Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You've summarized the Trumpette defense of Dear Leader perfectly.If Obama had been involved in an illegal scheme like this one to benefit himself by corrupting the election he would have been impeached.What else is the OMB going to say? They're the ones who broke the law..........at Trump's direction.Yet they are a bunch of accountants.
And their opinion has been called bullshit by OMB.
READ: GAO concludes OMB violated law in withholding Ukraine aid - CNNPolitics
So where are your posts from a few years ago clamoring for impeachment of Obama because GAO said he broke the law?
Nice dodge there, dippy.
"It's OK when my side does it, because, shut up"
Does your supposed scholar know Trump directed the OMB to withhold the funds?Appropriations Law Decisions
The digest of GAO legal opinions on appropriations goes back to at least 2003. Plus, it's in the job description:
- Appropriations Law: GAO issues legal opinions and decisions to Congress and federal agencies on the use of, and accountability for, public funds, including ruling on potential violations of the Antideficiency Act.
- Other Legal Work: GAO issues legal opinions and decisions to Congress and federal agencies on the use of, and accountability for, public funds, including ruling on potential violations of the Antideficiency Act.
Yet they are a bunch of accountants.
And their opinion has been called bullshit by OMB.
They also said Obama did the same thing 7 or so times. I'm sure you were calling for his impeachment over that....
I think you meant to say, "my mistake".
No, I said what I said you milquetoast SJW twatwaddle.
How many of their "opinions" have actually led to prosecutions.
They are supposed to be the accounting machine for Congress until some morons expanded their scope outside their area of expertise.
And yet you're the guy who didn't know it was part of the GAO's mission to render legal opinions on appropriation matters. Maybe you don't know the definition of ignorant.
You do have your party-line insults down - I'll give you that.
The GAO has always been number crunchers. The new "mandate" is outside their scope and expertise.
Here is some observations on their "opinion" from someone who knows what they are talking about.
Four Observations Concerning the GAO Decision
But GAO has not come close to resolving these factual issues or analyzing the complex legal issues in this situation. And it was truly reckless for GAO to suggest otherwise. They offered only a threadbare constitutional analysis, during this heated and polarized time, hours before the impeachment trial began.
Does your supposed scholar know Trump directed the OMB to withhold the funds?Yet they are a bunch of accountants.
And their opinion has been called bullshit by OMB.
They also said Obama did the same thing 7 or so times. I'm sure you were calling for his impeachment over that....
I think you meant to say, "my mistake".
No, I said what I said you milquetoast SJW twatwaddle.
How many of their "opinions" have actually led to prosecutions.
They are supposed to be the accounting machine for Congress until some morons expanded their scope outside their area of expertise.
And yet you're the guy who didn't know it was part of the GAO's mission to render legal opinions on appropriation matters. Maybe you don't know the definition of ignorant.
You do have your party-line insults down - I'll give you that.
The GAO has always been number crunchers. The new "mandate" is outside their scope and expertise.
Here is some observations on their "opinion" from someone who knows what they are talking about.
Four Observations Concerning the GAO Decision
But GAO has not come close to resolving these factual issues or analyzing the complex legal issues in this situation. And it was truly reckless for GAO to suggest otherwise. They offered only a threadbare constitutional analysis, during this heated and polarized time, hours before the impeachment trial began.
"Clear direction from POTUS to continue hold."
https://www.justsecurity.org/67863/...ts-reveal-extent-of-pentagons-legal-concerns/
You really need to find a new meme. What part of Repubs would be impeaching a Dem prez for doing this stuff don't you understand? They impeached Clinton for less.You have your chance in November to get rid of Trump, but you just can't accept you lost in 2016, and thus IMPEACHMENT.
In the part where foreign diplomacy is the sole responsibility of the President.So being president is now illegal?....its up to the commander and chief to determine if our tax dollars we send to other nations will be used in a non corrupt fashion....OMB?...don't make us laugh...no one votes for the OMB....
Where does the constitution say that?
You really need to find a new meme. What part of Repubs would be impeaching a Dem prez for doing this stuff don't you understand? They impeached Clinton for less.You have your chance in November to get rid of Trump, but you just can't accept you lost in 2016, and thus IMPEACHMENT.
So Trumpette's keep claiming. Yet it took the revelations in the WB complaint to get enough Dems on board..........including a previously reluctant Nancy Pelosi who resisted the idea of impeachment until the evidence forced her hand.You are impeaching Trump because you don't like him.
So Trumpette's keep claiming. Yet it took the revelations in the WB complaint to get enough Dems on board..........including a previously reluctant Nancy Pelosi who resisted the idea of impeachment until the evidence forced her hand.You are impeaching Trump because you don't like him.
He did so while cooperating with the investigation. Something Trump refuses to do. Are you in favor of Trump testifying under oath? Or Bolton? Or Mulvaney? Or Giuliani? Or Parnas? Or Duffy? Or Perry? How about turning over documents?Clinton perjured himself
He did so while cooperating with the investigation. Something Trump refuses to do. Are you in favor of Trump testifying under oath? Or Bolton? Or Mulvaney? Or Giuliani? Or Parnas? Or Duffy? Or Perry?Clinton perjured himself
Appropriations Law Decisions
The digest of GAO legal opinions on appropriations goes back to at least 2003. Plus, it's in the job description:
- Appropriations Law: GAO issues legal opinions and decisions to Congress and federal agencies on the use of, and accountability for, public funds, including ruling on potential violations of the Antideficiency Act.
- Other Legal Work: GAO issues legal opinions and decisions to Congress and federal agencies on the use of, and accountability for, public funds, including ruling on potential violations of the Antideficiency Act.
Yet they are a bunch of accountants.
And their opinion has been called bullshit by OMB.
They also said Obama did the same thing 7 or so times. I'm sure you were calling for his impeachment over that....
I think you meant to say, "my mistake".
No, I said what I said you milquetoast SJW twatwaddle.
How many of their "opinions" have actually led to prosecutions.
They are supposed to be the accounting machine for Congress until some morons expanded their scope outside their area of expertise.
And yet you're the guy who didn't know it was part of the GAO's mission to render legal opinions on appropriation matters. Maybe you don't know the definition of ignorant.
You do have your party-line insults down - I'll give you that.
The GAO has always been number crunchers. The new "mandate" is outside their scope and expertise.
Here is some observations on their "opinion" from someone who knows what they are talking about.
Four Observations Concerning the GAO Decision
But GAO has not come close to resolving these factual issues or analyzing the complex legal issues in this situation. And it was truly reckless for GAO to suggest otherwise. They offered only a threadbare constitutional analysis, during this heated and polarized time, hours before the impeachment trial began.
He did so while cooperating with the investigation. Something Trump refuses to do. Are you in favor of Trump testifying under oath? Or Bolton? Or Mulvaney? Or Giuliani? Or Parnas? Or Duffy? Or Perry? How about turning over documents?He did so while cooperating with the investigation. Something Trump refuses to do. Are you in favor of Trump testifying under oath? Or Bolton? Or Mulvaney? Or Giuliani? Or Parnas? Or Duffy? Or Perry?Clinton perjured himself
Talk about deflection. Clinton committed perjury.
Trump hurt your feeeewwwings, you delicate wibble snowflake.
Yet they are a bunch of accountants.
And their opinion has been called bullshit by OMB.
They also said Obama did the same thing 7 or so times. I'm sure you were calling for his impeachment over that....
I think you meant to say, "my mistake".
No, I said what I said you milquetoast SJW twatwaddle.
How many of their "opinions" have actually led to prosecutions.
They are supposed to be the accounting machine for Congress until some morons expanded their scope outside their area of expertise.
And yet you're the guy who didn't know it was part of the GAO's mission to render legal opinions on appropriation matters. Maybe you don't know the definition of ignorant.
You do have your party-line insults down - I'll give you that.
The GAO has always been number crunchers. The new "mandate" is outside their scope and expertise.
Here is some observations on their "opinion" from someone who knows what they are talking about.
Four Observations Concerning the GAO Decision
But GAO has not come close to resolving these factual issues or analyzing the complex legal issues in this situation. And it was truly reckless for GAO to suggest otherwise. They offered only a threadbare constitutional analysis, during this heated and polarized time, hours before the impeachment trial began.
Yes. Brilliantly. Like this:
If Trump's underlings delayed making a timely transfer of funds to Ukraine, as required by the relevant appropriations act, then it is they who are legally responsible (though the president always bears political responsibility for the actions of all his subordinates in the executive branch).
Documents, which the Senate will likely refuse to consider, show:
According to a rough transcript released by the White House, the July 25 call between Trump and Zelenskiy took place between 9:03 and 9:33 a.m.
At 11:04 a.m., an official with the White House's budget office, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Mike Duffey, sent an email to Deputy Secretary of Defense David Norquist, the chief of staff to Defense Secretary Mark Esper and the Pentagon's chief financial officer telling them to withhold the aid to Ukraine, the documents showed.
"Based on guidance I have received and in light of the Administration’s plan to review assistance to Ukraine, including the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, please hold off on any additional DoD obligations of these funds, pending direction from that process," the email from Duffey said, according to the documents.
White House official ordered aid to Ukraine be withheld 91 minutes after Trump call with Ukraine president, documents show
The blogger ignores that the OMB was acting at the express direction of unnamed persons. That's pretty fucking convenient, if you want to shift blame to OMB. He does conclude he will have to think more about Trump's failure to make the requisite notification to Congress over the hold on aid.
By and large, he's just bullshitting:
Second, did GAO provide any evidence to show that President Trump personally directed his subordinates to withhold the funds? I hesitate before concluding that the President ordered his subordinates to violate the law, when there is a dispute about what exactly the law requires.
Here, he's astutely avoiding mention of witnesses and documents blocked from the inquiry. How that's an argument against the GAO is a mystery.
This is his purported third point:
Third, did GAO provide any evidence to show that President Trump directed his subordinates to deliberately violate the ICA? This question is premised on a disputed legal issue: was the withholding of certain funds, for some period of time, a violation of the ICA. I don't have nearly enough expertise in budgetary law to opine on this question.
Four, did GAO find that President Trump violated the Constitution's Take Care Clause? No. The decision states, "Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law."
Did you even read the article you linked?
He did so while cooperating with the investigation. Something Trump refuses to do. Are you in favor of Trump testifying under oath? Or Bolton? Or Mulvaney? Or Giuliani? Or Parnas? Or Duffy? Or Perry? How about turning over documents?He did so while cooperating with the investigation. Something Trump refuses to do. Are you in favor of Trump testifying under oath? Or Bolton? Or Mulvaney? Or Giuliani? Or Parnas? Or Duffy? Or Perry?Clinton perjured himself
Talk about deflection. Clinton committed perjury.
Trump hurt your feeeewwwings, you delicate wibble snowflake.
Schiff: Intel Community Withholding Docs Relevant To Senate Trial Is ‘Deeply Concerning
Schiff: Intel Community Withholding Docs Relevant To Senate Trial Is 'Deeply Concerning'
I think you meant to say, "my mistake".
No, I said what I said you milquetoast SJW twatwaddle.
How many of their "opinions" have actually led to prosecutions.
They are supposed to be the accounting machine for Congress until some morons expanded their scope outside their area of expertise.
And yet you're the guy who didn't know it was part of the GAO's mission to render legal opinions on appropriation matters. Maybe you don't know the definition of ignorant.
You do have your party-line insults down - I'll give you that.
The GAO has always been number crunchers. The new "mandate" is outside their scope and expertise.
Here is some observations on their "opinion" from someone who knows what they are talking about.
Four Observations Concerning the GAO Decision
But GAO has not come close to resolving these factual issues or analyzing the complex legal issues in this situation. And it was truly reckless for GAO to suggest otherwise. They offered only a threadbare constitutional analysis, during this heated and polarized time, hours before the impeachment trial began.
Yes. Brilliantly. Like this:
If Trump's underlings delayed making a timely transfer of funds to Ukraine, as required by the relevant appropriations act, then it is they who are legally responsible (though the president always bears political responsibility for the actions of all his subordinates in the executive branch).
Documents, which the Senate will likely refuse to consider, show:
According to a rough transcript released by the White House, the July 25 call between Trump and Zelenskiy took place between 9:03 and 9:33 a.m.
At 11:04 a.m., an official with the White House's budget office, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Mike Duffey, sent an email to Deputy Secretary of Defense David Norquist, the chief of staff to Defense Secretary Mark Esper and the Pentagon's chief financial officer telling them to withhold the aid to Ukraine, the documents showed.
"Based on guidance I have received and in light of the Administration’s plan to review assistance to Ukraine, including the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, please hold off on any additional DoD obligations of these funds, pending direction from that process," the email from Duffey said, according to the documents.
White House official ordered aid to Ukraine be withheld 91 minutes after Trump call with Ukraine president, documents show
The blogger ignores that the OMB was acting at the express direction of unnamed persons. That's pretty fucking convenient, if you want to shift blame to OMB. He does conclude he will have to think more about Trump's failure to make the requisite notification to Congress over the hold on aid.
By and large, he's just bullshitting:
Second, did GAO provide any evidence to show that President Trump personally directed his subordinates to withhold the funds? I hesitate before concluding that the President ordered his subordinates to violate the law, when there is a dispute about what exactly the law requires.
Here, he's astutely avoiding mention of witnesses and documents blocked from the inquiry. How that's an argument against the GAO is a mystery.
This is his purported third point:
Third, did GAO provide any evidence to show that President Trump directed his subordinates to deliberately violate the ICA? This question is premised on a disputed legal issue: was the withholding of certain funds, for some period of time, a violation of the ICA. I don't have nearly enough expertise in budgetary law to opine on this question.
Four, did GAO find that President Trump violated the Constitution's Take Care Clause? No. The decision states, "Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law."
Did you even read the article you linked?
Yes, and mostly its about GAO not providing any actual evidence, just assumptions. What the guy is doing is pointing the holes in GAO's legal opinion.
LOLDumbfuck, his own administration confessed he held up the funds.LOLThey said they held the money up because they wanted Zelensky to fulfill Impeached Trump's "favor" to look into the DNC server.
Why do all you commies deflect instead of answering a simple question? Does the truth scare you that much?
.
Deflection??
Just how fucking insane are you, con?
You said Impeached Trump didn't hold up the funds and I pointed out how his own administration confessed they did.
You're brain-dead to call that, "deflection."
it was delivered within the parameters of the law. That means there was no violation. Commie propaganda notwithstanding.
.
And, it was still delivered within the parameters of the law. So there was no violation.
.
Did he or did he not agree to testify under oath and in fact give sworn testimony? What has Trump done that comes within a million miles of that level of cooperation?He did so while cooperating with the investigation. Something Trump refuses to do. Are you in favor of Trump testifying under oath? Or Bolton? Or Mulvaney? Or Giuliani? Or Parnas? Or Duffy? Or Perry? How about turning over documents?He did so while cooperating with the investigation. Something Trump refuses to do. Are you in favor of Trump testifying under oath? Or Bolton? Or Mulvaney? Or Giuliani? Or Parnas? Or Duffy? Or Perry?Clinton perjured himself
Talk about deflection. Clinton committed perjury.
Trump hurt your feeeewwwings, you delicate wibble snowflake.
Schiff: Intel Community Withholding Docs Relevant To Senate Trial Is ‘Deeply Concerning
Schiff: Intel Community Withholding Docs Relevant To Senate Trial Is 'Deeply Concerning'
How is lying cooperating?
Sorry, you are still a butthurt little progressive fan-boi.
You mean he is trying but failing to poke holes.I think you meant to say, "my mistake".
No, I said what I said you milquetoast SJW twatwaddle.
How many of their "opinions" have actually led to prosecutions.
They are supposed to be the accounting machine for Congress until some morons expanded their scope outside their area of expertise.
And yet you're the guy who didn't know it was part of the GAO's mission to render legal opinions on appropriation matters. Maybe you don't know the definition of ignorant.
You do have your party-line insults down - I'll give you that.
The GAO has always been number crunchers. The new "mandate" is outside their scope and expertise.
Here is some observations on their "opinion" from someone who knows what they are talking about.
Four Observations Concerning the GAO Decision
But GAO has not come close to resolving these factual issues or analyzing the complex legal issues in this situation. And it was truly reckless for GAO to suggest otherwise. They offered only a threadbare constitutional analysis, during this heated and polarized time, hours before the impeachment trial began.
Yes. Brilliantly. Like this:
If Trump's underlings delayed making a timely transfer of funds to Ukraine, as required by the relevant appropriations act, then it is they who are legally responsible (though the president always bears political responsibility for the actions of all his subordinates in the executive branch).
Documents, which the Senate will likely refuse to consider, show:
According to a rough transcript released by the White House, the July 25 call between Trump and Zelenskiy took place between 9:03 and 9:33 a.m.
At 11:04 a.m., an official with the White House's budget office, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Mike Duffey, sent an email to Deputy Secretary of Defense David Norquist, the chief of staff to Defense Secretary Mark Esper and the Pentagon's chief financial officer telling them to withhold the aid to Ukraine, the documents showed.
"Based on guidance I have received and in light of the Administration’s plan to review assistance to Ukraine, including the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, please hold off on any additional DoD obligations of these funds, pending direction from that process," the email from Duffey said, according to the documents.
White House official ordered aid to Ukraine be withheld 91 minutes after Trump call with Ukraine president, documents show
The blogger ignores that the OMB was acting at the express direction of unnamed persons. That's pretty fucking convenient, if you want to shift blame to OMB. He does conclude he will have to think more about Trump's failure to make the requisite notification to Congress over the hold on aid.
By and large, he's just bullshitting:
Second, did GAO provide any evidence to show that President Trump personally directed his subordinates to withhold the funds? I hesitate before concluding that the President ordered his subordinates to violate the law, when there is a dispute about what exactly the law requires.
Here, he's astutely avoiding mention of witnesses and documents blocked from the inquiry. How that's an argument against the GAO is a mystery.
This is his purported third point:
Third, did GAO provide any evidence to show that President Trump directed his subordinates to deliberately violate the ICA? This question is premised on a disputed legal issue: was the withholding of certain funds, for some period of time, a violation of the ICA. I don't have nearly enough expertise in budgetary law to opine on this question.
Four, did GAO find that President Trump violated the Constitution's Take Care Clause? No. The decision states, "Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law."
Did you even read the article you linked?
Yes, and mostly its about GAO not providing any actual evidence, just assumptions. What the guy is doing is pointing the holes in GAO's legal opinion.
LOLTrump did more than threaten to withhold aid.
No quid pro quo is why Trump held the funds..
Quid Pro Quo Joe got his demands met, so he didn't have to have the loans guarantees held.
“no quid pro quo” is why Trump held the funds?
that makes zero sense.
QPQ means "this for that". There was no this, and there was no that. No crime, no foul, no harm, no anything. Call it a big nothingburger.
Trump could have held the funds for many reasons or no reasons, its not a crime.
So y’all going to pretend to have no idea why he held the funds up? Mulvaney admitted why he did it. To get Ukraine to do his little investigation.
Here is Mulvaney's "official" reason why he held up the funds:
Mulvaney brashly admits quid pro quo over Ukraine aid as key details emerge -- and then denies doing so - CNNPolitics
"The only reasons we were holding the money was because of concern about lack of support from other nations and concerns over corruption," Mulvaney said in a written statement, adding, "There never was any condition on the flow of the aid related to the matter of the DNC server."
Not a crime, period.
