating the DECADES of seeing his vile behavior
( that has taken so many forms ) always ends up being for his personal benefit.

is he entitled to a defense? sure. should he be found guilty? absolutely. will he? looks like the fix was in.

All those republican punks in the senate are scared shitless of him and rightfully so No telling what the S Bag will do next

s bag meaning schiff bag

 

[playtime]

Dershowitz acknowledges flip-flop on 1998 comments in Clinton impeachment
snip

Dershowitz argued in 1998 during the Clinton impeachment that a president doesn't have to commit a "technical crime," such as abuse of power, in order for it rise to an impeachable offense. However, he has said in Trump's defense that the framers intended for impeachable conduct to mean "criminal-like conduct."

He said in 1998: "It certainly doesn't have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who posses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime."
Dershowitz acknowledges flip-flop on 1998 comments in Clinton impeachment
------------------------------------------------------

One big difference here, Slick Willy committed 13 felonies. As in broke the law. Not only was Clinton impeached, he was disbarred. Honestly, what happened to Bill Clinton had nothing to do with Justice and more to do with a blue haired church lady that had it in for him. Still, Clinton would have been fine had he just not told lies. If Trump lied as much as you pretend he did, he would have been gotten. Face it, 4,more years of trump.

He should of never been under oath, tramp has lied every time he opens his mouth. Everything he says is a lie.

By the way, list Clintons 13 felonies or give a link??

AP Exclusive: Woman who says Trump raped her seeks his DNA
By JENNIFER PELTZJanuary 30, 2020 GMT

NEW YORK (AP) — Lawyers for a woman who accuses President Donald Trump of raping her in the 1990s are asking for a DNA sample, seeking to determine whether his genetic material is on a dress she says she wore during the encounter.

Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll’s lawyers served notice to a Trump attorney Thursday for Trump to submit a sample on March 2 in Washington for “analysis and comparison against unidentified male DNA present on the dress.”

Carroll filed a defamation suit against Trump in November after the president denied her allegation, saying he didn’t know and had never even met her. Her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, then had the black wool coat-style dress tested. A lab report with the legal notice says DNA found in skin cells on the outer surface of the sleeves was a mix of at least four people, at least one of them male.

Several other people were tested and eliminated as possible contributors to the mix, according to the lab report, which was obtained by The Associated Press. Their names are redacted, but the report indicates they were involved in a photo shoot where she wore the dress last year, the only time Carroll says she has donned the dress since the alleged assault.

“Unidentified male DNA on the dress could prove that Donald Trump not only knows who I am, but also that he violently assaulted me in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman and then defamed me by lying about it and impugning my character,” Carroll said in a statement Thursday.

The White House and Trump’s lawyer have not responded to a request for comment.
[...]
AP Exclusive: Woman who says Trump raped her seeks his DNA

You have to be high, SKIN CELLS??????? Walk down any NY sidewalk and you could get skin cells form a thousand contributors. Some would likely be secondary transfer. Hell you can pick up skin cells in a damn taxi. Skin cells prove nothing.

.

they would prove whether donny - who claims to not know her at all - was in close contact with her. i am not saying it was him, but he can be sued & may just hafta give up some DNA. given his track record for the last 4 decades, is it that unreasonable to think he isn't completely innocent?

c'mon...

 

[playtime]

Trump didn't lie in court, which is what Clinton did. Clinton did no commit 13 felonies. He was charged with one count of perjury in a trial which was dismissed as malicious prosecution.

Lie all you want. Don't change the fact. Clinton broke tha law. He deserved what he got because he was stupid and lied under oath. This is why he got thrown off the Arkansas bar, and the SCOTUS bar, well, he quit the last one before he was booted. This is why he will be remembered as the presidant who got impeached for cheating on his wife, as well as the presidant who diddled little girls on his friends private jet. Trump? He will be remembered as the presidant who killed the DNC and got impeached for it.

trump broke the law per the non partisan GAO. he with held aid without going thru the proper lawful channels.

Oh?

yes.

GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid
By Olivia Beavers and Rebecca Klar - 01/16/20 10:06 AM EST
GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974: What Is It? Why Does It Matter?
Oct 23, 2019
Download PDF

What is the Impoundment Control Act?
The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) reasserted Congress’ power of the purse. Specifically, Title X of the Act – “Impoundment Control” – established procedures to prevent the President and other government officials from unilaterally substituting their own funding decisions for those of the Congress. The Act also created the House and Senate Budget Committees and the Congressional Budget Office.

Why was the ICA necessary?
Congress passed the ICA in response to President Nixon’s executive overreach – his Administration refused to release Congressionally appropriated funds for certain programs he opposed. While the U.S. Constitution broadly grants Congress the power of the purse, the President – through the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and executive agencies – is responsible for the actual spending of funds. The ICA created a process the President must follow if he or she seeks to delay or cancel funding that Congress has provided.

What does it mean to ‘impound’ funds?
An “impoundment” is any action – or inaction – by an officer or employee of the federal government that precludes federal funds from being obligated[1] or spent, either temporarily or permanently.

How does the ICA work?
The ICA lays out procedures the President must follow to reduce, delay, or eliminate funding in an account. The Act divides impoundments into two categories: rescissions and deferrals.
[...]
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974: What Is It? Why Does It Matter?

donny didn't go thru protocol.

CONCLUSION OMB violated the ICA when it withheld DOD’s USAI funds from obligation for policy reasons. This impoundment of budget authority was not a programmatic delay.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf

And??????????? IF he violated the act, it's a civil offense, not criminal. Any more bogus claims you wish to assert?

.

it wouldn't matter, little kitten, 'cause the bar y'all deplorables set for donny is lower than a cockroach's belly.

 

[playtime]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/dersh...5dtsSwrPh2e319Dkq14HqkL2gCor5MIPpd_uubmPYtHR0


Dershowitz, already at odds with legal consensus over his view that abuse of power does not fall under the high crimes the U.S. Constitution considers impeachable, earned scorn from both sides of the political spectrum.

"If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment," he told senatorsWednesday in the question and answer portion of the trial.

Those words stunned at least the Democratic side of the Senate chamber and a good portion of the legal scholars watching and resonated well into Thursday evening.

"Where his definition of impeachable offences would proscribe too little, this argument would protect too much in presidential misconduct," said Jonathan Turley, a legal scholar at George Washington University and the sole expert witness the Republicans called in the House impeachment hearings who has criticized the impeachment as "rushed and slipshod."


The president as king

Dershowitz's claim was "a descent into constitutional madness," the Democrats' lead prosecutor, Adam Schiff, told senators.

Cable news pundits talked of "a march to monarchy."

Dershowitz, already at odds with legal consensus over his view that abuse of power does not fall under the high crimes the U.S. Constitution considers impeachable, earned scorn from both sides of the political spectrum.

Even some of those who think Trump may have had a legitimate reason to hold up military aid to Ukraine and solicit co-operation with investigations into his political opponent fear Dershowitz's defence of the president could pave the way for an expansion of executive power that could allow Trump and future presidents to pursue political opponents with impunity.

"That is an end-will-always-justify the-means argument that I find troubling," said John Malcolm, vice-president of the Institute for Constitutional Government at the Heritage Foundation in Washington D.C.

The problem is with the Democrats' definition of 'Abuse of Power':

Based on their declaring ' The Impeachment of Donald Trump Begins NOW' right after he completed his oath of office, the Democrats believe defeating them / Hillary in an election is an 'ABUSE OF POWER'.

Based on the fact that EVERY DEMOCRAT 'WITNESS' during the House Impeachment hearings testified eliminating Ukraine corruption was Trump's FOREIGN POLICY from the start, that relations between the US and Ukraine are better now than they were under Obama, and that Trump did NOT violate the Constitution, did NOT break the law, and did NOT abuse his power - based on the fact that when asked to name a crime or Impeachable offense committed by the President they could NOT do so....

It is obvious that Democrats / snowflakes believe any opinion on Foreign Policy not their own is an 'ABUSE OF POWER' .

.

For once, shut up about Dems this Pubs that.

This isn't about partisan shit.

You are setting a precedent (that has already been rolling along a road paved by lots of other similar but ignored precedents) - that not sit well with you when it's a Dem in power doing the same thing.

How much power should the executive have?

How accountable should he be?

Some people are utterly incapable of thinking of the long term effects of actions they are cheering on or of thinking beyond partisan politics here.

^^^ true dat.

' Some people are utterly incapable of thinking of the long term effects of actions they are cheering on or of thinking beyond partisan politics here '

bolton's book will be out in just over a month, & is already being leaked... not to mention lev parnas' lawyer claims there are more docs & video/audio.

 

[playtime]

Trump didn't lie in court, which is what Clinton did. Clinton did no commit 13 felonies. He was charged with one count of perjury in a trial which was dismissed as malicious prosecution.

Lie all you want. Don't change the fact. Clinton broke tha law. He deserved what he got because he was stupid and lied under oath. This is why he got thrown off the Arkansas bar, and the SCOTUS bar, well, he quit the last one before he was booted. This is why he will be remembered as the presidant who got impeached for cheating on his wife, as well as the presidant who diddled little girls on his friends private jet. Trump? He will be remembered as the presidant who killed the DNC and got impeached for it.

trump broke the law per the non partisan GAO. he with held aid without going thru the proper lawful channels.

Oh?

yes.

GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid
By Olivia Beavers and Rebecca Klar - 01/16/20 10:06 AM EST
GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974: What Is It? Why Does It Matter?
Oct 23, 2019
Download PDF

What is the Impoundment Control Act?
The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) reasserted Congress’ power of the purse. Specifically, Title X of the Act – “Impoundment Control” – established procedures to prevent the President and other government officials from unilaterally substituting their own funding decisions for those of the Congress. The Act also created the House and Senate Budget Committees and the Congressional Budget Office.

Why was the ICA necessary?
Congress passed the ICA in response to President Nixon’s executive overreach – his Administration refused to release Congressionally appropriated funds for certain programs he opposed. While the U.S. Constitution broadly grants Congress the power of the purse, the President – through the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and executive agencies – is responsible for the actual spending of funds. The ICA created a process the President must follow if he or she seeks to delay or cancel funding that Congress has provided.

What does it mean to ‘impound’ funds?
An “impoundment” is any action – or inaction – by an officer or employee of the federal government that precludes federal funds from being obligated[1] or spent, either temporarily or permanently.

How does the ICA work?
The ICA lays out procedures the President must follow to reduce, delay, or eliminate funding in an account. The Act divides impoundments into two categories: rescissions and deferrals.
[...]
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974: What Is It? Why Does It Matter?

donny didn't go thru protocol.

CONCLUSION OMB violated the ICA when it withheld DOD’s USAI funds from obligation for policy reasons. This impoundment of budget authority was not a programmatic delay.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf

And? Meh, maybe they will impeach the next time on that. But most likely not. The GAO has zero authority on anything and the only thing they have to offer is opinions. The money was allocated for Ukrain aid. That's where the money was spent. Period. Next?

^^^ proof ^^^

 

[playtime]

Dershowitz has been gone for quite a while.

Ya when he helped that thug OJ, that sealed it for me

when he defended hedda nussbaum - that did it for me.

Did you ever see her

ya, i remember the trial. i also remember the defense. she allowed their daughter to be beaten, abused & murdered because she was too 'weak' of a person to get the fuck out.

don't make excuses for her failure to protect her child.

 

[skookerasbil]

Lol.....Dershowitz will forever be remembered as the guy that dropped the final MOAB on the DUMS with the impeachment. Of course, the haters will say he is insane......because they lOsT.